APPEAL,CONSOL,TYPE-E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-01419-APM

GOMEZ et al v. TRUMP et al Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Cases: 1:20-cv-00718-APM
1:20-cv-02128-APM 1:20-cv-01856-APM 1:20-cv-02639-APM Case in other court: USCA, 20-05292 Cause: 05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions

Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.

represented by Abadir Jama Barre BARRE LAW LLC 30 Broad Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 646-244-8784 Email: abadir@barrelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleland B. Welton , II MAYER BROWN Goldsmith 53 Ciudad de Mexico Mexico 525591563643 Email: cwelton@mayerbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esther H. Sung JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 713-560-7518

Email: esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings INNOVATION LAW LAB PO Box 40103 Portland, OR 97240 971-277-2857 Email: jordan@innovationlawlab.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 90027 Los Angeles, CA 90027 323-316-0944 Email: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Hoq LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ California P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 213-973-9004 Email: laboni@hoqlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Ingber MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 212-506-2500 Email: mingber@mayerbrown.com

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 971-277-3424 Fax: 503-241-7733 Email: nadia@innovationlawlab.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Manning INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW 5th Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 503-241-0035 Email: stephen@innovationlawlab.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 1331 G Street Ste 300 Washington, DC 20005-3142 781-704-3897 Email: jbless@aila.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tess Hellgren INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 503-241-0035 Email: tess@innovationlawlab.org PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
MIRNA S. a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 263-3220 Fax: (202) 263-5220 Email: apincus@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleland B. Welton , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H. Sung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
VICENTA S. a U.S. Citizen

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Ingber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tess Hellgren (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleland B. Welton , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esther H. Sung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Ingber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff 3Q DIGITAL
Plaintiff CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL

Tess Hellgren (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab

Plaintiff IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN
Plaintiff FARANGIS KURBONOVA

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address)

Plaintiff ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Plaintiff CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.
Plaintiff NAZIF ALAM

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC.
Plaintiff NANCY ABARCA

Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ANGELA SINON
Plaintiff POWERTRUNK, INC.

Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus

Plaintiff M.S.
Plaintiff EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus

Plaintiff DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO
Plaintiff JODI LYNN KARPES

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus

Plaintiff FATMA BUSHATI
Plaintiff AYA NAKAMURA

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus

Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON
Plaintiff LOIDA PHELPS

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus

Plaintiff SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS
Plaintiff SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus

Plaintiff AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH
Plaintiff CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS MORRISON PO Box 7140 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 (714) 661-3446 Fax: (714) 333-4653 Email: curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena

Plaintiff MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED
Plaintiff FESTUS SUH NEBA 20cv2128
Plaintiff M.A.M.S 20cv2128

THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. La Brea Ave Ste 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 703-989-4424 Email: ru@urenaesq.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU 20cv2128
Plaintiff ELIE VARANGBA GIA 20cv2128
Plaintiff GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD 20cv2128
Plaintiff

Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER 20cv2128
Plaintiff K.G.S.M. 20cv2128
Plaintiff ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV 20cv2128
Plaintiff NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA 20cv2128

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address)

Plaintiff ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA 20cv2128
Plaintiff AFSIN AKER Kuck Baxter Immigration LLC 365 Northridge Rd., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 United Sta 4049498154
Plaintiff ITIDAL MOHAMMEDSALIH T MAHJOUB 20cv01856

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck KUCK IMMIGRATION PARTNERS LLC 365 Northridge Road Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 404-816-8611 Email: ckuck@immigration.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff Joseph JOSEPH & HALL, P.C. 12203 E. Second Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 303-297-9171 Fax: 303-733-4188 Email: jeff@immigrationissues.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address)

Plaintiff R. M.A. A. (A MINOR) 20cv1856
Plaintiff A.M.A.A. (A MINOR) 20cv1856
Plaintiff YURII ISHCHENKO 20cv1856

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff E.I. 20cv1856
Plaintiff PAWEL MIECZKOWSKI 20cv1856
Plaintiff FARID KURBANOV 20cv1856

Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address)

Plaintiff GRAEME JOHN WARD 20cv1856
Plaintiff DMITRII PAVLOVICH VELIKII 20cv1856

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff AFSIN AKER 20cv1926
Plaintiff MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER 20cv1926
Plaintiff DILARA AYAYDIN 20cv1926
Plaintiff EMRE TARMAN 20cv1926
Plaintiff ERDAL TARMAN 20cv1926
Plaintiff MUSTAFA MADAZLI 20cv1926

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff Joseph (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address)

Plaintiff UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV 20cv1926
Plaintiff DANAT SHEKHE 20cv1926
Plaintiff MARINA KARPOVA 20cv1926
Plaintiff VIKTORIIA SHEKHE 20cv1926
Plaintiff CHANDAN PANDA 20cv1907

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias WASDEN BANIAS LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd Suite D100 29464 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 324-5717 Email: brad@wasdenbanias.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney WASDEN BANIAS LLC 411 West Ellet Street Philadelphia, PA 19119 202-615-8315

Plaintiff LOKESH GHANTA 20cv1907
Plaintiff NAGESH SHENISETTY 20cv1907 Plaintiff SRUTHI KASAM 20cv1907
Plaintiff KARAN MURGAI 20cv1907
Plaintiff LOKESH RAMAMURTHY 20cv1907

Email: geoff@wasdenbanias.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address)

Plaintiff RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN 20cv1907
Plaintiff MOUNIKA DAMARLA 20cv1907
Plaintiff AMAN WADHWA 20cv1907
Plaintiff SOMYA ARORA 20cv1906

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
DONALD J. TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States of America

represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation 450 5th St NW Washington, DC Suitte Lsb 5425 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 598-6499 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: christopher.t.lyerla@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4807 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-532-4142 Email: james.j.wen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division 555 4th Street NW

Defendant
WILLIAM BARR in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States

Washington, DC 20530 202-815-8708 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation, 450 5th Street NW Liberty Square Building Washington, DC 20001 (202) 598-6073 Email: Thomas.B.York@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 4th St, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2510 Email: william.chang2@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Aaron Caplen UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2523 Email: robert.caplen@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant MICHAEL POMPEO in his official capacity as United States Secretary of State
Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Aaron Caplen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Defendant CHAD F. WOLF in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant J.M.A.A. (A MINOR) 20cv1856
Movant GREGORY SISKIND Movant JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY

Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE
Amicus STATE OF NEW YORK
Amicus STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Amicus STATE OF COLORADO
Amicus STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Amicus

represented by Lawrence J. Joseph LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 700-1A Washington, DC 20036 (202) 355-9452 Fax: (202) 318-2254 Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE/NY 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212-416-6279 Email: ester.murdukhayeva@ag.ny.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STATE OF DELAWARE
Amicus STATE OF HAWAII
Amicus STATE OF ILLINOIS
Amicus STATE OF MAINE
Amicus STATE OF MARYLAND
Amicus COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Amicus STATE OF MICHIGAN
Amicus

represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STATE OF MINNESOTA
Amicus STATE OF NEVADA
Amicus STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Amicus STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Amicus STATE OF OREGON
Amicus COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Amicus STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Amicus

represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STATE OF VERMONT
Amicus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Amicus STATE OF WASHINGTON
Amicus STATE OF WISCONSIN
Amicus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Amicus LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart F. Delery GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 887-3650 Fax: (202) 663-6363 Email: SDelery@gibsondunn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Ari Schnitzer GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER,

Amicus GOOGLE LLC

LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 887-3775 Fax: (202) 530-9611 Email: dschnitzer@gibsondunn.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ethan Dettmer GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Misson Street Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 415-393-8292 Email: edettmer@gibsondunn.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan N. Soleimani GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-229-7761 Fax: 213-229-6761 Email: jsoleimani@gibsondunn.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe FRAGOMEN, DEL REY, BERNSEN & LOEWY LLP 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 202-349-2174 Fax: 202-371-2898 Email: champe@fragomen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel P. Pierce FRAGOMEN, DEL REY,

Amicus SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Amicus 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS

BERNSEN & LOEWY LLP 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 349-2181 Email: dpierce@fragomen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leon Rodriguez SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 975 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 828-3572 Email: lerodriguez@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Alex Scherb LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 N. Main Street, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-2204 Email: matthew.scherb@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus SPOTIFY USA, INC.
Amicus BLOOMBERG L.P.
Amicus IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSORS
Amicus WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL

represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John David Taliaferro LOEB & LOEB LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Suite 300 East Washington, DC 20001 (202) 618-5015 Email: jtaliaferro@loeb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

05/28/2020 1

COMPLAINT against WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020
05/29/2020
05/29/2020
05/29/2020 05/29/2020

HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC-7171161) filed by VICENTA S., MIRNA S., DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Trump, # 3 Summons Barr, # 4 Summons Dept. of State, # 5 Summons Pompeo, # 6 Summons Dept. of Homeland Security, # 7 Summons Wolf, # 8 Summons U.S. Attorney)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. Case related to Case No. 20cv-718. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Jesse Matthew Bless on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (adh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
4 SUMMONS (7) Issued Electronically as to WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameNadia H. Dahab, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7175389. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameStephen W. Manning, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7175415. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameTess Hellgren, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7175424. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Nadia Halima Dahab is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for efiling via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to

05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020

LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Stephen W. Manning is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for efiling via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Tess Hellgren is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameMatthew D. Ingber, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7176101. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew D. Ingber, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameCleland B. Welton II, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7176117. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cleland B. Welton II, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Matthew D. Ingber is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Cleland B. Welton II is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for efiling via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 06/01/2020
06/01/2020 06/01/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020

10 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym by MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameEsther H. Sung, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7176410. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameKaren C. Tumlin, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7176416. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 11 , 12 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Esther H. Sung and Karen C. Tumlin are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/1/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameLaboni A. Hoq, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7181157. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
14 ERRATA re 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Laboni A. Hoq, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7181157. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) Modified docket event/text on 6/2/2020 (eg). (Entered: 06/01/2020)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Esther H. Sung on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Sung, Esther) (Main Document 15 replaced on 6/5/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 06/02/2020)
16 NOTICE Regarding Exhibits to Complaint by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. re 1
Complaint,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020
06/02/2020

17 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew David Ingber on behalf of DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Ingber, Matthew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Laboni A. Hoq is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/2/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Cleland B. Welton, II on behalf of DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Welton, Cleland) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen C. Tumlin on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Tumlin, Karen) (Main Document 19 replaced on 6/5/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 06/02/2020)
20 MOTION to Certify Class by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Local Civil Rule 65.1(a) Statement, # 2 Exhibit A - Declaration of Charles Wheeler, # 3 Exhibit B - Declaration of Stephen W. Manning, # 4 Exhibit A to the Manning Declaration, # 5 Exhibit B to the Manning Declaration, # 6 Exhibit C to the Manning Declaration, # 7 Exhibit D to the Manning Declaration, # 8 Exhibit E to the Manning Declaration, # 9 Exhibit C Declaration of Mirna S., # 10 Exhibit D - Declaration of Michael J. Eatroff, # 11 Exhibit E - Declaration of M.T.S., # 12 Exhibit A to the M.T.S. Declaration, # 13 Exhibit B to the M.T.S. Declaration, # 14 Exhibit F - Declaration of Domingo Arreguin Gomez, # 15 Exhibit G - Declaration of Monica Tay Belej, # 16 Exhibit H - Declaration of Vicenta S., # 17 Exhibit I Affidavit of Brian J. Blackford, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
22 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and For Expedited Decision by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/03/2020 06/03/2020
06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/04/2020
06/05/2020 06/05/2020 06/05/2020

23 NOTICE of Appearance by William Chang on behalf of All Defendants (Chang, William) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference at 4:45 p.m. today, June 3, 2020. The courtroom deputy will circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/3/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen Manning on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Manning, Stephen) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Tess Hellgren on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hellgren, Tess) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/3/2020. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/4/2020 at 5:30 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 6/4/2020. Opposition with respect to specified plaintiffs due by 6/8/2020. Oppositions to Motions for TRO and Class Certification due by 6/12/2020. Replies due by 6/15/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Plaintiffs Mirna S. and Vicenta S. are permitted to proceed under pseudonyms and without providing their personal residential addresses. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/5/2020. (lcapm1). (Entered: 06/05/2020)
26 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 6/1/2020. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 7/31/2020. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
27 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 6/5/2020. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020
06/05/2020 06/05/2020 06/08/2020 06/09/2020 06/12/2020
06/12/2020 06/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference at 5:00 p.m. today, June 5, 2020. The dial-in credentials are the same. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/5/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 6/5/2020 at 5:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 6/5/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Benton York on behalf of All Defendants (York, Thomas) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by James Wen on behalf of All Defendants (Wen, James) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
30 Memorandum in opposition to re 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 Proclamation 10014 (Federal Register), # 2 Exhibit Ex 2 Marwaha Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3 Dus Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4 Second Dus Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5 Bent Declaration)(Wen, James) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
31 NOTICE of Appearance by Nadia H. Dahab on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
32 Memorandum in opposition re 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proclamation, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Marwaha Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Dus Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Second Dus Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Bent Declaration)(York, Thomas) Modified docket event/text on 6/15/2020 (eg). (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/12/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020
06/15/2020
06/15/2020 06/16/2020 06/16/2020

33 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants as Amicus Curiae by IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Memo of Law, # 2 Text of Proposed Order proposed order)(Joseph, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

MINUTE ORDER granting 33 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants as Amicus Curiae. The Clerk is directed to file Immigration Reform Law Institute's brief submitted with the Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/15/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

34 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION to Certify Class , 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Unopposed) by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 34 motion to extend the deadline to submit their reply briefs in further support of the pending motions. Plaintiffs' reply briefs shall be filed by June 16, 2020. The hearing on the pending motions is hereby rescheduled for June 18, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/15/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 6/15/2020 (lczh). (Entered: 06/15/2020)

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' Reply Briefs due by 6/16/2020. Motion Hearing set for 6/18/2020 at 2:00 PM via video conference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. The courtroom deputy shall circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's tollfree public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. (zjd) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

35 AMICUS BRIEF by IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE. (eg) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

36 REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 Emergency MOTION for

37

Temporary Restraining Order filed by DOMINGO ARREGUIN

GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Attachments:

# 1 Declaration of Brian J. Blackford, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration

06/17/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/23/2020
06/23/2020 06/24/2020

of Brian J. Blackford, # 3 Declaration of Alondra Ramos Flores)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants may, if they wish, file a surreply brief of no more than ten double-spaced pages (excluding exhibits) by 12:00 pm on June 18, 2020, which addresses Plaintiffs' contentions that (1) Vincenta S. has standing to sue, and (2) Plaintiffs' Class Claims are not moot. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/17/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

38 SURREPLY to re 20 MOTION to Certify Class , 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF. (York, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Motion Hearing held on 6/18/2020 re 20 Motion to Certify Class and 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Arguments heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

39 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Thomas Lyerla on behalf of All Defendants (Lyerla, Christopher) (Main Document 39 replaced on 6/26/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 06/22/2020)

40 NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying

41

Plaintiffs' 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and

denying Plaintiffs' 20 Motion for Class Certification. The parties

shall provide the court with a joint status report by June 25, 2020,

updating the court on the status of W.Z.A.'s visa application. See

the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for additional

details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/23/2020. (lcapm1)

(Entered: 06/23/2020)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/25/2020 (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 6/24/2020 at 4:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public

06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/25/2020 06/26/2020
07/01/2020

access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference reset to 6/24/2020 at 3:30 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 6/24/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by Laboni Hoq on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
43 Joint STATUS REPORT by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
44 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on June 18, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-72. Date of Issuance: June 26, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purcha sed from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multipage, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 7/17/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/27/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2020.(wz) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
45 PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/17/2020
07/21/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint by July 17, 2020, and Defendants shall file their answer or motion by September 17, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/2/2020. (lcapm1). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Complaint due by 7/17/2020. Responsive Pleading due by 9/17/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
46 AMENDED COMPLAINT against WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF filed by MIRNA S., DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, VICENTA S., 3Q DIGITAL, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO IJEOMA GOLDEN, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNIGUET JIMENEZ, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., NAZIF ALAM, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., NANCY ABARCA, ANGELA SINON, POWERTRUNK, INC., M.S., EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, JODI LYNN KARPES, FATMA BUSHATI, AYA NAKAMURA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, LOIDA PHELPS, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
47 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameJordan Cunnings, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7366438. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO

07/22/2020 07/22/2020
07/24/2020 07/27/2020
07/30/2020
07/30/2020 07/30/2020 07/31/2020

TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jordan Cunnings, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

48 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Plaintiffs Domingo Arreguin Gomez, Mirna S., and Vicenta S. and Advising Court that Plaintiff Mohamed Saleh, Identified as M.S., No Longer Seeks to Proceed Under Pseudonym (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

MINUTE ORDER granting 47 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Jordan Cunnings is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/22/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

49 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Farangis Kurbonova (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

MOTION to Consolidate Cases by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL

50

POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF (Lyerla,

Christopher) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to

Defendants' 50 Motion to Consolidate by August 3, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/30/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition due by 8/3/2020 at 10:00 a.m. (zjd) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

51 NOTICE of Appearance by Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Cunnings, Jordan) (Main Document 51 replaced on 7/30/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 07/30/2020)

52 MOTION to Certify Class by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA

07/31/2020 53

PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE,
INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Declaration of Nancy Abarca,
# 10 Declaration of MD Nazif Alam, # 11 Declaration of Fatma Bushati, # 12 Declaration of Scott Corley, # 13 Declaration
of Ralph DeRosa, # 14 Declaration of William J. Gustafson, # 15 Declaration of Jennifer Hunt, # 16 Declaration of Iwundu Epouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, # 17 Declaration of Klaus H. Jepsen, # 18 Declaration of Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jimenez, # 19 Declaration of Jodi Lynn Karpes, # 20 Declaration of Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, # 21 Declaration of Shyam Sundar Koirala, # 22 Declaration of Leighton Ku, # 23 Declaration of Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron, # 24 Declaration of Jose Martin, # 25 Declaration of Aya Nakamura, # 26 Declaration of Terry Newman, # 27 Declaration of Alex Nowrasteh, # 28 Declaration of Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo, # 29 Declaration of Giovanni Peri, # 30 Declaration of Loida Phelps, # 31 Declaration of Carmen
Ligia Vidal Pimentel, # 32 Declaration of Laura Rodnitzky, # 33 Declaration of Mohamed Saleh, # 34 Declaration of Angela Sinon, # 35 Declaration of Chad Sparber, # 36 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/03/2020
08/04/2020 08/05/2020

54 Memorandum in opposition to re 50 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/03/2020)
55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as
to 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 52 MOTION to Certify Class by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
56 Memorandum in opposition to re 55 First MOTION for Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 52 MOTION to Certify Class filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cleland B. Welton II, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020
08/05/2020 08/07/2020 08/07/2020
08/07/2020 57

MINUTE ORDER. The parties in Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; and Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv1419, shall appear for a telephonic scheduling hearing on August 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. In advance of the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer about a schedule on the pending motions for preliminary injunction and discuss whether case consolidation at least with respect to the diversity immigrant visa plaintiffs is warranted. The courtroom deputy shall circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/5/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/7/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 8/7/2020 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Governments' Responses due by 8/18/2020. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 8/24/2020. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2020 at 1:00 PM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Status Conference set for 8/12/2020 at 11:30 AM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Court Reporter William Zaremba. (zjch) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. Four actions currently pending before the court involve common questions of law and fact: Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; and Fonjong v. Trump, 20-cv-2128.
Accordingly, the court grants Defendants' 50 Motion to Consolidate Cases, and orders that the four matters be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It is further ordered that the Clerk's Office close Mohammed v. Pompeo, Aker v. Trump, and Funjong v. Trump, and transfer plaintiffs and counsel in those cases to Gomez v. Trump. It is further ordered that all filings with this Court shall be filed only in Gomez v. Trump. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 55 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction, and setting the schedule for further proceedings in this consolidated matter. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020
08/07/2020 08/07/2020 08/07/2020 08/07/2020 08/07/2020 08/10/2020

AMICUS BRIEF by STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF

58

CALIFORNIA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF

CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF

HAWAII, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE

OF MARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF

MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW

JERSEY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF OREGON,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF

RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT,

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, STATE OF

WASHINGTON, STATE OF WISCONSIN, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA. (Murdukhayeva, Ester) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

59 First MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by GREGORY SISKIND, JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, CHARLES KUCK (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

AMICUS BRIEF by CHARLES KUCK, JOHNNA MAIN

60

BAILEY, GREGORY SISKIND. (Kuck, Charles) (Entered:

08/07/2020)

61 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CHARLES KUCK, JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, GREGORY SISKIND (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

62 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameJOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7439360. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, GREGORY SISKIND (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

63 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameGREGORY SISKIND, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7439381. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by GREGORY SISKIND (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

MINUTE ORDER granting Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, ECF Nos. 62 and 63 . Attorneys JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY and GREGORY SISKIND are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/10/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020 08/10/2020 08/10/2020
08/10/2020 08/10/2020 08/10/2020 08/11/2020

64 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Leading Companies and Business Organizations (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit Proposed Brief, # 2 Exhibit Corporate Disclosure Statement, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Delery, Stuart) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

65 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File in Support of Brief of Amici Curiae by Additional Companies (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Hampe, Carl) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

Supplemental MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by 3Q

66

DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE

INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO

GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO

ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA

TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR

KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS

ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL

CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA

VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S.,

VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND

RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON,

SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text

of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

67 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Rafael N. Urena on behalf of CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG (Urena, Rafael) Modified on 8/12/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/10/2020)

68 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameEthan D. Dettmer, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7446147. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by Leading Companies and Business Organizations (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Schnitzer, David) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

69 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameJonathan N. Soleimani, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7446161. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by Leading Companies and Business Organizations (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Schnitzer, David) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

70 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of

08/11/2020 08/11/2020 08/11/2020 08/11/2020 08/11/2020 08/12/2020
08/12/2020 08/12/2020

Service, # 3 Exhibit Amicus Brief)(Rodriguez, Leon) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
71 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel P. Pierce on behalf of Additional Companies (Pierce, Daniel) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
72 Memorandum in opposition to to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery, ECF No. 09 (20-1856), filed by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) Modified docket event/texton 8/12/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/11/2020)
NOTICE of Hearing: Members of the public or media may access the Status Conference on 8/12/2020 at 11:30 AM by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (zjd) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
73 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Alex Scherb on behalf of 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS (Scherb, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
74 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae Letter Brief by 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS (Attachments: # 1 Amici Curiae Letter Brief 27 Local Governments and Local Elected Officials, # 2 Proposed Order)(Scherb, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
75 REPLY to opposition to motion to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery filed by Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Urena, Rafael) Modified docket event/text on 8/12/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/12/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 59 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Immigration Attorneys. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 74 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The Letter Brief of Amici 27 Local Governments and Local Elected Officials, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/12/2020
08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 70 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The brief of Society for Human Resource Management and other amici curiae, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The brief of Leading Companies And Business Organizations, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Additional Companies' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Join Brief of Amici Curiae based on the Additional Companies' support for the amicus brief filed at Dkt No. 64-1. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 68 , and 69 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Ethan D. Dettmer and Jonathan N. Soleimani are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 67 Notice of Appearance was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading with correct case name/number. (eg) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 8/12/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
76 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA

08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/13/2020
08/13/2020

VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A to Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit B to Second Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit C to Second Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit D to Second Amended Complaint, # 6 Exhibit E to Second Amended Complaint, # 7 Exhibit F to Second Amended Complaint, # 8 Exhibit G to Second Amended Complaint, # 9 Exhibit H to Second Amended Complaint, # 10 Exhibit I to Second Amended Complaint, # 11 Exhibit J to Second Amended Complaint, # 12 Exhibit K to Second Amended Complaint, # 13 Exhibit L to Second Amended Complaint, # 14 Exhibit M to Second Amended Complaint, # 15 Exhibit N to Second Amended Complaint, # 16 Exhibit O to Second Amended Complaint, # 17 Exhibit P to Second Amended Complaint, # 18 Exhibit Q to Second Amended Complaint, # 19 Exhibit R to Second Amended Complaint, # 20 Exhibit S to Second Amended Complaint, # 21 Exhibit 2, # 22 Exhibit 3, # 23 Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

80 AMICUS BRIEF by 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

81 AMICUS BRIEF by SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

AMICUS BRIEF by 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL

82

ELECTED OFFICIALS, BLOOMBERG L.P., GOOGLE LLC,

SPOTIFY USA, INC.. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

77 ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Mohammed v. Pompeo Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery, 20cv-1856, ECF No. 9. Defendants shall produce a certified administrative record in this matter by August 17, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/13/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

78 TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on August 7, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-70. Date of Issuance: August 13, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from

08/13/2020
08/13/2020 08/13/2020 08/13/2020
08/14/2020 08/14/2020 08/14/2020

the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multipage, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 9/3/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/11/2020.(wz) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
ORDER partially consolidating Panda v. Wolf, 20-cv-1907, with 79
the instant case, and amending the court's 57 previous scheduling order. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/13/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Abadir Jama Barre on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Barre, Abadir) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Certified Administrative Record due by 8/17/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
84 MOTION to Certify Class by AFSIN AKER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Potential Class Members by name and country, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order of Class Certification)(Kuck, Charles) Modified motion type on 8/14/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 08/13/2020)
85 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeff Joseph on behalf of AFSIN AKER, AFSIN AKER (Joseph, Jeff) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by John David Taliaferro on behalf of Immigration Law Professors (Taliaferro, John) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
87 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Immigration Law Professors (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order Granting Unopposed

08/14/2020 08/16/2020
08/17/2020 08/17/2020 08/17/2020 08/17/2020 08/17/2020 08/17/2020

Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief)(Taliaferro, John) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
88 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan N. Soleimani on behalf of LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS (Soleimani, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
89 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/10/2020. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 10/9/2020.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 08/10/2020., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MICHAEL POMPEO served on 8/10/2020; DONALD J. TRUMP served on 8/12/2020 (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
90 NOTICE of Appearance by Ethan Dettmer on behalf of LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS (Dettmer, Ethan) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 87 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The brief of Immigration Law Professors, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/17/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall respond to the Gomez Plaintiffs' 76 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint on or before August 19, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/17/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
91 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
92 AMICUS BRIEF by IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSORS. (eg) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
ENTERED IN ERROR.....Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 8/19/2020. (zjd) Modified on 8/18/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/17/2020 08/18/2020 08/18/2020
08/18/2020 08/19/2020
08/19/2020 08/19/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 8/19/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

93 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn M. Girdharry on behalf of All Defendants (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

94 Memorandum in opposition to re 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions For A Preliminary Injunction filed by DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brianne Marwaha, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Rebecca Austin, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Aaron Luster)(Wen, James) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

95 Memorandum in opposition to re 52 MOTION to Certify Class filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Dus Declaration)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

Emergency MOTION to Compel Motion to Compel Defendants to

96

Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE

30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular

Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 by

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) Modified event title on 8/20/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 08/19/2020)

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' 96

Emergency Motion to Compel by 5:00 p.m. today, August 19, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/19/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

ENTERED IN ERROR.....Memorandum in opposition to re 96 97
Emergency MOTION for Order on Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'

08/19/2020
08/19/2020 08/19/2020

EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wen, James) Modified on 8/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/19/2020)
98 Memorandum in opposition to re 96 Emergency MOTION for Order on Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL [CORRECTED] filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wen, James) Modified docket event/text on 8/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/19/2020)
99 REPLY to opposition to motion re 96 Emergency MOTION for Order on Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 filed by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/19/2020)
100 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on August 12, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-43. Date of Issuance: August 19, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multipage, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

08/19/2020

Redaction Request due 9/9/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/19/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/17/2020.(wz) (Entered: 08/19/2020)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiffs'

Emergency Motion to Compel, ECF No. 96 . Plaintiffs' counsel did not meaningfully meet and confer with opposing counsel as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m). Defendants' counsel, Mr. Lyerla, responded to Plaintiffs' counsel on August 18, 2018, within 31 minutes of Plaintiffs' meet-and-confer inquiry. See ECF No. 98-2. According to Plaintiffs' counsel, not one of them received Mr. Lyerla's response, ECF No. 99 ; even so, absent a meaningful meet and confer, ruling on Plaintiffs' motion would be premature. The parties must engage in a genuine meet and confer before the court will consider any renewed motion. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/19/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 8/20/2020 (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020 08/20/2020

101 Memorandum in opposition to re 76 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (York, Thomas) Modified docket event/text on 8/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/19/2020)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 97

Memorandum in Opposition,, was entered in error per counsel request. Counsel refiled said pleading in Docket Entry 98 . (eg) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020 102

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020

103 Emergency MOTION for Discovery (Renewed) Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs' 103 Renewed Emergency Motion to Compel by 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, August 23, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/21/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/23/2020 104

Memorandum in opposition to re 103 Emergency MOTION for Discovery (Renewed) Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 20 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Wen, James) (Entered: 08/23/2020)

08/23/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Renewed Emergency Motion to Compel, ECF No. 103 . The court has reviewed in camera the redacted portions of the administrative record as to which Plaintiffs seek emergency disclosure, namely, (1) 20 STATE 30920, AR 000013-16, and (2) the four webinar slide decks, AR 000198-253. The court lacks sufficient information to decide whether Defendants have validly redacted portions of 20 STATE 30920 pursuant to the law enforcement privilege. That said, the relevance of the redacted portions is not apparent to the court, as none of the portions pertain to diversity lottery visas or any other visa category impacted by Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052. Nor do the redactions bear on the issues of final agency action or Plaintiffs' standing. The court therefore declines to make a privilege determination on an emergency basis. As for the webinar slide decks, the court can discern no relevance of the redacted portions, with one exception. The redactions, generally speaking, do not pertain to any of the

08/23/2020
08/23/2020 111

visa categories at issue in this case and do not reflect or convey what could be considered a final agency action. The sole exception in terms of relevancy appears on AR 000201, where bullet points two and three seem to address the status of visa processing operations. That information could be probative of the court's ability to redress any alleged injury. Defendants, therefore, shall disclose bullet points two and three on AR 000201; the remainder of that page may remain redacted. These rulings are without prejudice to future reconsideration either after final briefing on the motions for preliminary injunction is complete or if this matter proceeds past the preliminary injunction stage. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/23/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/23/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting the Gomez Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 76 . "Leave to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a) shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). "Although the grant or denial of leave to amend is committed to a district court's discretion, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason, such as 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive... repeated failure to cure deficiencies by [previous] amendments... [or] futility of amendment.'" Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). None of the Foman factors are present here; Defendants do not contend otherwise. Defendants' sole objections are procedural in nature, and they are not well taken. Plaintiffs met and conferred, as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m), see ECF No. 76-22, and although Defendants complain about the absence of detail during that process, they have not identified any resulting prejudice. Additionally, deferring a decision on the proposed amendment makes little sense given that the proposed diversity visa lottery sub-class seeks relief before September 30, 2020. Accordingly, the Second Amendment Complaint will be the operative pleading in the Gomez matter. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/23/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/23/2020)
Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., NANCY ABARCA, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, LOIDA PHELPS, JODI LYNN KARPES, FATMA BUSHATI, MIRNA S., DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, 3Q DIGITAL, POWERTRUNK, INC., ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, EURAUPAIR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., AYA NAKAMURA, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, VICENTA S., ANGELA SINON, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, NAZIF ALAM. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(eg). (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/24/2020

105 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/24/2020 106

REPLY re 94 Memorandum in Opposition, [Panda Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction] filed by CHANDAN PANDA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/24/2020

107 REPLY to opposition to motion re 52 MOTION to Certify Class filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/24/2020

108 REPLY to opposition to motion re 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction GOMEZ PLAINTIFFS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S.,

08/25/2020
08/25/2020 08/25/2020

VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
109 MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS WITH REPLY TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bless, # 2 Exhibit Bushati, # 3 Exhibit De Reyes [Lebron], # 4 Exhibit De Reyes [Pimentel], # 5 Exhibit Dunn, # 6 Exhibit Gorji, # 7 Exhibit Gustafson, # 8 Exhibit Iwundu, # 9 Exhibit Karpes, # 10 Exhibit Kinteh, # 11 Exhibit Koirala, # 12 Exhibit Mandija, # 13 Exhibit Naim, # 14 Exhibit Partolan, # 15 Exhibit Pollak, # 16 Exhibit Sabagh, # 17 Exhibit Tleubayeva, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
110 REPLY to opposition to motion re 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by AFSIN AKER, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I,
# 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
112 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Mohamed Saleh (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/26/2020
08/26/2020
08/27/2020 08/27/2020 08/27/2020 08/27/2020 08/27/2020

MINUTE ORDER. For the oral argument scheduled for August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs across these consolidated actions shall have 45 minutes of argument time to be divided among the various Plaintiffs and claims, as Plaintiffs see fit; Defendants, too, shall have 45 minutes of argument time; Plaintiffs will be afforded time for rebuttal. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/26/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/26/2020)
113 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MICHAEL POMPEO served on 6/5/2020; DONALD J. TRUMP served on 6/9/2020; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 6/4/2020; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 6/5/2020; CHAD F. WOLF served on 6/4/2020 (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/26/2020)
NOTICE of Hearing: Members of the public or media may access the Oral Argument on 8/27/2020 at 1:00 PM by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (zjd) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
114 NOTICE MOHAMMED and FONJONG Plaintiffs Statement in Response to Courts Question about Plaintiffs located within the United States by CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Oral Argument held on 8/27/2020. Arguments heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
115 NOTICE Regarding Number of Diversity Visas Issued in July 2020 and Bulletin Showing Number of Selected Entrants in DV2020 by Country by AFSIN AKER (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
116 Memorandum in opposition to re 84 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class Defendants' Opposition to Aker Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Marc E. Calixte)(Wen, James) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/28/2020

117 NOTICE OF LODGING OF DECLARATION by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

118 MOTION for Leave to File by WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hampe, Carl) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

119 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL (Hampe, Carl) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

09/03/2020 120

NOTICE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 115 Notice (Other), 114 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 8/27/20 Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B - Calixte Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C - Chang Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D - 1st Dus Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E - 2d Dus Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F Glazeroff Declaration)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

121 REPLY to opposition to motion re 84 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class filed by AFSIN AKER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A (7/27 email), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B (8/6 email), # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C (8/10 email), # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D (8/11 email), # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E (8/20 email), # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F (Erdal Tarman Declaration))(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 118 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief of Worldwide Employee Relocation Council in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/3/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

124 AMICUS BRIEF by WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL. (eg) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/04/2020

122 TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on August 27, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-160. Date of Issuance: September 4, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William

Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multipage, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 9/25/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/5/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/3/2020.(wz) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020 123

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying part (1) the Gomez Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary

Injunction, ECF No. 53 , and Supplemental Motion for

09/04/2020

Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 66 ; (2) the Mohammed Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, 20-cv-1856 (APM), ECF No. 8; (3) the Fonjong Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, 20-cv-2128 (APM), ECF No. 7; and (4) the Aker Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 20-cv-1926 (APM), ECF No. 4. The Panda Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 3, is denied as to the consolidated claims. The Gomez Plaintiffs' and Aker Plaintiffs' respective motions for class certification, ECF Nos. 52 , 84 , are denied without prejudice or deferred. See attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. The Gomez Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declarations, ECF No. 109 , is granted for the reasons stated in their motion. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/04/2020. (lcapm3) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
126 SUPPLEMENTAL Declarations to re 108 Reply to opposition to Motion,, filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE

09/10/2020 125
09/10/2020 09/11/2020
127
09/11/2020

KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration, # 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration, # 11 Declaration, # 12 Declaration, # 13 Declaration, # 14 Declaration, # 15 Declaration, # 16 Declaration)(eg). (Entered: 09/10/2020)
AMENDED ORDER. The report referenced in paragraph 4, on page 84 of the court's Memorandum Opinion & Order, ECF
No. 123 , shall now be due by no later than September 21, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/10/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/21/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
Emergency MOTION for Telephone Conference re 123
Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to
File,,,, 125 Order, by AFSIN AKER (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Exhibit A (Emails with Defense Counsel))(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs' Request for an Emergency Status
Conference, ECF No. 127 , on September 14, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' filing by no later than 12:00 p.m. on that day. The courtroom deputy will provide counsel with dial-in information. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by

Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/11/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/14/2020 at 3:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 9/14/2020 at 12:00 p.m. (zjd) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

128 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re

Set/Reset Deadlines, 111 Amended Complaint,, Order by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/13/2020

129 Supplemental STATUS REPORT by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - York Email, # 2 Exhibit B - Lyerla, # 3 Exhibit C - Urena Email 1, # 4 Exhibit D - Wen Email, # 5 Exhibit E - Urena Email 2, # 6 Exhibit F - KCC Email, # 7 Exhibit G - Embassy in Havana Website)(Urena, Rafael) (Entered: 09/13/2020)

09/14/2020

130 ORDER granting Defendants' 128 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is October 16, 2020. Plaintiffs may have an additional 29 days to file an opposition to any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants in response to the Second Amended Complaint. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/13/2020. (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020 131

RESPONSE re 127 Emergency MOTION for Telephone

Conference re 123 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion

for Leave to File,,,, 125 Order, DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Wen, James) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 9/14/2020. Status Report due by 9/21/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer or Responsive Pleading due by 10/16/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020 132

AMENDED ORDER amending the court's previous Order, ECF
No. 123 . See the attached Amended Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/14/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/17/2020

133 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Operative Complaints in Mohammed, 20-1856, and Fonjong, 202128 by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

134 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Operative Complaint in Aker, 20-1926, by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

135 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on September 14, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-57. Date of Issuance: September 17, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public termin al or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multipage, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,

09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/21/2020
136
09/22/2020

which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 10/8/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/18/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/16/2020.(wz) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 133 Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time. The Mohammed and Fonjong Defendants shall respond to the operative complaints by October 21, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/18/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 134 Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time. The Aker Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by October 28, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/18/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Mohammed and Fonjong Defendants' Answer or Responsive Pleading due by 10/21/2020. Aker Defendants' Answer or Responsive Pleading due by 10/28/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
STATUS REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by WILLIAM BARR, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Laura
Chamberlin, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Brenda L. Grewe,
# 3 Declaration Declaration of Morgan D. Miles, # 4
Declaration Declaration of Josh Glazeroff)(Wen, James) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/22/2020 at 4:00 PM via teleconference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (zjd) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020

137 RESPONSE re 136 STATUS REPORT Response of Plaintiffs to Defendants' Status Report by AFSIN AKER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Expert Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Selection of Plaintiff Declarations, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C Selection of Non-Plaintiff Declarations)(Kuck, Charles) Modified event title and link on 9/24/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held telephonically on 9/22/2020. Defendants' Submission due by 9/25/2020. Briefing due by 9/25/2020. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/28/2020 at 2:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (Court Reporter: Janice Dickman) (zjd) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/23/2020

138 NOTICE of Appearance by Johnny Hillary Walker, III on behalf of All Defendants (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/23/2020)

09/24/2020 139

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 123
Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC-7635337. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/24/2020 140

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Briefing Schedule by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/25/2020 141

ORDER granting the parties' 140 Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time. The parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by October 7, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/24/2020. (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

142 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 139

Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (eg) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

NOTICE of Hearing: Oral Argument set for 8/28/2020 at 3:00 PM via video conference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. The courtroom deputy has circulated connection information to counsel. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties.(zjd) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

143 Supplemental STATUS REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 10/7/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

144 MOTION to Certify Class (Renewed) by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

145 MEMORANDUM by DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (York, Thomas) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 146

MEMORANDUM by 3Q DIGITAL, A.M.A.A., NANCY ABARCA, UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV, AFSIN AKER, AFSIN AKER, NAZIF ALAM, SOMYA ARORA, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., DILARA AYAYDIN, YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, FATMA BUSHATI, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, E.I., MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER, CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, LOKESH GHANTA, ELIE VARANGBA GIA, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, YURII ISHCHENKO, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, K.G.S.M., JODI LYNN KARPES, MARINA KARPOVA, SRUTHI KASAM, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARID KURBANOV, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, M.A.M.S, M.S., MUSTAFA MADAZLI, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, PAWEL MIECZKOWSKI, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED, KARAN MURGAI, AYA NAKAMURA, FESTUS SUH NEBA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, CHANDAN PANDA, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., R. M.A. A., LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, DANAT SHEKHE, VIKTORIIA SHEKHE, NAGESH SHENISETTY, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., ITIDAL MOHAMMEDSALIH T MAHJOUB, EMRE TARMAN, ERDAL TARMAN, DMITRII PAVLOVICH VELIKII, AMAN WADHWA, GRAEME JOHN WARD. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nadia Dahab, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/28/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Oral Argument held on 9/28/2020. Government's Submission due by 9/29 at 12:00 pm. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/28/2020
09/29/2020 09/29/2020 09/29/2020 09/30/2020

USCA Case Number 20-5292 for 139 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,,, filed by 3Q DIGITAL, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., NAZIF ALAM, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., AYA NAKAMURA, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, ANGELA SINON, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, JODI LYNN KARPES, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, NANCY ABARCA, FATMA BUSHATI. (zrdj) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
147 MOTION for Extension of Time to File SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 147 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The deadline for Defendants to file their Supplemental Report on Good Faith Efforts to Implement the Preliminary Injunction is 5:00 pm EDT on September 29, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
148 Supplemental STATUS REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
149 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on September 22, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-35. Date of Issuance:September 30, 2020. Court Reporter: Janice Dickman, Telephone number: 202-354-3267, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript

may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multipage, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 10/21/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/31/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/29/2020.(Dickman, Janice) (Entered: 09/30/2020)

09/30/2020

150 Memorandum in opposition to re 144 MOTION to Certify Class (Renewed) filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Chamberlin Declaration)(York, Thomas) Modified docket event/text on 9/30/2020 (eg). (Entered: 09/30/2020)

09/30/2020 151

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' request for supplemental

relief, ECF No. 146 , and granting in part and denying in part the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 144 . See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Amended Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/30/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/30/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

10/03/2020 14:36:43

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

Kazbour
1:20-cv-01419APM 3.00

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 53
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.,
360 2nd Street Romeo, MI 48065
MIRNA S., a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.,
and
VICENTA S., a U.S. Citizen,1
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America,
Serve: Donald J. Trump President of the United States 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
WILLIAM BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States,
Serve: William Barr Attorney General of the United States 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20530

Case No. __2_0_-_1_4_1_9________ COMPLAINT

1 A motion for leave for Plaintiffs Mirna S. and Vicenta S. to proceed pseudonymously is forthcoming.
1

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 53
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Serve: Executive Office Office of the Legal Advisor Suite 5.600 600 19th St. NW Washington, DC 20522
MICHAEL POMPEO, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of State,
Serve: Executive Office Office of the Legal Advisor Suite 5.600 600 19th St. NW Washington, DC 20522
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Serve: Office of the General Counsel Department of Homeland Security Mail Stop 3650 Washington, D.C. 20528
and
CHAD WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
Serve: Office of the General Counsel Department of Homeland Security Mail Stop 3650 Washington, D.C. 20528
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
1. After announcing his intent to “temporarily suspend immigration into the United
States” on Monday, April 20, 2020, President Trump signed a “Proclamation Suspending Entry
2

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 53
of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak” (the “Proclamation”) on Wednesday, April 22, 2020.
2. With limited exceptions, the Proclamation suspends the entry of foreign nationals as immigrants for a period of 60 days. The Proclamation went into effect the next day, April 23, 2020, at 11:59 pm Eastern Daylight Time, approximately 30 hours after it was signed.
3. The Proclamation’s restrictions are currently set to last for 60 days, but its effect on children currently eligible to enter as immigrants—children sponsored by family members who are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents—is much more draconian, barring them from immigrating to the United States for decades, and perhaps forever.
4. Those children’s current eligibility turns on the fact that they are under 21: if they do not receive a visa before their 21st birthdays, that eligibility will be lost and they will be placed into immigration categories with multi-decade waiting periods. During the 60 days the Proclamation is in effect, it requires these children to meet a new, undefined “national interest” standard in order to obtain their visas—notwithstanding the family unification principle that underlies our immigration laws. The individual plaintiffs (and the members of the class they seek to represent) are the sponsors of child visa applicants who likely will not receive visas because of the Proclamation’s requirement and, as a result, will “age out” of their current visa eligibility and face delays and family separation for decades before they again are eligible to immigrate into the United States. The Proclamation’s effect on these families is unfair, unlawful, and unconstitutional. This Court should issue temporary and permanent relief enjoining the application of the Proclamation to bar issuance of visas to these individuals.
5. According to its preamble, the Proclamation was issued to address “the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market” at a time when the country’s “mitigation
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 53
strategies,” adopted to “flatten the curve of infections and reduce the spread of SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19,” have “taken a toll on the United States economy, with national unemployment claims reaching historic levels.”
6. Excepted from the Proclamation’s entry suspension are healthcare professionals and researchers pursuing COVID-19-related research, along with their spouses and children under 21; immigrants arriving on EB-5 investor visas; the spouses of United States citizens; children of United States citizens, defined as an unmarried son or daughter under the age of 21; foreign nationals whose entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees and based on a recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee; members of the United States Armed Forces and their spouses and children under 21; individuals arriving on Special Immigrant Visas designated for certain Iraqi and Afghani workers, as well as their spouses and children; and any noncitizen whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
7. Apart from these limited exceptions, the Proclamation applies to the parents of United States citizens; all employment- and family-based visas; all individuals selected for diversity visas; and all individuals seeking visas under the Violence Against Women Act or other visas reserved for certain victims and witnesses to crimes in the United States. Under the Proclamation’s terms, a consular officer must determine whether, in the consular officer’s discretion, an individual has established his or her eligibility for one of the Proclamation’s exceptions. The Secretary of State is charged with implementing the Proclamation “as it applies to visas.” At least one Plaintiff sponsoring a child for an immigrant visa has already been
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 53
informed by the consulate handling the child’s visa application that if the child does not meet the Proclamation’s “national interest” exception, she will be denied a visa.
8. Although the Proclamation expires by its own terms after 60 days (i.e., on June 22, 2020), it was implemented with such little notice—only 30 hours—that its suspension of the country’s immigration system will have a devastating and lifelong impact on Plaintiffs, their children and grandchildren, and the members of the class Plaintiffs seek to represent.
9. Plaintiffs are United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who have sponsored their noncitizen minor children or other derivative child relatives for immigrant visas. Two Plaintiffs, as parents, have sponsored their noncitizen minor children under the age of 21. The third Plaintiff has sponsored her noncitizen minor grandchild under the age of 21 as a derivative to his father.
10. Before the Proclamation took effect, these minor children were eligible for entry on immigrant visas in certain “family preference” categories as long as their visa petitions were “current”—i.e., when the consulate could immediately issue an immigrant visa to a sponsored child because the child had an approved visa petition and had submitted the necessary application to the consulate. Indeed, Congress designed the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and its visa allocation system to prioritize and facilitate the reunification of parents and their minor children within the United States. Other family preference categories suffer from backlogs that cause sponsored individuals to wait for years, if not decades, before they have an opportunity to receive an immigrant visa.
11. Plaintiffs’ minor children and grandchild, however, will turn 21 before or very shortly after the Proclamation expires. When these children do so, they will “age out” of their current visa preference category unless, before their twenty-first birthday, they can secure an
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 53
emergency consular interview with their respective consulate and meet a new admissibility requirement— qualifying for one of the Proclamation’s exceptions to its broad entry suspension. Such “aging out” has draconian consequences.
12. For example, if Plaintiff Gomez’s daughter ages out before she can receive her visa, she will be reassigned to a different visa preference category that has a far lower number of visas allocated per year, is subject to per-country caps on the number of visas granted annually, and in which her visa petition will no longer be “current.” These factors may result in a processing backlog, for Plaintiff Gomez and his daughter, of almost 70 years.
13. If Plaintiff Mirna S.’s daughter and Plaintiff Vincenta S.’s grandchild age out, their visa applications will be categorically denied. Plaintiff Mirna S. and Plaintiff Vincenta S. will be required to go through a new visa sponsorship process—again, in a visa preference category with a far lower number of allocated visas per year, and which is subject to per-country caps on the number of visas granted annually. By having to go through a new visa sponsorship, moreover, Plaintiff Mirna S.’s daughter and Plaintiff Vincenta S.’s grandchild will be waiting for multiple decades for another opportunity to apply for a visa.
14. Similar consequences await other United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who have “current” approved visa petitions for children and derivative children relatives who will turn 21 while the Proclamation remains in effect: once these children age out of their existing visa preference category, where they have “current” petitions, they will lose the opportunity, possibly forever, to immigrate to the United States. To the extent any distant future opportunity exists, the processing backlogs in visa preference categories for adults mean that these children will face years, if not decades, of further delay before they are able to reunite in the United States with their family members. In the case of oversubscribed countries such as
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 53

Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines, the wait for individuals in an adult relative visa preference category can be decades—or, in effect, an entire lifetime.
15. The consequences of turning 21 and “aging out” are so severe that, in recognition of the fact that many children age out due to large visa processing backlogs beyond the control of the children and their sponsoring parents or relatives, Congress passed the Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”) in August 2002. The CSPA aims to provide a modicum of relief for certain children faced with the consequences of aging out due to administrative delays in the immigration process.
16. Given the severe consequences of aging out, and in addition to the protections provided by the CSPA, consulates prioritize “emergency” interviews for children who are about to turn 21 and potentially age out of their visa preference category.2 Emergency interviews have remained available during the COVID-19 pandemic.3 These emergency consular services enable children about to turn 21, who have not yet received their visa due to backlogs and bureaucratic

2

See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of State, Apply for A U.S. Visa in the Philippines, Frequently Asked

Questions, https://www.ustraveldocs.com/ph/ph-gen-faq.asp (“If visa numbers are available for

you (or your visa case becomes current for processing) and your child is aging out (or turning

21), we are prepared to expedite the processing of the application.”); Questions for NVC/AILA

DOS Liaison Committee Meeting (Nov. 4, 2014), AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 14111420 (posted

Dec. 13, 2014), at 11, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/AILA/AILA

%20NVC%20November%202014.pdf (noting that National Visa Center provides expedited

processing for age-out cases); USCIS Policy Memorandum, Requests to Expedite Adjudication of

Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Filed by Individuals Outside

the United States; Update to Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 41.7 & Appendix 41-5

(AFM Update AD12-09) (June 6, 2012), available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2012/June%202012/Revised%20Expedited%20I-601%20PM.pdf

(“Similarly, the applicant may request that the case be expedited to prevent a child not covered

by the Child Status Protection Act from aging out before visa issuance.”).

3

See, e.g., Status of U.S. Consular Operations in Mexico in Light of COVID-19 (Apr. 13,

2020), https://mx.usembassy.gov/status-of-u-s-consular-operations-in-mexico-in-light-of-covid-

19/ (accessed May 27, 2020) (“Immigrant visa emergency appointment requests will be

considered only when the applicant will age out of his or her case, or in case of emergencies.”).

7

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 53
processing delays, to appear for their visa interview and complete the remaining steps in the visa application and vetting process on an expedited basis.
17. Normally, sponsoring parents and grandparents and their legal representatives, if any, take scrupulous care to seek emergency consular processing well in advance of their children’s or derivative grandchildren’s 21st birthdays. Plaintiff Gomez, for example, sought an emergency interview for his daughter two months before her 21st birthday and before the Proclamation was announced. Likewise, Plaintiff Mirna S.’s attorney made multiple requests for expedited visa processing for her daughter’s visa application, including five follow-up requests from United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand over the course of two and a half months. Plaintiff Vicenta S.’s attorney also made multiple requests for expedited visa processing before her grandson’s 21st birthday and had to involve United States Representative Cindy Axne. But the Proclamation was issued with so little warning that it was virtually impossible for any visa petitioner with a sponsored child or derivative child relative to seek emergency consular services before it took effect. For United States citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring children and derivative child relatives who will turn 21 during the Proclamation’s effective period, the Proclamation will result in a lifetime of family separation.
18. Notwithstanding the harsh consequences for sponsored children and grandchildren about to turn 21, and notwithstanding that Congress intended to protect such minor children and prioritize their reunification with family in the United States, the Proclamation makes no exception and provides no waiver for any sponsored children or other derivative child relative who will turn 21 within the Proclamation’s effective period. Even after being alerted to the harm posed to such children, the Department of State has stated only that children who will age out during the Proclamation’s effective period may seek an emergency interview and attempt
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 9 of 53
to meet one of the Proclamation’s enumerated exceptions—which, for age-out children, will likely be the “national interest” exception.4 Nevertheless, there is no public guidance about how the “national interest” exception is to be interpreted—either to assist visa applicants in preparing for their interview or to guide consular officials in making a “national interest” determination.
19. Thus, instead of having the opportunity to live with their sponsored family members in the United States, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated parents and grandparents will likely lose the chance, and the laborious efforts previously undertaken, to sponsor their loved ones for immigrant visas. They will lose the benefits that Congress intended to provide under the INA to prioritize the family reunification of parents and minor children.
20. Plaintiffs challenge the Proclamation under this Court’s inherent authority to review executive actions that exceed statutory grants of authority, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue appropriate declaratory relief and enjoin the Proclamation as to Plaintiffs and similarly situated United States citizen and lawful permanent resident parents and relatives who are sponsoring children and derivative children relatives who, due to the Proclamation, will age out of their visa preference categories during the Proclamation’s effective period.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

See Decl. of Brianne Marwaha, ECF 137-2, Doe v. Trump, No. 3:19-cv-01743 (D. Or.

2020); see also U.S. Dep’t of State—Bureau of Consular Affairs (Apr. 23, 2020),

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/Proclamation-Suspending-Entry-of-

Immigrants-Who-Present-Risk-to-the-US-labor-market.html (last visited May 27, 2020).

9

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 10 of 53
21. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has additional remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02.
22. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because (a) this is a civil action in which Defendants are the President and federal officers and agencies of the United States, (b) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Columbia, and (c) Defendants are headquartered in this district. There is no real property involved in this action.
PARTIES 23. Plaintiff Domingo Arreguin Gomez is a United States lawful permanent resident of Mexican origin who resides in Romeo, Michigan. He sponsored his wife for an immigrant visa, and his wife’s daughter—Plaintiff Gomez’s stepdaughter—is a “follow-to-join” beneficiary of his wife’s visa application. Plaintiff Gomez’s stepdaughter will turn 21 on June 15, 2020. 24. Plaintiff Mirna S. is a United States lawful permanent resident of Mexican origin who resides in the Bronx, New York. She was the victim of severe domestic violence, and before obtaining lawful permanent resident status she obtained a U nonimmigrant visa when she assisted law enforcement with investigating and pursuing prosecution of her abuser. She has an approved “SU-3” immigrant visa petition for her daughter, who will turn 21 on June 23, 2020. 25. Plaintiff Vicenta S. is a United States citizen of Salvadoran origin who resides in Council Bluffs, Iowa. She has an approved visa petition for her son, and her grandson is a follow-to-join derivative beneficiary on her son’s visa application. Vicenta S.’s grandson will turn 21 on June 30, 2020.
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 11 of 53
26. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. In that capacity, he issued the Presidential Proclamation challenged in this lawsuit.
27. Defendant William Barr is the Attorney General of the United States and has responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant Department of State (“DOS”) is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant visas abroad. The Proclamation assigns DOS a variety of responsibilities regarding its implementation and enforcement.
29. Defendant Michael Pompeo is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation by all DOS staff. He is sued in his official capacity.
30. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. The Proclamation assigns DOS a variety of responsibilities regarding its implementation and enforcement.
31. Defendant Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation by all Department of Homeland Security staff. He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS STATUTORY BACKGROUND 32. Bedrock principles within the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”) and subsequent amendments have focused on four key goals: reunifying families, promoting the
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 12 of 53
availability of foreign-born talent for business purposes, protecting vulnerable persons through humanitarian relief, and supporting the immigration of diverse persons from across the globe. Accordingly, Congress has allowed for the issuance of an unlimited number of immigrant visas to “immediate relatives” of U.S. citizens, which includes their spouses, parents, and unmarried children under 21 years of age. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i); see also id. § 1101(b)(1) (defining “child” for immigrant visa purposes). It has also created a comprehensive immigrant visa system that allows “worldwide immigration” based on an allocation of “preference” visas: “familybased visas”; “employment-based visas”; “humanitarian” visas, such as “U” visas, for the victims and witnesses of certain crimes who assist law enforcement; and “diversity-based” visas. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15), 1101(a)(27)(U), 1151(a), 1152, 1153, 1184(p)(7), 1255(m)(3).
33. Under this system, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a) sets forth four different categories of individuals who may be issued immigrant visas and the individual numeric annual limitations for each category; § 1151(b) sets forth specific categories of individuals not subject to the numerical limitation; and § 1152 sets a cap on the maximum number of immigrant visas that can be issued to the nationals of any given country each year.
34. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1151, the worldwide level for annual family-based preference immigrants is a minimum of 226,000; the worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000; and a maximum of fifty-five thousand visas each year are available through a diversity visa lottery, open to countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. The INA also makes a maximum of 10,000 nonimmigrant “U” visas available annually for victims of crimes such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking, who may eventually adjust status and become lawful permanent residents; there is no
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 13 of 53
annual cap, however, on non-immigrant U visa holders and eligible derivatives who may adjust status and obtain a green card based on their non-immigrant status. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(2)(A).
35. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1152, the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7 percent of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits. This limit means that no single country can receive more than 7 percent of the total green cards issued in a year (unless they would otherwise go unused).
36. Within the INA’s visa allocation system, qualifying family members or employers are allowed to “sponsor” a noncitizen (the “beneficiary”) and any “derivatives”—i.e., the noncitizen beneficiary’s spouse and unmarried minor children under the age of 21—for an immigrant visa. To do so, a family member or employer must file either a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, or Form I-140, Petition for Alien Worker, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on behalf of the “beneficiary.” This form establishes the necessary family or employer-employee relationship to qualify for an immigrant visa.
37. If and when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approves the immigrant visa petition, so long as visas are available, the beneficiary of the approved petition (also known as the “principal” visa applicant) may apply for a visa for him or herself and his or her derivatives. Beneficiaries and their derivatives who are abroad must apply with the U.S. Department of State via the National Visa Center (“NVC”), which coordinates the immigrant visa process with the respective consulates abroad. A visa interview at the consulate is the final step in the visa application process and enables a consular officer, in his or her discretion, to approve and issue a visa that will allow the visa petition beneficiary and any derivatives to travel to the United States and gain admission as a lawful permanent resident.
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 14 of 53

38. Demand for immigrant visas regularly exceeds supply. Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41, 48 (2014). “As a consequence, the principal beneficiary of an approved petition is placed in a queue with others in her category (F1, F2A, or what have you) in order of ‘priority date’—that is, the date a petition was filed with USCIS.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(b); 22 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) (2013)). Section 1153(e) thus provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas “shall” be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition on behalf of each has been filed—that is, according to the “priority date” of the underlying visa petition.
39. The queues for each preference category are critical because a family member or prospective employee abroad cannot apply for lawful permanent residence until a visa is immediately available, or when the visa petition’s priority date becomes “current.” The Department of State issues a monthly Visa Bulletin organized according to country of origin and visa preference category.5 If there are sufficient visas available for applicants from a specific country and of a specific preference category, then the Visa Bulletin lists that combination as “current,” and all applicants matching that combination may file an application and receive the visa regardless of their priority date. Similarly, the Visa Bulletin will provide final action dates for oversubscribed categories that allow those with priority dates on or before the provided date to finalize their visa applications and pursue their immigrant visas.
40. The processing backlogs for family-based preference visas have remained very large, and a sponsored visa beneficiary can wait for years before their priority date becomes “current,” depending on which preference category they fall within. “After a sponsoring petition

5

See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t State, Visa Bulletin for November 2019, Travel.State.Gov (May 27,

2020), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-

for-november-2019.html.

14

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 15 of 53

is approved, but before a visa application can be filed, a family-sponsored immigrant may stand in line for years—or even decades—just waiting for an immigrant visa to become available.” Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. at 50.
Family-based preference visas 41. Among family-based immigrants, Congress has prioritized the admission of “immediate relatives”—i.e., the parents, spouses, and minor unmarried children of United States citizens, because Congress did not place a numeric cap on the issuance of immigrant visas for immediate relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b). This means that there is no “queue” for such family members, and their petition’s “priority date” is of no consequence to when their visa may issue. 42. By contrast to an “immediate relative,” other family members are placed in preference categories that are tiered according to the family member’s relationship with the petitioning family member. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a)(1)-(4); see Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. at 46– 48. The family-based immigration preference classes set by Congress, along with the applicable visa allocations, are:

Preference First (“F1”) Second (“F2A”)
(“F2B”)

Number of Visas Allocated 23,400, plus any numbers not required for the fourth preference
114,200 for the “F2” preference category collectively, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers

Eligible Individuals
Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years old or older) of U.S. Citizens
Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents (77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit)
Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years old or older) of Permanent Residents (23% of the overall second preference limitation)

15

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 16 of 53

Third (“F3”) Fourth (“F4”)

23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences
65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences

Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A), 1153(a). Derivative spouses and unmarried minor children are

entitled to the same preference category as the beneficiary, or the “principal.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1153(d); 9 FAM 502.2-3(C)(a).6 This means, for example, that the derivative minor child of an

F3 beneficiary may receive a visa if he or she still qualifies as a derivative when a visa becomes

available for his or her parent, the F3 principal. Id.

43. Within the family-based preference immigrant visa allocation set out in the INA,

Congress has prioritized the reunification of parents with minor children by allocating

significantly more immigrant visas to minor children (defined by statute as children under the

age of 21, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1)), than to children over the age of 21, thereby conferring a

greater benefit on minor children of citizens and immigrants. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(b)(1)

(defining “child” for immigrant visa purposes); 1153(a)(2) (setting visa allocation levels for

minor and adult children of lawful permanent residents); T. Alexander Aleinkoff et al.,

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy 276 (West, 8th ed. 2016). Minor children of

United States citizens qualify as “immediate relatives” and therefore are not subject to the

numeric visa limitations. Minor children of United States lawful permanent residents qualify for

the “F2A” family preference visa category, to which Congress has granted the most generous

allocation of immigrant visas across all family preference categories (approximately 88,000 per

year). The F2A family preference category is also not subject to any per-country caps.

6

“FAM” refers to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which is available at

https://fam.state.gov/.

16

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 17 of 53
44. By contrast, all other familial relationships that qualify for a family preference visa have significantly lower annual allocations of immigrant visas and are subject to the 7 percent per-country limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1152, which can cause significant processing backlogs, especially for oversubscribed countries. Mexico, for instance, is an oversubscribed country. A Mexican national who files a petition today in the F2B family preference category can expect that it will not become “current” until the end of 2087.
Employment-based preference visas 45. Every fiscal year (October 1– September 30), approximately 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas are made available to qualified applicants under the provisions of U.S. immigration law. Employment-based immigrant visas are divided into five preference categories which, like the family-based preference categories, have varying allocations of visas. 46. To be considered for an immigrant visa under an employment-based category, the applicant’s prospective employer generally must file with USCIS an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-140 for the appropriate employment-based preference category. Like the two-step family-based process for an immigrant visa, USCIS must first approve the I-140 petition that establishes the necessary employer-employee relationship. A “principal” applicant with an approved I-140 visa petition must then wait for his or her priority date to become “current,” at which point he or she may submit the necessary paperwork and fees and eventually appear at the consulate for a consular interview. 47. Spouses and unmarried children under 21 may apply for immigrant visas with the principal sponsored individual as provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d). However, certain employment-based preference categories are vastly oversubscribed, which means that individuals
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 18 of 53
in these preference categories have a waiting period of several years before their priority date will become “current.” Accordingly, many putative derivative children remain susceptible to turning 21 and losing the opportunity to receive an immigrant visa with his or her parent. If a derivative child turns 21 before his or her parent’s employment-based immigrant visa is granted, the child will lose the ability to immigrate with his or her parent. For parent and child to reunite in the United States, either the child would need to seek his or her own visa independently, or the parent must sponsor the child for an immigrant visa in the “F2B” family-based preference category, for the adult children of lawful permanent residents.
U Visas – for Victims of Criminal Activity 48. Congress created the “U” visa with the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“VTVPA”) (including the Battered Immigrant Women’s Protection Act) in October 2000. The law is intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of aliens and other crimes, while also protecting victims of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse due to the crime and are willing to help law enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(U), 1184(p); 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1). 49. A “U” visa recipient is a survivor of certain crimes who has suffered mental or physical abuse and is helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of such criminal activity. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U). The individual initially
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 19 of 53
qualifies for a nonimmigrant visa, of which a maximum of 10,000 are available to “principal” noncitizen victims each fiscal year. Id. § 1184(p)(2)(A). 7
50. “U” nonimmigrant visa status enables those principals to remain in the United States legally and to sponsor, also for nonimmigrant visas, certain derivative family members, including spouses and children, and under certain circumstances, parents and siblings. See id. § 1184(p)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(5)(i), (d), & (f)(6). There is no cap on the number of visas that may be granted to “U derivatives,” who may therefore apply immediately to enter the United States and reunite with the U-visa principal on nonimmigrant visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(o). The VTVPA, moreover, provides “age-out” protection for a U-visa principal’s derivative children: if a derivative child turns 21 while the U-visa principal’s nonimmigrant visa petition is pending, that child will receive age-out protection and maintain his or her status as a derivative, under-21 child, for as long as the petition remains pending and the derivative child remains unmarried. Id. § 1184(p)(7); 9 FAM 402.6.6(I)(3).
51. The INA also allows U nonimmigrants to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident (i.e., to get a Green Card, see id. § 1255(m)) in the United States if they meet certain eligibility requirements. Qualifying derivative family members who are already in the United States may also adjust status with the U-visa sponsor.
52. After adjusting status and becoming a lawful permanent resident, a U-visa recipient may sponsor for an immigrant visa any qualifying derivative minor family members who remain outside of the United States by filing a Form I-929 petition on their behalf. See

7

If an eligible U-visa petitioner is not granted U-visa status solely because of the 10,000-

visa cap, the petitioner is placed on a waiting list and must wait until new U visas are available at

the beginning of the next fiscal year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(5)(i)(a) and (B); 7 C.F.R. § 214.14

(f)(6)(i) and (ii).

19

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 20 of 53
9 FAM 402.6-6(K)(a). If approved, the I-929 petition enables the derivative beneficiary to apply for a visa and eventually appear at the consulate to interview for an “SU” visa. There is no limit to the number of SU visas that may be granted, so the petition’s priority date is of no consequence and there is no wait time associated with the processing of these visa applications (in contrast to oversubscribed family-based and employment-based preference categories). If approved and granted a visa, a “U” derivative will be allowed to “follow to join” the U principal in the United States immediately. Id. 402.6-6(K)(b).
53. Although “age out” protection exists for the children of U-visa applicants seeking nonimmigrant visas during the pendency of an application, there is no equivalent “age out” protection for the child of a U visa applicant who is the beneficiary of a I-929 follow-to-join petition for an “SU-3” immigrant visa. To avoid aging out, “SU-3 beneficiaries must have his/her visa issued – and must enter the U.S. – prior to his/her 21st birthday.” Id. 402.6-6(K)(d). Accordingly, the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual instructs the consular officer to “process SU-3 cases as quickly as possible when they are close to aging out.” Id.
54. If an SU-3 derivative child ages out, however, the consular officer “must refuse the case under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A) and add appropriate case notes.” Id. 402.6-6(K)(e).8 If the parent and aged-out child wish to reunite in the United States, either the child must seek his or her own visa independently, or the parent must sponsor the child for an “F2B” family-based preference visa for the adult child of a lawful permanent resident.
CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT

8

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) contains no age limitation, but imposes restrictions on the

admission of “[a]ny alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing

skilled or unskilled labor.”

20

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 21 of 53
55. As set out above, significant immigration benefits depend on whether the sponsored beneficiary (or the sponsored beneficiary’s derivative) is a minor child. If the minor child ages out before he or she has a visa granted, the minor child loses his or her “child” status under immigration law and the accompanying benefits of that “child” status, including significantly more generous annual visa allocations and exemption from per-country caps, which Congress has built into the INA specifically to facilitate the reunification in the United States of parents and their minor children.
56. In 2002, Congress specifically recognized that backlogs in visa application processing could result in children “aging out” when they turn 21, which has the consequences of putting them “at the end of [a] long waiting list for a visa.” H.R. Rep. 107-45, at 2 (2001). It therefore enacted the Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”) as an attempt to address the problem in which “growing immigration backlogs in the immigration visa category caused the visa to be unavailable before the child reached his 21st birthday.” 147 Cong. Rec. S3275-01 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 2001).
57. For United States citizens seeking to sponsor their minor children for “immediate relative” immigrant visas, the CSPA eliminates entirely the danger of aging out. As long as a citizen parent sponsors his or her child for an immigrant visa while the child is under 21, that child will never be considered to “age out” for immigration purposes and can seek and receive a visa as a United States citizen’s immediate family member. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(f)(1), (f)(4).
58. For United States lawful permanent residents sponsoring their minor children, as well as for all other immigrant visa applicants with derivative minor children, the CSPA provides a method for calculating and thereby adjusting the minor child’s age for immigration purposes: the child’s “CSPA age” is the child’s biological age on the date an immigrant visa becomes
21

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 22 of 53
available (i.e., when the priority date for the child’s petition becomes “current”), reduced by the period of time the child’s visa petition was pending before it was approved by USCIS. Under this formula, some, but not all, children nearing their twenty-first birthday are able to maintain their status as a “child” for immigration purposes even after their twenty-first birthday, so long as the child applies for a visa within one year of his or her priority date becoming “current.” For those children of lawful permanent residents who age out even after taking into account the protections under the CSPA, turning 21 means converting from the F2A preference category, for minor children, to the F-2B preference category, for adults. For other children derivatives, aging out means losing their beneficiary status entirely and having to file a new visa petition, most likely in the F-2B category, sponsored by their now-lawful permanent resident parents..
59. There are significant backlogs for individuals seeking F-2B visas. For example, if a Mexican national files a new F-2B petition for an adult son or daughter today, that petition will not become “current” and the son or daughter will not have an opportunity to seek and receive a visa for nearly 7 decades.
COVID-19’S IMPACTS ON VISA PROCESSING 60. SARS-CoV-2 is a highly transmissible respiratory virus that has resulted in the rapid spread of the infectious COVID-19 disease. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a “global pandemic.” As of May 27, 2020, there are over 5.6 million confirmed cases throughout the world, and over 350,000 people have died from the disease. Over 100,000 people have died in the United States alone. 61. There is no vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor is there any known medication to prevent or treat COVID-19 once an individual is infected and develops symptoms. The only known effective measure to reduce the risk of injury or death from COVID-19 is to
22

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 23 of 53
prevent the spread of infection by “social distancing”—avoiding crowded spaces and keeping at least six feet between yourself and others—and by repeatedly disinfecting hard, commonly touched surfaces.
62. On March 19, 2020, California was the first state to order residents to stay at home as much as possible until further notice; the same measure was later implemented in at least 42 other states and the District of Columbia, as well as by numerous localities.9 As a result, most businesses have shut down or severely curtailed operations as part of the effort to try and limit the spread of the virus.10
63. Likewise, on March 20, 2020, the Department of State temporarily suspended routine visa services at all Embassies and Consulates in response to significant worldwide challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Embassies and consulates canceled all routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa appointments, but as resources allowed, embassies and consulates continued to provide emergency and mission critical visa services.11
64. After weeks of enforcing “stay-at-home” orders, governors have now begun reopening parts of their state economies, weighing the health costs of loosening restrictions with the economic toll of keeping those restrictions in place. As of May 28, 2020, stay-at-home restrictions had caused over 40 million Americans to lose their jobs and file for unemployment

9

Alicia Lee, These states have implemented stay-at-home orders. Here's what that means

for you, CNN (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-which-states-

stay-at-home-order-trnd/index.html.

10 Heather Long & Andrew Van Dam, U.S. unemployment rate soars to 14.7 percent, the worst since the Depression era, WASH. POST (May 8, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/08/april-2020-jobs-report/.

11 U.S. Dep’t of State—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Suspension of Routine Visa Services (Mar. 20, 2020), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-ofroutine-visa-services.html (last visited May 27, 2020).

23

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 24 of 53
benefits, yielding an unemployment rate that may reach 20 percent in May.12 In Texas, however,
the governor acknowledged that his decision to allow businesses to reopen starting on May 1, 2020, would likely lead to more infections and an “increase in spread.”13
65. Countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan have already experienced a
second wave of coronavirus infections, and experts foresee several cycles of a “suppress and lift”
policy through the next year or more—cycles during which restrictions are applied and relaxed,
applied again and relaxed again, in ways that can keep the pandemic under control at a more acceptable economic and social cost.14
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 10014 66. Late on Monday night, April 20, 2020, President Trump tweeted that “[i]n light of
the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT
American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!”15
12 Anneken Tappe, 1 in 4 American workers have filed for unemployment benefits during the pandemic, CNN (May 28, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/economy/unemploymentbenefits-coronavirus/index.html. 13 The governor of Texas told lawmakers he expected the virus to spread as businesses reopened, N.Y. TIMES: THE CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK (May 5, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/coronavirus-live-news.html.
14 Jen Kirby, What we can learn from the “second wave” of coronavirus cases in Asia, VOX (Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.vox.com/2020/4/17/21213787/coronavirus-asia-waves-hong-kongsingapore-taiwan. See also Peter Beaumont, Will there be a second wave of coronavirus?, THE GUARDIAN (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/20/will-there-besecond-wave-of-coronavirus-. 15 Betsy Klein, Priscilla Alvarez & Kevin Liptak, Trump claims he will temporarily suspend immigration into the US due to coronavirus fears, CNN (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/donald-trump-immigration-haltcoronavirus/index.html.
24

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 25 of 53
67. The President announced in a press briefing the next day, April 21, 2020, that he would be “issuing a temporary suspension of immigration into the United States.” Although White House officials said that the President could sign something as early as that same day, contemporaneous news articles reported that “it wasn’t clear that administration officials had worked through the legal and practical implications of completely shutting down the country’s immigration system.”16 The President confirmed in his April 21 press briefing that government attorneys were drafting the proclamation that day.
68. The President ultimately signed the “Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak” on the evening of Wednesday, April 22, 2020. A copy of the Proclamation is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamationsuspending-entry-immigrants-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-economic-recovery-followingcovid-19-outbreak/ and is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
16 Nick Miroff, Josh Dawsey & Teo Armus, Trump administration working out details of suspending immigration during coronavirus crisis, plans to close off the United States to a new extreme, WASH. POST (Apr 21, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ coronavirus-trump- immigration/2020/04/21/a2a465aa-837a-11ea-9728-c74380d9d410 _story.html. See also id (“[T]he president appears to have again publicly declared a U.S. policy that was not yet ready for implementation, leaving his aides rushing to deliver on his pronouncement.”); Nick Miroff, Maria Sacchetti & Tracy Jan, Trump to suspend immigration to U.S. for 60 days, citing coronavirus crisis and jobs shortage, but will allow some workers, WASH. POST (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/coronavirus-trumpsuspend-immigration/2020/04/21/464e2440-838d-11ea-ae26-989cfce1c7c7_story.html (“Other aides said privately that the president had once more announced a sweeping policy that was not yet ready for implementation, and his administration was trying to piece together an executive order for him to sign that would catch up to his whim”).
25

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 26 of 53

69. The Proclamation went into effect on April 23, 2020, at 11:59 Eastern Daylight

Time, approximately 30 hours after the President signed it.

70. The Proclamation suspends the entry of all immigrants for 60 days, with certain

exceptions. These exceptions include:

(i)

Any lawful permanent resident of the United States (Proclamation §

2(b)(i));

(ii)

Any immigrant seeking entry “as a physician, nurse, or other healthcare

professional; to perform medical research or other research intended to

combat the spread of COVID-19; or to perform work essential to

combating, recovering from, or otherwise alleviating the effects of the

COVID-19 outbreak, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary

of Homeland Security, or their respective designees,” as well as that

immigrant’s spouse and unmarried children under 21 (id. § 2(b)(ii));

(iii)

Any immigrants seeking entry through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor

Program (id. § 2(b)(iii));

(iv)

Any spouse of a United States citizen (id. § 2(b)(iv));

(v)

Any child of a United States citizen who is under 21, as well as prospective

adoptee children (id. § 2(b)(v));

(vi)

Any immigrant “whose entry would further important United States law

enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State, the

Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees, based on a

recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee” (id. § 2(b)(vi));

26

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 27 of 53

(vii)

Any member of the United States Armed Forces, as well as any spouse and

children of that individual (id. § 2(b)(vii));

(viii)

Certain Iraqis and Afghans seeking entry under a Special Immigrant Visa,

“subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may impose,” as well

as any spouse and children of such individuals (id. § 2(b)(viii)); and

(ix)

Any immigrant “whose entry would be in the national interest, as

determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security,

or their respective designees” (id. §2(b)(ix)).

71. Apart from these exceptions, the Proclamation applies to all noncitizens who:

(i)

Are outside the United States on the Proclamation’s effective date (id.

§ 2(a)(i));

(ii)

Do not have an immigrant visa that is valid on the Proclamation’s

effective date (id. § 2(a)(ii));

and

(iii)

Do not have an official travel document other than a visa, such as a

transportation letter, an appropriate boarding foil, or an advance parole

document, that is valid on the Proclamation’s effective date, or is issued

on any later date permitting the individual to travel to the United States

and seek entry or admission (id. § 2(a)(iii)).

72. The Proclamation states that a consular officer “shall determine, in his or her

discretion,” whether an immigrant qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions. It also

commands the Secretary of State to “implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant

to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland

27

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 28 of 53
Security, may establish in the Secretary of State’s discretion.” It commands the Secretary of Homeland Security to “implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion.”
73. The Proclamation does not include any exception or waiver for children or other derivative child relatives sponsored for immigrant visas who will turn 21 during its 60-day effective period, have current priority dates within their respective preference categories, and will lose their visa eligibility within those current visa preference categories if they turn 21 and age out.
74. The Proclamation ostensibly is meant to address “the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in an environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor.” The Proclamation states that “excess labor supply” is “particularly harmful to workers at the margin between employment and unemployment”—a harm that, according to the Proclamation, will “disproportionately” be borne by “historically disadvantaged groups, including African Americans and other minorities, those without a college degree, and the disabled.” It further asserts that lawful permanent residents have “immediate eligibility to compete for almost any job, in any sector of the economy,” and that “[e]xisting immigrant visa processing protections” are therefore inadequate either “to protect already disadvantaged and unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents,” or to support “recovery from the COVID-19 outbreak.”
75. The Proclamation also states that it is necessary “to conserve critical State Department resources so that consular officers may continue to provide services to United States citizens abroad,” and that “introducing additional permanent residents” will “pu[t] strain on the
28

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 29 of 53
finite limits of our healthcare system at a time when we need to prioritize Americans and the existing immigrant population.”
76. Although the Proclamation expires by its own terms 60 days after its effective date (i.e., on June 22, 2020), it “may be continued as necessary.” The Proclamation commands the Secretary of Homeland Security, “in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor,” to “recommend” whether the President “should continue or modify this Proclamation.” The Proclamation, however, provides no guidance for determining under what circumstances the Proclamation would no longer be “necessary.”
77. Other than the Proclamation itself, the only information the Administration has made publicly available about the Proclamation is found on a page on the State Department’s website.17 Apart from summarizing the scope of and exceptions to the Proclamation, and providing a link to Proclamation’s full text on the White House website, the page states that the Proclamation “is not retroactive,” and that while “[r]outine visas [sic] services have been suspended at U.S. posts worldwide,” “as resources allow, embassies and consulates will continue to provide emergency and mission critical visa services for applicants who may be eligible for an exception under this presidential proclamation.” However, the webpage provides no guidance as to how an immigrant may demonstrate eligibility for one of the enumerated exceptions, particularly the exceptions that must be determined by a Cabinet Secretary or the Attorney General, or by a designee.
HARMS OF AGING OUT, EXACERBATED BY THE PROCLAMATION
17 U.S. Dep’t of State, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, (Apr. 23, 2020), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/ProclamationSuspending-Entry-of-Immigrants-Who-Present-Risk-to-the-US-labor-market.html (last visited on May 27, 2020). A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
29

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 30 of 53
78. As noted above, the INA contains certain structural advantages that prioritize the family unity of parents with their minor children, including more generous visa allocations for minor children that are not subject to the per-country caps of 8 U.S.C. § 1152, which can create significant processing backlogs and queues. Parents already in the United States who are sponsoring minor children are thus able to reunite with them far more quickly than with other familial relations. Parents who are outside the United States and seeking to immigrate are allowed to bring their children with them as derivatives and maintain their family’s unity.
79. The benefits of these structural advantages, however, disappear once a minor child turns 21. If the child has not received an immigrant visa by then, the now-adult child is considered to have “aged out” of his or her visa preference category.
80. For lawful permanent residents who have sponsored minor children for “F2A” family preference visas, aging out means that their now-adult child will automatically “convert” to the “F2B” family preference category for the adult children of lawful permanent residents. Although the sponsored aged-out child of a lawful permanent resident will retain his or her “priority date” and his or her visa petition will remain pending, aging out means that the nowadult child will be effectively reassigned from a preference category (F2A) with virtually no queue, and with far more available visas, to a preference category (F2B) with a decades-long queue, for which far fewer visas are issued annually, subject to annual per-country limits. All these factors contribute to waiting periods that are years, sometimes decades, long. Prospective immigrants from oversubscribed countries such as China, Mexico, India, and the Philippines can wait for decades.
81. The consequences are even more severe for any other family-, employment-, “U,” or diversity-based visa applicant seeking to immigrate with, or to bring a child to the United
30

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 31 of 53
States as, a derivative. If a derivative child ages out before his or her principal parent receives a visa in these preference categories, the child has no recourse: the child’s visa petition does not automatically convert to another preference category, and the child loses his or her priority date and the opportunity to come to the United States to reunite with his or her parent. An aged-out derivative child must therefore find a new, independent basis to immigrate, or the parent must file a new, family-based petition for the child—most likely in the F2B family preference category, for the adult children of lawful permanent residents. In either event, the time spent waiting for the principal parent’s visa is entirely lost, and a new visa petition would place the now-adult child at the end of the queue in any immigrant visa preference category for which the child qualifies. Processing backlogs for adult visa preference categories are so long that the parent would, in all likelihood, not be able to reunite with his or her child for a decade or more, and possibly for his or her entire lifetime.
82. Although the Proclamation expires by its own terms in 60 days, its suspension of the nation’s immigrant visa system amplifies the risk of aging out for sponsored minor children who will turn 21 during its effective period by effectively imposing a new, possibly insurmountable admissibility requirement—i.e., qualifying for one of the Proclamation’s limited exceptions—that the child must meet before he or she turns 21. As the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez has already advised Plaintiff Mirna S., the only likely exception available to minor, soonto-age-out children under the Proclamation is the “national interest” exception. Defendants, however, have provided no guidance on how a visa applicant may apply for such an exception, nor have they provided any guidance on what a visa applicant must show to qualify for such an exception.
31

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 32 of 53
83. This absence of guidance is particularly consequential given the speed with which the Proclamation was announced, was signed, became effective, and was implemented. The cumulative effect of the lack of guidance, on top of the lack of advance notice of the Proclamation’s scope and effect, is that children at risk of aging out—and thus at risk of losing their opportunity to immigrate to the United States to be with their families, in some instances for the rest of their lives—must appear for an emergency consular interview to seek a “national interest” exception to the Proclamation without knowing how to do so, without knowing whether they even qualify, and without having any meaningful opportunity to develop, acquire, or document the traits, skills, experience, references, or other qualifications that would allow them to establish eligibility for that exception.
84. Moreover, although many sponsoring United States citizens and lawful permanent residents schedule emergency visa processing for children at risk of aging out well before those children’s 21st birthdays, the speed with which the Proclamation was signed and implemented all but guaranteed that such prophylactic actions would not be able to secure a timely visa for a soon-to-age-out child before the Proclamation went into effect because of the Proclamation’s imposition of a new admissibility requirement for that child.
85. Despite being aware of the draconian consequences that a minor child faces if he or she has the misfortune to turn 21 during the Proclamation’s effective period, cannot establish eligibility for an exception, and is forced to age out solely because of the Proclamation’s temporary entry suspension, Defendants have taken no steps to address or alleviate these consequences.
86. Indeed, shortly after the Proclamation went into effect, the plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump, No. 3:19-cv-01743 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2019), sought a temporary restraining order from the
32

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 33 of 53
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under the All Writs Act, asking the court to restrain the implementation and enforcement of the Proclamation specifically as to children who would age out during the Proclamation’s effective period. The plaintiffs in Doe asked to enjoin the Proclamation only to the extent that its entry suspension would prevent such children from accessing emergency consular processing services that enable them to receive their visas on an expedited basis and therefore avoid aging out of their visa preference category.
87. During attempts to meet and confer on the motion18, the government defendants in that case represented that emergency consular processing services would continue to be available but that Presidential Proclamation 10014 would apply to age-out children who request emergency interviews. According to the government defendants, children at imminent risk of aging out would be required to show, to the satisfaction of a consular officer during their emergency interview, that they fall within the scope of the Presidential Proclamation 10014’s “national interest” exception or another one of the limited exceptions. At the time of the telephonic conferral, the government defendants had not instructed or explained to consular officers or the public how consular officers are to make a determination that an individual satisfies the requirements of the “national interest” exception, or under what circumstances such a showing would be possible.
88. At oral argument on the TRO motion, counsel for the government represented that children at risk of aging out would still be able to request emergency consular processing, notwithstanding the reduction in consular services due to the pandemic—but “[d]uring the [consular] interview, of course, the applicant would have to establish eligibility for an exception
18 Some of the undersigned counsel in this case are also counsel for the plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump.
33

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 34 of 53

under the Proclamation.”19 Although the government’s counsel acknowledged the severe consequences of aging out, counsel nevertheless affirmed that a “categorical exception” for children at risk of aging out during the Proclamation’s effective period was not available because “the consular officers, just like any other kind of visa eligibility factor, are going to make that decision during the interview on a case-by-case basis,” and “[t]he national interest exception is definitely available to people who are going to age out.”20
89. Approximately three weeks after the government represented in Doe that a “categorical exception” was simply unavailable to provide relief for the finite number of children who would turn 21 and age out during the Proclamation’s effective period if they could not establish eligibility for an exception, Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf issued a “National Interest Exemption” on May 22, 2020, categorically excepting foreign professional athletes and “their essential staff and dependents” from Presidential Proclamations Nos. 9984, 9992, 9993, and 9996, which—due to COVID-19 concerns—suspended the entry of aliens who had been physically present in certain countries within 14 days before seeking entry to the United States.21

19 A declaration by a State Department employee, filed in support of the government’s opposition to the temporary restraining order requests, also confirmed that a consular post “may continue to schedule interviews, as resources allow, for mission critical and emergency cases where a post determines the applicant may qualify for an exception under the Presidential Proclamation.” Decl. of Brianne Marwaha, ECF 137-2, ¶ 4, Doe v. Trump, No. 3:19-cv-01743 (D. Or. 2020).

20 The district court ultimately denied the emergency TRO motion on procedural grounds, without reaching the merits. Specifically, the court found an insufficient connection between the Proclamation and the underlying claims in Doe v. Trump, such that the Proclamation at issue here would not so “interfere with the Court’s jurisdiction” in that case as to render an injunction under the All Writs Act appropriate.

21

U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., NATIONAL INTEREST EXEMPTION FROM PRESIDENTIAL

PROCLAMATIONS 9984, 9992, 9993, AND 9996 REGARDING NOVEL CORONAVIRUS FOR CERTAIN

PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES AND THEIR ESSENTIAL STAFF AND DEPENDENTS (May 22, 2020),

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0522_national-interest-exemption.pdf;

see also U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Acting Secretary Wolf Signs Exemption Allowing Entry

34

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 35 of 53
90. Like the Proclamation that Plaintiffs are challenging here, Proclamations Nos. 9984, 9992, 9993, and 9996 are entry suspensions issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), and include “an exception for ‘any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees.’” Id. Pursuant to this language, Acting Secretary Wolf found that “[p]rofessional sporting events provide powerful first- and second-order benefits to the national economy” and “also provide intangible benefits to the national interest, including civic pride and national unity.” As a result, Acting Secretary Wolf determined that “it is in the national interest to except from Proclamations 9984, 9992, 9993, and 996, aliens who compete in professional sporting events organized by certain professional sporting groups, including their professional staff, team and league leadership, spouses, and dependents.” Id.22
91. To date, Plaintiffs are unaware of any public guidance that Defendants have issued, either to prospective immigrants or to consular officers, on how a consular officer should process the visa application of a child at risk of aging out; on how and whether a consular officer consider if that child meets the “national interest” exception, or any other exception, to the Proclamation; or on how a prospective immigrant may demonstrate his or her eligibility for, or otherwise seek, any of the Proclamation’s exceptions. Apart from the foreign professional athletes identified in the exemption signed by Acting Secretary Wolf on May 22, 2020, Plaintiffs are unaware of any announcement, from either the Secretary of State or the Acting Secretary of
of Certain Foreign Professional Athletes into the US (May 22, 2020), https://www.dhs.gov/news /2020/05/22/acting-secretary-wolf-signs-exemption-allowing-entry-certain-foreign-professional. 22 Professional athletes typically enter the country on P1A nonimmigrant visas, and so are not typically affected by the Proclamation’s restriction on the entry of aliens as immigrants.
35

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 36 of 53
Homeland Security, establishing that the entry of a class of individuals is categorically in the national interest and therefore excepted from entry suspensions issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
92. Notwithstanding Congress’s express intent that the family unity of minor children and their parents be a priority under the INA’s visa allocation system, and that minor children deserve relief from the draconian consequences of aging out, as expressed through the CSPA, Defendants have given every indication that the Proclamation can and will be enforced against minor children who will turn 21 during the Proclamation’s effective period, and that such children must establish eligibility under one of the Proclamation’s exceptions to receive a visa and avoid aging out. The Proclamation’s enforcement against Plaintiff Gomez and his daughter, Plaintiff Mirna S. and her daughter, and Plaintiff Vincenta S. and her grandson, will cause Plaintiffs and their loved ones substantial, concrete, and particularized injury. If these children cannot establish before a consular officer that they meet one of the Proclamation’s exceptions, they will be denied a visa and will age out of their current visa preference category. As a result, the Proclamation will permanently separate close family members and inflict irreparable harm.
93. Plaintiff Domingo Arreguin Gomez is a United States lawful permanent resident who sponsored his wife for an immigrant visa shortly after they were married in 2016. His wife received her immigrant visa in January 2020, and her daughter Alondra—Plaintiff Gomez’s stepdaughter, who currently lives in Mexico—is an F2A “follow-to-join” beneficiary on her visa application.
94. Alondra is 20 years old and will turn 21 on June 15, 2020. Plaintiff Gomez’s wife contacted the United States consulate in Ciudad Juarez on April 16, 2020, to schedule an emergency visa interview for Alondra. The family hoped that she would be able to appear for her interview and be granted her follow-to-join immigrant visa on an expedited basis. Unfortunately,
36

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 37 of 53
the consulate refused to schedule an interview at that time because Alondra’s Mexican passport had expired.
95. The family took immediate steps to renew Alondra’s passport, but it was difficult because, by that time, the Mexican government had begun limiting certain operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Mexican government canceled Alondra’s initial passport appointment on April 28, 2020, because of COVID-19 concerns.
96. After the family learned about the Presidential Proclamation in late April from Plaintiff Gomez’s immigration attorney, and realized that the Proclamation’s 60-day effective period would include Alondra’s twenty-first birthday, the family and their immigration attorney redoubled their efforts to renew Alondra’s passport on an emergency basis so that she could seek an emergency visa interview from the Ciudad Juarez consulate.
97. Alondra was finally able to renew her Mexican passport on May 13, 2020. On that same day, she called the consulate to try and schedule an emergency consular interview, but she was told to wait five business days for a response. After receiving no further contact from the consulate after five business days, Alondra called again, multiple times, in the next few days. On May 22, 2020, the consulate told Alondra to file paperwork and pay the immigrant visa fee online, but the Department of State’s Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) has blocked her online access to her application. She and her stepfather’s attorney have contacted the National Visa Center and the U.S. consulate in Mexico on an almost-daily basis since that time, but have received no response.
98. When Alondra is able to complete her application and schedule an emergency visa interview, she will still be subject to the Proclamation, and will thus be unable to obtain a visa unless she is able to satisfy one of the Proclamation’s exceptions. Apart from the
37

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 38 of 53
Proclamation, Plaintiff Gomez and his attorney are unaware of any reason why Alondra would be refused a visa. If she does not receive a visa before June 15, 2020, she will age out of eligibility for an F2A visa.
99. Alondra and her parents have a very close relationship, and she depends on them for support. Alondra is a single mother, and she and her four-year-old son, who is a U.S. citizen, rely on Alondra’s parents for childcare. Alondra speaks to Plaintiff Gomez and his wife daily, and they are anxious for her to come live with them in the United States. Currently, Alondra is very busy working and attending school, and it is difficult for her to work, go to school, and provide care for her son. Before her mother, Plaintiff Gomez’s wife, left Mexico, her mother was the primary caretaker for Alondra’s son while Alondra was working or in class. Since Alondra’s family moved to the United States, and Alondra was forced to stay in Mexico, it has been very difficult for her, as a single mother, to find adequate childcare.
100. It is also difficult for Plaintiff Gomez and his wife to have some family members in the United States but others, including Alondra and their grandson, in Mexico. Plaintiff Gomez and his wife are able to visit Mexico occasionally, but it is difficult to go back and forth very often. It is important to Plaintiff Gomez and his family that Alondra be able to apply for and receive a visa soon, so that they can reunite with, and provide support for, Alondra and her son. Their family is devastated that they cannot be together.
101. Plaintiff Mirna S. is a United States lawful permanent resident who received a U nonimmigrant visa in 2013 because she was the victim of severe domestic violence and cooperated with law enforcement to investigate and pursue the prosecution of her former partner who physically and sexually abused her for four years.
38

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 39 of 53
102. When Mirna S. applied for her U nonimmigrant visa, she filed derivative applications for the three children she had been forced to leave behind in Mexico when she came to the United States to earn money to support her family. Despite her best attempts, however, she was unable to locate the father of her older child or the father of her two younger children to obtain their consent for the children to be issued passports, or to give them notice so she could gain legal custody of the children. She was only able to sponsor her oldest daughter for a “U” derivative visa once that daughter was old enough to no longer to require parental consent for a passport.
103. After remaining in the United States continuously for three years and satisfying all other requirements, Mirna S. was able to adjust status and receive a Green Card in September 2018. Shortly thereafter, she filed an I-929 petition to sponsor her younger daughter for an SU-3 immigrant visa.
104. The I-929 petition for Mirna’s daughter, M.T.S., was approved on June 27, 2019, and Mirna S. worked to prepare and submit the visa application for M.T.S., along with all the required supporting documentation, in the next few months. She completed the submission of all documents necessary to approve the SU-3 visa by November 13, 2019, at which time she alerted the NVC that M.T.S. would turn 21 on June 23, 2020. Mirna S.’s immigration attorney received a letter on December 13, 2019, stating that M.T.S. was ready to be scheduled for a consular interview.
105. Notwithstanding this December 2019 letter, the consulate ultimately did not contact M.T.S. to schedule an interview until nearly five months later, on May 13, 2020—and this was only after Mirna S.’s attorney contacted the National Visa Center multiple times; submitted an Expedite Request to the NVC; reminded the NVC of Section 402.6-6(K) of the
39

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 40 of 53
State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which requires the State Department to process SU3 visa cases as quickly as possible when the applicant is close to aging out; and ultimately resorted to asking United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to inquire, also multiple times, with the State Department about the status of M.T.S.’s visa application. In total, Senator Gillibrand’s office contacted the State Department about M.T.S.’s visa application and scheduling an emergency consular interview at least five separate times over two and a half months, on February 26, March 6, April 17, May 1, and May 11.
106. Finally, on May 13, 2020, Mirna S. received a call from the consulate, informing her that she had been scheduled for an emergency visa appointment on June 5, ten days before her 21st birthday.
107. In an e-mail to Senator Gillibrand’s office, which Senator Gillibrand’s office subsequently forwarded to Mirna S.’s attorney, the consulate provided details about M.T.S.’s emergency visa interview. The consulate’s e-mail included the following statement: “Please note that approval of this visa classification is currently suspended under Presidential Proclamation 10014 Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market, in effect as of April 23, 2020. Visa approval for this case will require a national interest exception. There is no guarantee that this exception will be granted, even if the visa is otherwise issuable at the time of interview.”
108. On May 14, at the Consulate’s suggestion and with assistance from Senator Gillibrand’s office, Mirna S.’s attorney rescheduled M.T.S.’s emergency appointment to May 29, 2020.
109. Mirna S.’s attorney is not aware of any reason why the consulate would refuse issuing M.T.S. a visa apart from the Proclamation. The fact that USCIS approved Mirna S.’s I-
40

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 41 of 53
929 visa petition for M.T.S. represents that she prima facie qualifies for a visa, and Mirna S.’s attorney is not aware of any grounds of inadmissibility that might prevent her from receiving a visa.
110. Nevertheless, Mirna S. understands that the consulate may not find that M.T.S. qualifies for a “national interest” exception and deny M.T.S. a visa, which would mean that M.T.S. would age out and no longer qualify for an SU-3 visa once she turns 21. If this happens, Mirna S. is aware that she may not reunite with M.T.S. for many years, and possibly not ever before Mirna S. herself dies, because of the limited number of visas available and the extreme backlogs for the “F2B” family preference category for the adult children of lawful permanent residents.
111. The possibility that M.T.S. might age out and not receive her visa now is devastating to Mirna S. She and her children were all victims of domestic violence in Mexico at the hands of M.T.S.’s stepfather, the father of Mirna S.’s older daughter, who was both physically and verbally abusive to Mirna S. and the two girls; sexually abused Mirna S.’s older daughter when M.T.S. was only four years old; and harassed both girls for years. M.T.S. often feels her stepfather is watching and following her; she will only feel safe when she is able to leave Mexico and reunite with Mirna S. in the United States.
112. After her family has suffered so much abuse and hardship, it pains Mirna S. that she and her daughters—all survivors of domestic violence—may not be able to reunite and heal together as a family. It is also painful for Mirna S. that she may be separated from M.T.S. as she grows up and builds an independent life for herself. Although the family communicates by phone and WhatsApp as often as possible, phone and video conversations are not the same for Mirna S. as being able to hold M.T.S. and know that she is safe in the United States.
41

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 42 of 53
113. Plaintiff Vicenta S. is a United States citizen who sponsored her son for an immigrant visa almost sixteen years ago, on July 15, 2004. Her petition was approved on February 10, 2006 and includes her son’s wife and children—Vicenta S.’s daughter-in-law and grandchildren—as derivative beneficiaries on that approved visa petition. After the petition was approved, they had to wait for years for a visa to become available in the third preference familybased visa category. The family was finally able to submit immigrant visa applications and all the necessary supporting documentation for Vicenta S.’s son, wife, and children on March 10, 2020. Vicenta S.’s attorney alerted the National Visa Center and the United States Embassy in El Salvador that Vicenta S.’s grandson, W.Z.A., is 20 years old and will turn 21 on June 30, 2020. Shortly after the family submitted their visa applications, the consulate contacted them sometime in March to schedule the family for their consular interview on April 30, 2020.
114. On April 1, 2020, however, the family received an email notifying them that their interview was cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vicenta S,’s office called and emailed both the NVC and the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador multiple times between April 1 and April 20 to try and get an interview for the family back on the calendar, but the consulate never responded.
115. Finally, on April 20, with W.Z.A. due to age out in just over two months, Vicenta S.’s attorney reached out to her United States congressperson, Representative Cindy Axne. Representative Axne’s office said it would look into Vicenta S.’s case the very next day, April 21. The Proclamation was issued on April 22, and then went into effect on April 23.
116. Vicenta S.’s attorney has since repeatedly followed up on an interview for W.Z.A. before his 21st birthday. If the family is able to schedule his visa interview before his 21st birthday and while the Proclamation is in effect, he will be subject to the Proclamation’s entry
42

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 43 of 53
suspension and be required to show he qualifies for one of the Proclamation’s exceptions. Vicenta S. fears that if her grandson is not able to receive his visa and come to the United States now, she may never be reunited with him before she dies, given her age and health and how long her grandson would have to wait for another opportunity to apply for a visa.
117. Being separated indefinitely from W.Z.A. would be devastating for Vicenta and her son. She sees her son suffering from the separation from W.Z.A., and she herself suffers; she is all too aware that the time she has left to spend with her grandson is running out. Although the family speaks with W.Z.A. on the phone as often as possible, it is not the same as being together. It pains Vicenta S., in the last years of her life, not to be with her grandson, and to see her son suffering because he cannot be with W.Z.A. as he grows up.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 118. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and all other persons for whom Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation interferes with their reunification with sponsored children and sponsored derivative child relatives. The individual plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of: All individual immigrant sponsors with approved immigrant visa petitions for a child, including for derivative child relatives in applicable preference categories, with a “current” priority date while the Proclamation is in effect; and whose sponsored child or sponsored derivative child relative is subject to the Proclamation and will, as a result of the Proclamation, age out of his or her current visa preference category by turning 21 years old while the Proclamation remains in effect.
43

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 44 of 53
119. Plaintiffs seek to represent the above-described class for all claims. 120. This action meets all of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for maintaining a class action. 121. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, satisfying Rule 23(a)(1). For example, according to the Department of State’s Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family- and Employment Based Preference Categories as of November 1, 2019, the number of individuals who are waiting in line to receive a visa in the F2A preference category alone was 182,156. Many of those who are waiting in line are children at imminent risk of aging out. Moreover, a class action is the only appropriate procedural avenue for the protections of the class members’ rights. 122. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law and fact and will not require individualized determinations of the circumstances to any plaintiff, satisfying Rule 23(a)(2). Such common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to:
a. Whether the Proclamation and Defendants’ actions taken to implement the Proclamation exceed the statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act;
b. Whether the Proclamation and Defendants’ actions taken to implement it violate Plaintiffs’ right to procedural due process under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
c. Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamation, Defendants relied on factors Congress did not intend for them to consider;
d. Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamation, Defendants failed to consider important aspects of the problem they sought to address;
44

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 45 of 53
e. Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamation, Defendants explained its decision in a manner contrary to the evidence before them;
f. Whether Defendants quantified or considered harms that would result from the Proclamation and its implementation; and
g. Whether class members have suffered harm as a result of the Proclamation and Defendants’ actions taken to implement it.
123. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the Plaintiff Class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3). Like other members of the class, Plaintiffs have been harmed, among other things, by Defendants’ failure to abide by statutory limitations on their actions, thereby leading to arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful action that fails to account for important aspects of the supposed problems the Proclamation seeks to address. Plaintiffs have further been harmed by Defendants’ failure adequately to explain their decision to issue and implement the Proclamation, to account for the reliance interests at stake, or to explain why children who will turn 21 will alleviate the flawed economic rationale for suspension of their entry. Each of these actions, independently and collectively, have caused harm to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class.
124. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(4). The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may become antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiff Class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiffs include experienced civil rights and immigration attorneys who are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
45

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 46 of 53
125. The members of the proposed class are readily ascertainable through Defendants’ records.
126. Counsel for Plaintiffs do not anticipate any conflicts of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the other class members, nor does Counsel anticipate any reason that the other class members would dispute the adequacy of Counsel’s representation.
127. Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
128. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may therefore by properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs, Including the Class) 129. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 130. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), courts must “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “not in accordance with law,” “contrary to constitutional right,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” or that is “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D).
46

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 47 of 53

131. Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation, including through informing

visa applicants of the Proclamation and its operation, will result in a direct impact on the rights

of qualified prospective immigrants and constitute final agency action(s) within the meaning of

the Administrative Procedure Act. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).

132. Defendants’ actions violate the APA in at least the following respects:

(i)

Defendants failed to reasonably justify their departure from settled

practice for the allocation of immigrant visas on a per annum basis.

(ii)

Defendants failed to address conflicts with other laws and legislative

intent, including but not limited to the specific scheme Congress mandated

in the INA through provisions within 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153(a)-(b),

1184(p)(7); and numerous regulations duly promulgated under these and

other laws.

(iii)

Defendants implemented the Proclamation in a manner that is not

“consistent with applicable law” for a number of reasons, including that

their actions will effectively override the protections and priorities that

Congress has specifically extended to minor children to maintain their

family unity with their parents, without notice, in a manner that is vague,

arbitrary, and unsupported by the evidence.

(iv)

Defendants did not quantify or consider the harms that will result from

their implementation of the Proclamation.

(v)

Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation’s “national interest”

exception, without guidance regarding the exception’s meaning and

application, is impermissibly vague, arbitrary, and capricious.

47

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 48 of 53

(vi)

Defendants have acted in excess of any statutory grant of authority under

8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) where Congress did not and could not constitutionally

delegate unfettered discretion to the President to indefinitely rewrite the

immigration laws, allow for suspensions that are unconstitutional and/or

unsupported by adequate findings, or impose suspensions that effectively

eliminate the protections and priorities that Congress has specifically

included in the INA to allow minor children to maintain their family unity

with their parents;

133. Defendants’ actions implementing the Proclamation are based on legal error; fail

to consider all relevant factors; and lack a rational explanation and are therefore arbitrary and

capricious and an abuse of discretion, in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

134. Defendants’ actions implementing the Proclamation are contrary to constitutional

rights and deprive Plaintiffs of due process, thereby violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

135. Defendants’ actions implementing the Proclamation are ultra vires and in excess

of any authority granted by the Proclamation, regulation, or statute, and not otherwise in

accordance with law in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).

136. Defendants’ actions are without good cause.

137. Defendants’ violation of the APA causes ongoing harm to Plaintiffs.

138. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Ultra Vires

48

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 49 of 53
(On behalf of All Plaintiffs, Including the Class) 139. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 140. The Proclamation is unlawful, unconstitutionally vague and therefore ultra vires for the reasons provided in Claim 1. See, e.g., Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Aid Ass’n for Lutherans v. U.S. Postal Serv., 321 F.3d 1166, 1172, 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 141. The Constitution, Article III, § 1, provides that the “judicial Power of the United States” is vested exclusively in this Court and the lower federal courts. A core component of that judicial power is “‘the duty of interpreting [the laws] and applying them in cases properly brought before the courts.’” Patchak v. Zinke, 138 S. Ct. 897, 904 (2018) (plurality) (quoting Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923)). 142. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803); see also Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 22 (1825) (“[T]he legislature makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes the law”); The Federalist No. 78, at 467 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). 143. Courts “ordinarily presume that Congress intends the executive to obey its statutory commands and, accordingly, that it expects the courts to grant relief when an executive agency violates such a command.” Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 681 (1986); see Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 187-88 (1993) (same); Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 310 (1944) (courts retain “the responsibility of determining the limits of statutory grants of authority . . . [this] is a judicial function entrusted to the courts by Congress by the statutes establishing courts and marking their jurisdiction.”).
49

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 50 of 53
144. The President’s attempt to suspend the entry of certain immigrants, including children and derivative children relatives who are sponsored by United States citizens and lawful permanent residents and who will turn 21 during the Proclamation’s effective period, without notice and in contravention of the benefits and priorities Congress has extended to such minor children, exceeds the scope of Congress’s permissible delegated power to the President under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a).
145. The President’s attempt to indefinitely ban certain immigrants including children and derivative children relatives who are sponsored by United States citizens and lawful permanent residents and who will turn 21 during the Proclamation’s effective period, without notice and in contravention of the benefits and priorities Congress has extended to such minor children, violates constitutional separation of powers principles because it usurps Congress’s authority and its expressed intent to allow for the entry of individual immigrants to further the goals of family reunification.
146. Accordingly, the Court should set aside the President’s Proclamation as ultra vires because it eliminates, for Plaintiffs with children and derivative children relative beneficiaries of immigrant visas who will turn 21 within or soon after the Proclamation’s 60-day effective period, the preference and priority Congress specifically included in the INA to preserve the family unity of parents and their minor children, without adequate notice.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Due Process
(On behalf of All Plaintiffs, Including the Class) 147. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
50

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 51 of 53
148. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person will “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
149. United States lawful permanent residents have constitutionally protected liberty interests in family reunification with their children.
150. Individuals must be given due process prior to any deprivation of these liberty interests.
151. Congress has created statutory rights relating to the petitioning for and issuance of visas and other immigration benefits.
152. Federal agencies have created regulatory rights related to the petitioning for and issuance of visas and other immigration benefits.
153. Individuals must be given due process prior to the deprivation of these statutory and regulatory rights.
154. The Proclamation, and Defendants’ implementation thereof, unconstitutionally deny Plaintiffs their constitutional, statutory, and regulatory rights by preventing consideration of their visa petitions and thereby foreclosing their reunification with their children without any legal process whatsoever—let alone the process that they are due under the Fifth Amendment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from implementing or enforcing any part of the Proclamation so as to deny or refuse consideration of Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ visa petitions on behalf of their children;
51

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 52 of 53 B. A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Proclamation is unlawful and
invalid as to Plaintiffs and their children, and as to the proposed class; C. An order awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and
expenses pursuant to any applicable law; D. Such other relief as this Court deems equitable, just, and proper.
52

Case 1:20-cv-01419 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 53 of 53

Dated: May 28, 2020
Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) American Immigration Lawyers Association 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice forthcoming) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice forthcoming) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice forthcoming) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ JAC Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 labonihoq@gmail.com
Stephen Manning (pro hac vice forthcoming) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice forthcoming) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice forthcoming) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Andrew J. Pincus
Andrew J. Pincus (D.D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice forthcoming) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 mingber@mayerbrown.com
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice forthcoming) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de Mexico, 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com

53

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 20-cv-01419 (APM)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as )

President of the United States of America, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs in this action are United States citizens and lawful permanent residents whose

children and grandchildren (“beneficiaries”) were, at the time this litigation commenced, all

“minors”—meaning unmarried children under the age of 21—seeking immigrant visas to enter

this country. Each beneficiary has since turned or will turn 21 years old this month. Two have

received their visas since Plaintiffs filed this action, and Plaintiffs concede that their individual

claims relating to those beneficiaries’ applications are now moot. As for the third beneficiary,

W.Z.A., Plaintiffs fear that if he does not receive his visa and enter the country before his birthday

on June 30, he will “age out” of his minor visa preference category.

What prompted Plaintiffs’ filing of this suit is Presidential Proclamation 10014, Suspension

of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the

Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, 85 Fed. Reg. 23,441 (Apr.

22, 2020) (“Proclamation” or “Proclamation 10014”). Presidential Proclamation 10014 halts

processing of certain categories of immigrant visas, including the beneficiary-based visas at issue

in this case. Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order preventing Defendants from enforcing

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 21
Proclamation 10014 against minor visa applicants who will turn 21 years old during the Proclamation’s effective period. The minor visa applicants are sponsored by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated United States citizen and lawful permanent resident parents. Plaintiffs also request that this court certify a class of visa sponsors whose beneficiaries or derivative beneficiaries are subject to the Proclamation and will also age out while the Proclamation remains in effect. Because Plaintiffs have not shown that this action presents a justiciable case or controversy, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motions.
I. Background A. Proclamation 10014 On April 22, 2020, President Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10014, which temporarily suspends the “entry into the United States” of certain classes of immigrants who did not already have a valid immigrant visa or travel document as of April 23, 2020, the effective date of the Proclamation. 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,442–43 §§ 1, 2(a), 5. The Proclamation cites various justifications, rooted in economic harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, to justify temporarily suspending entry of new permanent residents. First among those reasons is protecting unemployed American workers against competition in the labor market from new permanent residents. See 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,441–42. The Proclamation states that “we must be mindful of the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in an environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor,” and highlights the need to protect in particular “workers at the margin between employment and unemployment, who are typically ‘last in’ during an economic expansion and ‘first out’ during an economic contraction.” Id. at 23,441. The Proclamation also identifies an overburdened healthcare system as reason to halt inflow of new permanent residents: “[I]ntroducing additional
2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 21
permanent residents when our healthcare resources are limited puts strain on the finite limits of our healthcare system at a time when we need to prioritize Americans and the existing immigrant population.” Id. at 23,442. Finally, the Proclamation cites the need to preserve State Department resources as a reason to put a pause on entry, “so that consular officers may continue to provide services to United States citizens abroad.” Id. at 23,441.
For these reasons, the President suspended entry of specified classes of immigrants for an initial 60-day period starting April 23, 2020, though the suspension “may be continued as necessary.” Id. at 23,443 §§ 4–5. As relevant here, the Proclamation temporarily suspends entry of most immigrants with family-based visas. See id at 23,442–43 § 2. The Proclamation provides an exception, however, for “any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees”— which the court will refer to as the “national interest exception.” Id. at 23,443 § 2(b)(ix). The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security are tasked with implementing the Proclamation as it applies to visas and aliens, respectively. Id. at 23,443 § 3.
On June 22, 2020, the President issued a follow-up proclamation, which extends Proclamation 10014 through December 31, 2020, effective immediately. See Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak § 1 (June 22, 2020) (“Second Proclamation”).1 The Second Proclamation also provides that, effective June 24, 2020, “[t]he Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exercise the authority under” the national interest exception “of Proclamation 10014
1 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-aliens-present-risk-us-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/ (last accessed June 22, 2020).
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 21
to exempt alien children who would as a result of . . . the suspension in section 1 of Proclamation 10014 age out of eligibility for a visa.”2 Id. §§ 4(a)(i), 7.
B. The Family-Based Immigrant Visa Process The family-based visa program allows United States citizens and permanent residents to “sponsor” non-citizen family members, or “beneficiaries,” for immigrant visas. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153(a). The sponsor may also petition for visas for certain relatives (“derivatives”) of the principal beneficiary. Id. §§ 1153(d), 1154(a). A family member seeking to sponsor a beneficiary must file a petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See AUSTIN T. FRAGOMEN, JR. ET AL., IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES HANDBOOK § 12:2 (June 2020) [hereinafter HANDBOOK]; Pls.’ Emergency Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 21 [hereinafter Pls.’ TRO Mot.], at 3. Once the petition is approved, USCIS will forward the visa petition for consular processing at the U.S. Department of State’s National Visa Center (“NVC”). See HANDBOOK § 12:25; Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) 504.1.3 “Immediate relatives”—beneficiaries who are the spouses, parents, and unmarried children under the age of 21 of U.S. Citizens—can apply for and receive a visa as soon as USCIS approves a sponsoring petition. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(b)(1); 1151(b)(2)(A)(i); Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41, 46–48 (2014). All other family relationships, however, are classified in “preference” categories, for which Congress imposes annual limits on the number of available visas. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(c)(1), 1152, 1153(a)(1)–(4). For these preference categories, visas for beneficiaries and their derivative beneficiaries become available in order of the date the sponsor filed her petition with USCIS, and demand regularly outstrips the congressionally allocated yearly
2 The reference in the Second Proclamation to the national interest exception as being located in “section 2(b)(iv) of Proclamation 10014” appears to be a scrivener’s error. The national interest exception in Proclamation 10014 is found in section 2(b)(ix). 3 Available at https://fam.state.gov/Fam/FAM.aspx (last accessed June 22, 2020).
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 21
allotments. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. at 48. Some beneficiaries may wait years or even decades before a visa in a given preference category becomes available. Id. at 50. If and when a visa becomes available, the NVC then notifies the appropriate consular office, which will conduct an interview to confirm that the beneficiary is eligible for an immigrant visa. 9 FAM 504.1-2(d); 9 FAM 504.1-3.
This often lengthy process creates a pitfall for minor children whose visa preference categories hinge on their youth. See Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. at 50 (“[N]ot all offspring, but only those under the age of 21 can qualify as an ‘immediate relative’ of a U.S. citizen, or as the principal beneficiary of a[] [lawful permanent resident’s] petition, or . . . as the derivative beneficiary of any family preference petition.”). These beneficiaries risk “ag[ing] out”—i.e., reaching adulthood and losing their immigration status—before their visa applications are granted. Id. at 45–46. The Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”), 116 Stat. 927, partially remedies this problem by preventing eligible beneficiaries from aging out due to bureaucratic delays, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(f)(1), 1153(h); Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. at 51–53; though not all potential age-outs are automatically eligible for CSPA’s protections.
A child who “ages out” of her preferential visa eligibility may seek a visa through another preference category, but this often entails significant delays. For instance, an aged-out child of a lawful permanent resident may seek an F2B visa—a preference category available to unmarried, adult children of lawful permanent residents, which is capped at a lower number of total visas annually and subject to additional per-country limits. See 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2), (4)(C); Pls.’ TRO Mot., Ex. A., Decl. of Charles Wheeler, ECF No. 21-2 [hereinafter Wheeler Decl.], ¶¶ 2–3, 6. The queue for prospective F2B immigrants is at least several years long and even longer for immigrants
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 21
from oversubscribed countries. See Pls.’ TRO Mot. at 5–6. The estimated wait time for an F2B immigrant from Mexico, for instance, is approximately 67 years. Wheeler Decl. ¶ 9.
To avoid these drastic consequences of aging out, the State Department’s policy is to prioritize children whose applications are “current” (i.e., a visa is immediately available through the appropriate queue), but who are about to age out of immediate eligibility. See, e.g., 7 FAM 1812.4-2.b(4); 9 FAM 402.6-6(K)(d); 9 FAM 502.2-3(C)(c)(1). Though the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension of routine visa processing worldwide, see Suspension of Routine Visa Services, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE – BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS (Mar. 20, 2020),4 the State Department “considers age-out cases to be mission critical services that may be eligible for a national interest exception . . . and thus may continue to be scheduled for [an] interview at [the U.S. consulate or embassy] as resources allow.” See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ TRO Mot., ECF No. 30 [hereinafter Defs.’ TRO Opp’n], Ex. 2, Decl. of Brianne Marwaha, ECF No. 30-2 [hereinafter Marwaha Decl.], ¶¶ 2, 4–5.
C. Plaintiffs’ and Their Families’ Visa Applications Plaintiffs Domingo Arreguin Gomez, Mirna S., and Vicenta S.5 are family-based visa sponsors of minor beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries who have turned or will turn 21 this month. Compl., ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], ¶¶ 23–25. Plaintiffs fear that Defendants’ enforcement of the Proclamation against the minor beneficiaries will cause them to age out of their minor preference categories before they receive visas and enter the United States, causing Plaintiffs to remain separated from their loved ones for years, or possibly for the rest of their lives. See Pls.’ TRO Mot. at 1–2, 21–23.
4 Available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-routine-visa-services.html (last accessed June 23, 2020). 5 Plaintiffs Mirna S. and Vicenta S. are proceeding under pseudonyms. See 6/5/2020 Minute Order.
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 21
1. Domingo Arreguin Gomez and Alondra Lead Plaintiff Domingo Arreguin Gomez is a lawful permanent resident of Mexican origin. See Pls.’ TRO Mot., Ex. F, Decl. of Domingo Arreguin Gomez, ECF 21-14 [hereinafter Gomez Decl.], ¶ 1. Gomez sponsored his wife for an immigrant visa, and his stepdaughter, Alondra, was a derivative child beneficiary of Gomez’s wife’s visa application. Id. ¶ 4. Alondra’s 21st birthday was on June 15, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 7, 11. On April 20, 2020, the United States Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico denied Alondra’s request for an expedited appointment after determining that she qualified for relief under CSPA, which would allow her to immigrate to the United States under the minor preference category even after she turned 21 years old. See Defs.’ TRO Opp’n, Ex. 4, Decl. of Linda Neilan Dus, ECF No. 30-4 [hereinafter Second Dus Decl.], ¶¶ 6–7; see also Gomez Decl. ¶ 10. On June 4, 2020, the U.S. Consulate General found that its earlier determination that Alondra was eligible for CSPA was incorrect. Second Dus Decl. ¶ 8. The U.S. Consulate General contacted Alondra the following day to schedule an expedited visa interview. Id. ¶ 10. On June 9, 2020, the consular officer determined that Alondra had established her eligibility for a national interest exception under the Proclamation and issued her a visa before her 21st birthday. Id. ¶ 11.
2. Mirna S. and M.T.S. Plaintiff Mirna S. is a United States lawful permanent resident of Mexican origin. See Pls.’ TRO Mot., Ex. C., Decl. of Mirna S., ECF No. 21-9 [hereinafter Mirna Decl.], ¶ 1. Mirna S.’s daughter, M.T.S., is turning 21 years old today, on June 23, 2020. Id. ¶ 11. Mirna S. filed a petition to sponsor M.T.S.’s visa application in November 2018, and USCIS approved the petition in June 2019. Id. ¶ 10. Mirna S. and M.T.S. submitted M.T.S.’s visa application and required documentation to the NVC in November 2019. Id. ¶ 11. NVC notified Mirna S. the following
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 21
month that M.T.S. was ready to be scheduled for a visa interview at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. On May 12, 2020, the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez scheduled an expedited immigrant visa appointment for M.T.S. for June 5, 2020, which was subsequently moved up to May 29, 2020. Id. ¶ 13; see also Defs.’ TRO Opp’n, Ex. 3, Decl. of Linda Neilan Dus, ECF No. 30-3 [hereinafter First Dus Decl.], ¶ 2. At M.T.S.’s interview, the consular officer refused M.T.S.’s application under Presidential Proclamation 10014; however, the officer noted he intended to pursue a national interest exception. First Dus. Decl. ¶ 3. M.T.S. was granted a national interest exception on June 4, 2020, and received a visa on June 9, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.
3. Vicenta S. and W.Z.A. The third Plaintiff, Vicenta S., is a U.S. citizen of Salvadoran origin. Pls.’ TRO Mot., Ex. H, Decl. of Vicenta S., ECF No. 21-16 [hereinafter Vicenta Decl.], ¶¶ 1, 6. Vicenta S. filed a visa petition on behalf of her son, W.Z., who lives in the United States. Id. ¶ 5, 7. Vicenta S.’s grandson, W.Z.A., is one of the derivative beneficiaries of that petition. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7, 13, 14. W.Z.A. lives in El Salvador and will turn 21 on June 30, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 5, 17. W.Z. and his family completed their visa applications on March 10, 2020, and their immigrant visa interviews were scheduled to take place at the United States Embassy on April 30, 2020. Id. ¶ 17. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, El Salvador imposed a lockdown in which no one was allowed out of their homes except to buy food and medicine. See Defs.’ TRO Opp’n, Ex. 5, Decl. of William Bent, ECF No. 30-5 [hereinafter Bent Decl.], ¶ 9. Although the consulate in El Salvador continued to grant emergency interview appointments to visa applicants at risk of aging out, it was unable to do so for W.Z. and his family because they had not completed their medical appointments at the time of the lockdown and medical examinations were prohibited by the lockdown. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12–13.
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 21
W.Z. was informed on April 1, 2020, that his and his family’s visa interviews were cancelled. Vicenta Decl. ¶ 18; Bent Decl. ¶ 8.
On or about June 14 or 15, 2020, El Salvador partially lifted its lockdown orders, allowing the required medical examinations to go forward. See Bent Decl. ¶ 9; Pls.’ Reply in Further Supp. of Pls.’ TRO Mot., ECF No. 37 [hereinafter Pls.’ TRO Reply], at 3 (citing Gov’t of El Salvador, Exec. Decree No. 31, Art. 9(A)(2), 9(A)(5), 9(B)(25) (June 14, 2020)6). The U.S. Embassy in San Salvador then scheduled medical examinations for W.Z. and his family to take place on June 17, 2020, and tentatively scheduled the visa interviews for June 22, 2020. Pls.’ TRO Reply, Decl. of Brian J. Blackford, ECF No. 37-1 [hereinafter Blackford Decl.], ¶ 17. Flights are still unavailable from the United States to El Salvador, id. ¶ 25, so counsel for W.Z. asked to reschedule the interviews until after June 23, 2020—the earliest day W.Z. expects to be able reach El Salvador, id. ¶¶ 26–27; see also 6/18/2020 Draft Hr’g Tr. at 3–4.
D. Procedural Background On May 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against Defendants President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, the United States Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf. See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 26–31, 118. They filed the instant motions for a temporary restraining order and class certification on June 2, 2020. See generally Pls.’ TRO Mot.; Pls.’ Mot. for Class Cert. & Supporting Mem., ECF No. 20 [hereinafter Pls.’ Class Cert. Mot.]. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, in “implementing the Proclamation by categorically applying it to 20-year-old visa
6 Available at https://covid19.gob.sv/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Decreto-Ejecutivo-No-31.pdf (last accessed June 21, 2020).
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 21
applicants who are otherwise eligible for visas, and for whom visas are immediately available, but who will age out of their eligibility before the Proclamation expires.” Pls.’ TRO Mot. at 23–24. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
All individual immigrant sponsors with approved immigrant visa petitions for a child, including for derivative child relatives in applicable preference categories, with a “current” priority date while Presidential Proclamation 10014 is in effect; and whose sponsored child or sponsored derivative child relative is subject to the Proclamation and will, as a result of the Proclamation, age out of his or her current visa preference category by turning 21 years old while the Proclamation remains in effect. Pls.’ Class Cert. Mot. at 1. Briefing concluded on June 18, 2020, see generally Defs.’ Surreply to Pls.’ TRO Mot., ECF No. 38, and the court held a hearing on the motions the same day, see 6/18/2020 Minute Entry.
II. Standard of Review Courts analyze motions for temporary restraining orders using the same standards that apply to preliminary injunctions. See Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 319 F. Supp. 3d 70, 81 (D.D.C. 2018); Sterling Commercial Credit–Mich., LLC v. Phx. Indus. I, LLC, 762 F. Supp. 2d 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2011). These “extraordinary” remedies “should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a motion, the movant bears the burden of showing that: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Rather, a
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 21
party must be “be prepared to prove” that he has “in fact” satisfied each of the requirements of Rule 23(a), id.: (1) “the class is so numerous that joinder” is impractical (“numerosity”); (2) “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” (“commonality”); (3) the claims or defenses of the named plaintiffs “are typical of the claims or defenses of the class” (“typicality”); and (4) the named plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” (“adequacy of representation”), Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a). The movant must “also satisfy through evidentiary proof at least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b).” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013).
A plaintiff seeking either a temporary restraining order or class certification must, as a threshold matter, satisfy the justiciability requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (“[I]f none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.”); Anderson v. Green, 513 U.S. 557, 559 (1995) (vacating a preliminary injunction because “no justiciable controversy” remained before the Court). The justiciability doctrines include “standing[,] ripeness, [and] mootness.” Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). The “core component[s]” of these doctrines are “essential and unchanging part[s] of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III,” and are threshold requirements of federal courts’ jurisdiction. Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).
Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The plaintiff therefore “bears the burden of proof” of establishing jurisdiction
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 21
“with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. For a motion for temporary restraining order, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “substantial likelihood” of jurisdiction “under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.” Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity (“EPIC”), 878 F.3d 371, 377 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“T]he ‘merits’ on which [a] plaintiff must show a likelihood of success encompass not only substantive theories but also establishment of jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)). Likewise, “on a motion for class certification,” a plaintiff must demonstrate jurisdiction “through evidentiary proof.” Moore v. Apple Inc., 309 F.R.D. 532, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Comcast, 569 U.S. at 33); cf. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996) (noting that named plaintiffs’ “general allegations” of jurisdiction in their class action complaint were “irrelevant . . . for we are beyond the pleading stage”).7
III. Discussion The court does not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order and class certification motions because they have not shown at this stage in the proceedings that they have standing nor that their claims are ripe and not moot.
7 The Second Circuit evaluates standing at the class certification stage “by relying on the pleadings and ‘constru[ing] the complaint in favor of the complaining party.’” See Leber v. Citigroup 401(k) Plan Inv. Comm., 323 F.R.D. 145, 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 263 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also In re LIBORBased Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 299 F. Supp. 3d 430, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (noting that in the Second Circuit, “class standing is assessed based on allegations rather than evidence”). While that pleading standard would be appropriate in assessing a defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action representative’s complaint for lack of standing, see, e.g., Ndaba v. Obama, 697 F. Supp. 2d 75, 77 (D.D.C. 2010), at the class certification stage, the plaintiff is held to a higher burden than “a mere pleading standard,” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350.
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 21
A. Plaintiffs’ Temporary Restraining Order 1. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated a Substantial Likelihood of Standing
To have standing to bring a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must adduce record evidence establishing a substantial likelihood that “(i) they have ‘suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact, (ii) that was caused by or is fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant, and (iii) is capable of resolution and likely to be redressed by judicial decision.’” Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 913–14 (quoting Osborn v. Visa, 797 F.3d 1057, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). To be judicially cognizable, an asserted imminent injury must be “certainly impending and immediate—not remote, speculative, conjectural, or hypothetical.” Id. (quoting Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).
Plaintiffs assert an imminent injury stemming from the risk that their visa beneficiaries may age out of their minor visa preference categories “in the coming weeks rather than receive the visa for which he or she is qualified.” Pls.’ TRO Mot. at 21. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]his impending loss of eligibility to receive an immediate visa, and Plaintiffs’ consequent loss of opportunity to reunite with their family members in the United States, satisfy the injury requirement for Article III standing.” Id. Plaintiffs assert that this injury is caused by Proclamation 10014 because, despite the State Department’s policy to grant emergency consular services to applicants who may be eligible for an exception under the Proclamation, “Plaintiffs’ beneficiaries’ requests for emergency interviews have gone unfulfilled despite the fact that they are approaching their 21st birthdays.” Id. at 22.
Plaintiffs’ theory of standing founders, however, because they have not shown that, at the time they filed their Complaint, their asserted injury was imminent and non-speculative. See Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. United States, 570 F.3d 316, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[S]tanding is
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 21
assessed as of the time a suit commences.”).8 Take Mirna S., for instance. Mirna S.’s daughter M.T.S. received her visa appointment on May 12, 2020. Mirna Decl. ¶ 13; First Dus Decl. ¶ 2. At her interview on May 29, 2020, M.T.S.’s visa application was refused because of the Proclamation, but the consular officer noted that he intended to pursue a national interest exception, which was ultimately granted. See Pls.’ TRO Mot., Ex. E, Decl. of M.T.S., ECF No. 21-11 [hereinafter M.T.S. Decl.], ¶ 21; First Dus Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.
Accordingly, while M.T.S. was initially denied a visa pursuant to the Proclamation, she was considered for (and later granted) a visa under the national interest exception.9 Indeed, it is the State Department’s policy to treat all visa applicants that may age out as potentially eligible for the national interest exception. See 6/18/2020 Draft Hr’g Tr. at 38–39; Marwaha Decl. ¶¶ 4– 5. Thus, it appears that for M.T.S., while her application was initially denied because of the Proclamation, in practice it was simply funneled into what is essentially a different administrative processing category. There is no indication in the record that she faced any greater likelihood that her application would be rejected under the national interest exception than under the ordinary visa application process, or that she faced a greater burden in establishing eligibility for the national interest exception.
Plaintiffs counter that the national interest exception is “illusory,” citing as evidence the fact that the consular office asked M.T.S. no “national interest” questions during her visa
8 Defendants do not challenge Plaintiffs’ suffering of an injury in fact. See Defs.’ TRO Opp’n at 17–23. The court nevertheless has an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party,” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), so the court here must independently evaluate whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a cognizable injury, even though it is unchallenged. 9 In this summary judgment posture of review, the court considers events that occurred subsequent to Plaintiffs’ complaint insofar as they shed light on the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ claim of future harm at the commencement of the litigation. Cf. Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 898 F. Supp. 2d 233, 262 (D.D.C. 2012) (holding that “when a plaintiff alleges a future injury, common sense dictates that a court can and should consider the activities of the plaintiff during and after the time that the complaint is filed in order to assess the likelihood of such a future injury”).
14

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 21
interview. See Pls.’ TRO Mot. at 42; see also M.T.S. Decl. ¶ 20. However, the absence of any such questions appears to be due to the fact that there are no “additional criteria[] or burdens upon . . . the applicants who are being considered for a national interest exception for when they’re at risk of aging out.” 6/18/2020 Draft Hr’g Tr. at 39. In any event, the limited record before the court belies the claimed illusoriness of the exception: both M.T.S. and Alondra received visas under the national interest exception since this litigation commenced. See First Dus Decl. ¶ 6; Second Dus Decl. ¶ 11.10 In sum, Mirna S. has not shown that any injury stemming from M.T.S. being considered under the national interest exception rather than the ordinary visa application process was “certainly impending and immediate—not remote, speculative, conjectural, or hypothetical.” Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 914 (quoting Pub. Citizen, 489 F.3d at 1293).
So, too, for Plaintiff Gomez and his beneficiary, Alondra. On April 20, 2020—two days before Proclamation 10014 was issued—the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez denied Alondra’s request for an expedited visa appointment after determining (incorrectly, it turned out) that she qualified for protection under CSPA. See Second Dus Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9. After the consulate realized its error, it quickly scheduled her for an interview for a visa under the national interest exception. See id. ¶¶ 10–11. The consular office did not ask Alondra any questions relating to her eligibility under the national interest exception during her interview. See Pls.’ TRO Reply, ECF No. 37, Decl. of Alondra, ECF No. 37-3, ¶ 9. Thus, as with M.T.S.’s application, it appears that Alondra’s application was simply considered under a different administrative scheme, which, based on the record before the court, entailed no greater risk of denial and no greater burdens. As
10 Plaintiffs assert that it “was only after the filing of this lawsuit and the present motions that Defendants determined to invoke the Proclamation’s ‘national interest’ exception’” as to M.T.S., see Pls.’ TRO Reply at 4, but the evidence contradicts this assertion. Plaintiffs’ own declaration confirms that the State Department informed M.T.S. on May 13, 2020—well before Plaintiffs filed the instant action—that she would need to qualify for a national interest exception. See Pls.’ TRO Mot., Ex. D, Decl. of Michael J. Eatroff, ECF No. 21-10, ¶¶ 12–13.
15

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 16 of 21
these subsequent developments make clear, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Gomez and Alondra were likely to experience lengthy separation due to Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation was, at the time the Complaint was filed, speculative.
Plaintiff Vicenta S.’s alleged imminent injury due to Defendants’ enforcement of Proclamation as to her grandson W.Z.A.’s visa application is, at this juncture, equally conjectural. On April 1, 2020—21 days before Proclamation 10014 was issued—the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador cancelled W.Z.A.’s and his father W.Z’s visa interviews appointment due to the fact that El Salvador had instituted a strict lockdown and neither W.Z. nor W.Z.A. had completed their medical examinations. See Bent Decl. ¶¶ 8–9, 12; Vicenta Decl. ¶ 18. Therefore, any familyseparation-related injury Vicenta S. had experienced at the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint was attributable to El Salvador’s lockdown, not Proclamation 10014. Plaintiffs point out that El Salvador has since partially lifted its lock down and the consular office has rescheduled W.Z.A. and his father’s medical and visa interviews, see Pls.’ TRO Reply at 3; Blackford Decl. ¶ 17, but that just puts W.Z.A. in the same place Alondra and M.T.S. were in at the start of this litigation— eligible for consideration under the national interest exception. Indeed, Plaintiffs attest that “it is ‘almost certain’ that the Department of State will treat W.Z. and W.Z.A. favorably and grant their visas . . . consistent with its treatment of M.T.S. and Alondra.” Pls.’ TRO Reply at 4 (quoting Blackford Decl. 4). Though Plaintiffs fear that W.Z.A.’s application will be denied if “the State Department enforces the Proclamation so as to prevent the consulate from granting” W.Z.A. a visa, Pls.’ TRO Reply at 4, Plaintiffs offer no evidence to suggest that W.Z.A. is any less likely than M.T.S. or Alondra to qualify for the national interest exception.11 Indeed, under the Second Proclamation, which becomes effective on June 24, 2020, the Secretaries of State and Homeland
11 W.Z.A.’s father’s visa application and eligibility are not affected by the Proclamation, because he was not “outside the United States on the effective date” thereof. 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,442 § 2(a)(i).
16

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 17 of 21
Security “shall exercise” their authority under the national interest exception “to exempt alien children who would . . . age out of eligibility for a visa” as a result of the enforcement of Proclamation 10014. See Second Proclamation § 4(a)(i) (emphasis added). Given this development, Plaintiffs’ fear that W.Z.A.’s national interest exception will be denied seems especially unlikely.
In sum, the record evidence before the court suggests that Defendants’ enforcement of the Proclamation has, at most, funneled Plaintiffs’ beneficiaries’ applications into a different administrative channel that carries no greater burdens or risks of denials, at least as to potential age-outs. Plaintiffs have not shown beyond mere speculation that their beneficiaries’ consideration under the national interest exception will imminently cause them harm. The Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that disputes about future events where the possibility of harm to any given individual is remote and speculative are properly left to the policymaking Branches, not the Article III courts.” Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 914 (quoting Pub. Citizen, 489 F.3d at 1295). Consequently, the court cannot conclude on this record that Plaintiffs have shown a “substantial likelihood of standing under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.” EPIC, 878 F.3d at 377 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2. Plaintiffs Gomez’s and Mirna S.’s Claims Are Moot, and Plaintiff Vicenta S.’s Claims Are Unripe
Along with standing, the doctrines of ripeness and mootness “derive from the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III.” Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton, 411 F.3d 225, 230 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “All of the doctrines that cluster about Article III—not only standing but mootness and ripeness—relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea . . . about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.” Worth v. Jackson, 451 F.3d 854, 857 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 18 of 21
(cleaned up) (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 750)). If the constitutional requirements of any one of these doctrines “is not satisfied, then the court is without jurisdiction over the suit.” Spirit of the Sage Council, 411 F.3d at 230.
“In general, a case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). This can occur “when, among other things, the court can provide no effective remedy because a party has already obtained all the relief that it has sought.” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Monzillo v. Biller, 735 F.2d 1456, 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). The “flip side” of the mootness doctrine is ripeness. Endeley v. United States Dep’t of Def., 268 F. Supp. 3d 166, 176 (D.D.C. 2017). “As a ‘constitutional minim[um],’ the ripeness doctrine—like, and closely akin to, the standing doctrine—excludes claims seeking relief for future injuries that are hypothetical or speculative.” Id. (quoting Wyo. Outdoor Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 165 F.3d 43, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). Thus, “[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580–81 (1985)).
As Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument, see 6/18/2020 Draft Hr’g Tr. at 4, Plaintiffs Mirna S.’s and Gomez’s claims are now moot because their beneficiaries, M.T.S. and Alondra, have received their visas and immigrated to the United States. The court therefore can provide no additional remedy for these Plaintiffs.
Likewise, Plaintiff Vicenta S.’s claims are unripe because her grandson W.Z.A.’s visa application is proceeding and appears likely to be granted under the Second Proclamation. See Bent Decl. ¶ 14; Blackford Decl. ¶ 17; Second Proclamation § 4(a)(i). While the court is
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 19 of 21
sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ concern that Plaintiffs will have little time to seek judicial relief before W.Z.A. ages out if his visa application is denied, see 6/18/2020 Draft Hr’g Tr. at 5–6, the risk that W.Z.A. will be denied is only hypothetical and speculative at this point. See Endeley, 268 F. Supp. 3d at 175. Should the feared denial come to pass, the court is prepared to expeditiously revisit its decision.
* * * Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied because Plaintiffs have not shown that they had standing at the outset, and because their claims have become moot or remain unripe since this litigation commenced. The court will retain jurisdiction over the case while W.Z.A.’s visa application proceeds. See Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 913 (“[A]n inability to establish a substantial likelihood of standing requires denial of the motion for preliminary injunction, not dismissal of the case.”); Scahill v. District of Columbia., 909 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that a “plaintiff may cure a standing defect under Article III through an amended pleading alleging facts that arose after filing the original complaint”). B. Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Motion Ordinarily, “if none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.” O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 494. Plaintiffs contend that they are nevertheless entitled to class certification because two exceptions to the doctrine of mootness apply to Mirna S.’s and Gomez’s claims. See Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., ECF No. 36, at 3–7.12 Under the first exception, if “a named plaintiff’s claim . . . is ‘inherently transitory,’ and
12 Plaintiffs also argue that their class certification motion may proceed because Vicenta S.’s claim is “live,” see Pls.’ Class Cert. Reply at 2–3; however, the court has already determined that Vicenta S. lacked standing at the outset of this case, and her claim is now unripe.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 20 of 21
becomes moot prior to certification, a motion for certification may ‘relate back’ to the filing of the complaint.” J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 n.2 (2013)). The second exception, which has not been considered by the D.C. Circuit, applies when “a defendant picks off named plaintiffs in a class action before the class is certified” by “strategically mooting named plaintiffs’ claims in an attempt to avoid a class action.” Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 947 (6th Cir. 2016).
The court need not decide whether either exception applies here, however, because both exceptions simply operate to relate the motion for class certification back to the filing of the complaint—the exceptions cannot salvage a suit that was never justiciable to begin with. See J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d at 1308, 1310 (holding that “[t]he inherently transitory exception serves only to salvage claims that will, or at least might, not survive until certification,” and that when the exception applies, the motion for class certification “may relate back to the filing of the complaint” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that when the “picking off” exception applies, “certification relates back to the filing of the complaint”); cf. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 357 (“That a suit may be a class action adds nothing to the question of standing, for even named plaintiffs who represent a class ‘must allege and show that they personally have been injured . . . .’” (cleaned up) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 40, n.20 (1976)). For the reasons discussed above, none of the Plaintiffs has “‘affirmatively demonstrate[d]’ . . . through evidentiary proof” that he or she had standing when this lawsuit commenced. Comcast Corp., 569 U.S. at 33 (quoting WalMart, 564 U.S. at 350). The relation back doctrine therefore cannot “salvage” Plaintiffs’ claims. J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d at 1310.
20

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 41 Filed 06/23/20 Page 21 of 21
IV. Conclusion and Order For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 21, and denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 20. The parties shall provide the court with a joint status report by June 25, 2020, updating the court on the status of W.Z.A.’s visa application.

Dated: June 23, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge

21

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 53 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for an order preliminarily enjoining Defendants from enforcing Presidential Proclamation No. 10014, 85 Fed. Reg. 23,441 (Apr. 22, 2020) (First Amended Complaint (FAC) Ex. A) (the “April Proclamation”), and Presidential Proclamation No. 10052, 85 Fed. Reg. 38263 (June 22, 2020) (as amended) (FAC Ex. C) (the “June Proclamation,” and together with April Proclamation, the “Proclamations”). In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order requiring the State Department to reserve unused diversity visa numbers for fiscal year 2020, so that visas may be granted upon a determination that the Proclamations are unlawful. See P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8-10 (D.D.C. 2017). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 65.1(d), Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court hold a hearing on this motion within 21 days of its filing. Plaintiffs further respectfully request that the Court decide this motion as expeditiously as possible, but not later than August 31, 2020. The facts making expedition essential are detailed in the accompanying memorandum and declarations, but may be summarized as follows: The Proclamations prohibit entry into the United States of (among others) immigrants seeking to become permanent residents. The State Department has implemented these entry suspensions by refusing to issue visas. Among the plaintiffs are six winners of the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery, who are now eligible to obtain immigrant visas. By

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 53 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 2

statute, however, these plaintiffs (and the class members whom they seek to represent) must

receive their visas by the end of the 2020 fiscal year on September 30, 2020. There is no provision

for extending that deadline. Should these plaintiffs and class members fail to obtain their visas by

that date, they will lose the opportunity to immigrate to this country. An expedited decision is

therefore essential to ensure that the relief is effective for these Plaintiffs.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), Plaintiffs’ counsel have conferred with counsel for

Defendants. Defendants oppose the motion.

July 31, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Stephen Manning (pro hac vice) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice) Jordan Cunnings (pro hac vice) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org jordan@innovationlawlab.org

/s/ Andrew J. Pincus Andrew J. Pincus (D.D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 mingber@mayerbrown.com
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de Mexico, 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 laboni@hoqlaw.com

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

Case: 1:20-cv-01419(APM)

BRIEF FOR THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAI‘I, ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California MICHAEL L. NEWMAN Senior Assistant Attorney General NANCY A. BENINATI Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOHN APPELBAUM WILLIAM H. DOWNER Deputy Attorneys General

LETITIA JAMES Attorney General State of New York BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General
ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General
ESTER MURDUKHAYEVA Assistant Solicitor General

1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 T: (916) 210-6120 F: (916) 327-2319 William.Downer@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Amicus Curie State of California

28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 T: (212) 416-6279 F: (212) 416-8962
Ester.Murdukhayeva@ag.ny.gov Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of New York

(Additional counsel listed on signature page)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE........................................................ 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
I. THE IMMIGRANTS AND FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS BARRED BY THE PROCLAMATIONS ARE VITAL TO THE STATES’ ECONOMIES AND CIVIC SOCIETIES ............... 3
II. THE PROCLAMATIONS IMPERMISSIBLY DISREGARD CONGRESS’S DETERMINATION THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF FOREIGN-BORN INDIVIDUALS IN THE UNITED STATES WORKFORCE PROMOTES ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL GROWTH ................................................. 8
A. Foreign-Born Workers Disproportionately Fill Positions in Essential and Underserved Sectors of the Economy. ................................................................... 9
B. Foreign-Born Workers Entering on Non-Immigrant Visas Have a Positive Net Economic Effect without Displacing U.S.-Born Workers.......................................... 15
III. THE PROCLAMATIONS MAY LEAD TO PROFOUND SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HARMS DUE TO PROLONGED FAMILY SEPARATION ............................................................ 19
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 22

i

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 3 of 33

Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573 (D. Or. 2019) ............................................................................................8

Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (1978)...................................................................................................................8

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).................................................................................................................19

Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).................................................................................................................21

Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................19

Statutes

Pub. L. No. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (1961)..........................................................................................8

8 U.S.C. § 1101...............................................................................................................................4, 5, 16 § 1151...................................................................................................................................4, 19 § 1153.........................................................................................................................................4 § 1182.......................................................................................................................................16 § 1184.........................................................................................................................................4

Regulations & Presidential Proclamations

8 C.F.R. § 214.2 .........................................................................................................................4, 16

20 C.F.R. § 655.731..................................................................................................................................16 § 655.732..................................................................................................................................16 § 655.733..................................................................................................................................16

22 C.F.R. pt. 62, subpt. B.................................................................................................................5

Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak (Apr. 22, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/yarebd8a ...........................................................1

Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak (June 22, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspendingentry-aliens-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/ ...........................1

ii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 4 of 33

Legislative Materials

Page(s)

H.R. Rep. No. 87-721 (1961)...........................................................................................................8

S. Rep. No. 89-748 (1965) .............................................................................................................19

S. Rep. No. 106-260 (2000) .............................................................................................................8

Final Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (Mar. 1981), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED211612.pdf ..................................................21

Miscellaneous Authorities

Alan Berube & Nicole Bateman, Who Are the Workers Already Impacted by the COVID-19 Recession?, Brookings Inst. (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/research/who-are-the-workers-already-impactedby-the-covid-19-recession/ ......................................................................................................16

Alex Nowrasteh, Don’t Ban H-1B Workers: They Are Worth Their Weight in Innovation, Cato at Liberty (May 14, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/y5lewfur...............................4

Alicia Sasser Modestino, Coronavirus Child-care Crisis Will Set Women Back a Generation, Wash. Post (July 29, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/uspolicy/2020/07/29/childcare-remote-learning-women-employment/ ................................14, 15

Alissa Haywoode, Results From Our Family Survey, Eye on Early Educ. (May 7, 2020), https://eyeonearlyeducation.org/2020/05/07/results-from-our-family-survey/ .......................14

Allison Abrams, Damage of Separating Families, Psychology Today (June 22, 2018), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-selfcompassion/201806/damage-separating-families ....................................................................20

American Immigration Council, Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States (June 14, 2017), https://tinyurl.com/yxbxaqkd .......................................................10, 11

American Immigration Council, The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy (Apr. 2016), https://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0331-AIC.pdf ......................................................10, 17, 18

American Immigration Council, Immigrants in California (Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immi grants_in_california.pdf ...................................................................................................6, 7, 10

American Immigration Council, Immigrants in Hawaii (Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immi grants_in_hawaii.pdf ................................................................................................................10

iii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 5 of 33

Miscellaneous Authorities

Page(s)

American Immigration Council, Immigrants in Maryland (Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immi grants_in_maryland.pdf .............................................................................................................7

American Immigration Council, Immigrants in New York (June 4, 2020), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immi grants_in_new_york.pdf ............................................................................................................6

American Immigration Council, Immigrants in Pennsylvania (Aug. 2020), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immi grants_in_pennsylvania.pdf .......................................................................................................7

Ann Carrns, Multigenerational Households: The Benefits and Perils, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/yourmoney/multigenerational-households-financial-advice.html ...................................................14

Britta Glennon, How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-1B Program (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 27538, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/y4jr5mu5 ...........................................................18

Center for American Entrepreneurship, Immigrant Founders of the 2017 Fortune 500 (Dec. 2017), https://startupsusa.org/fortune500/ .......................................................................5

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Using Telehealth Services (Jun. 10, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/telehealth.html ..........................................10

Chris J. Macias, Is the Food Supply Strong Enough to Weather COVID-19?, UCDavis.edu: Feeding a Growing Population (Jun. 25, 2020), https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/is-food-supply-strong-enough-toweather-covid-19-pandemic ....................................................................................................10

Colleen K. Vesely et al., Immigrant Families Across the Life Course: Policy Impacts on Physical and Mental Health, Nat’l Council on Family Relations (July 9, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/yynv8pss ....................................................................................................20

Dan Kosten, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Nat’l Immigration Forum (July 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y3gbq6ku.......................................6

Dan Kosten, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrant Tax Contributions and Spending Power, Nat’l Immigration Forum (Sept. 6, 2018), https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-contributorsimmigrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/ ...................................................................7

Dan Kosten, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: They Are the New American Workforce, Nat’l Immigration Forum (June 5, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y6y3p5jl.................7

iv

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 6 of 33

Miscellaneous Authorities

Page(s)

Dara Lind, Hospitals Are Suddenly Short of Young Doctors—Because of Trump’s Visa Ban, ProPublica (Jul. 17, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/y42gp9tr. .......................................11

Darrell M. West, The Costs and Benefits of Immigration, 126 Political Sci. Quarterly 427 (2011), https://www.jstor.org/stable/23056953?seq=1 ......................................8

David J. Bier, About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year, Cato at Liberty (July 16, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/about20000-us-employers-are-affected-trumps-travel-bans-year ......................................................5

David J. Bier, Immigrants Are About 1/3 of California’s “Essential Workers, Cato at Liberty (Mar. 30, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-are-about1/3-californias-essential-workers .............................................................................................10

David J. Bier, Trump’s Migration Ban Could Affect up to 545,500 if Consulates Reopen—Fewer than 18,000 Otherwise, Cato at Liberty (July 7, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-migration-ban-could-affect-545500consulates-reopen-fewer-18000-otherwise ................................................................................5

Dick Startz, Immigrant Teachers Play a Critical Role in American Schools, Brookings Inst. (Mar. 16, 2017), https://tinyurl.com/ybxtlsrv.................................................13

Donald Kerwin et al., US Foreign-Born Essential Workers by Status and State, and the Global Pandemic, Ctr. for Migration Studies (May 2020), https://cmsny.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/US-Essential-Workers-Printable.pdf ...............................................11

The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (Francine D. Blau & Christopher Mackie, eds. 2017), https://tinyurl.com/y2p8moyu. ..............................................7

Ethan Baron, H-1B: Nearly Three-quarters of Silicon Valley Tech Workers Foreign-born, Report Says, The East Bay Times (Jan. 17, 2018), https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-nearly-three-quarters-ofsilicon-valley-tech-workers-are-immigrants-report-says/ ........................................................11

Fatih Ozbay et al., Social Support and Resilience to Stress, 4 Psychiatry 35-40 (May 2007), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/ ...............................21

Frederick R. Treyz, et al., Key Components of Immigration Reform: An Analysis of the Economic Effects of Creating a Pathway to Legal Status, Expanding HighSkilled Visas, & Reforming Lesser-Skilled Visas, Reg’l Econ. Models, Inc. (July 7, 2013), https://www.remi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/50-KeyComponents-of-Immigration-Reform.pdf ...............................................................................17

Giovanni Peri et al., Closing Economic Windows: How H-1B Visa Denials Cost U.S.-Born Tech Workers Jobs and Wages During the Great Recession, P’ship for a New Am. Econ. (June 2014), https://tinyurl.com/yxw6vy64 ..............................17

v

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 7 of 33

Miscellaneous Authorities

Page(s)

Jonathan Rothwell & Neil G. Ruiz, H-1B Visas and the STEM Shortage: A Research Brief (May 10, 2013), https://www.fosterglobal.com/policy_papers/2013/SSRN-id2263412.pdf .............................17

Jordan Salama, The Great Au Pair Rush, N.Y. Times (July 25, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/business/the-great-au-pair-rush.html ..........................14

Katherine Guyot & Isabel V. Sawhill, Telecommuting Will Likely Continue Long After the Pandemic, Brookings Inst. (Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/04/06/telecommuting-willlikely-continue-long-after-the-pandemic/ ................................................................................10

Leila Schochet, Trump’s Attack on Immigrants is Breaking the Backbone of America’s Child Care System, Ctr. for Am. Progress (Feb. 5, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y9jtbbqe.........14

Lena Afridi & Diana Drogaris, The Forgotten Tenants: New York City’s Immigrant Small Business Owners, Ass’n for Neighborhood Hous. & Dev. (Mar. 6, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y2ug3fjr..............................................................................6

Linda Darling-Hammond et al., Teacher Shortages in California: Status, Sources, and Potential Solutions, Learning Policy Institute (Oct. 15, 2018), https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/productfiles/GDTF_CATeacherShortage_BRIEF.pdf .........................................................................13

M. Renee Zerehi, The Role of International Medical Graduates in the U.S. Physician Workforce, Am. Coll. of Physicians (2008), https://tinyurl.com/yy7ckcgc.............................11

Madeline Zavodny, Immigration and American Jobs 4, Am. Enter. Inst. & P’ship for New Am. Econ. (Dec. 2011), https://www.aei.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/-immigration-and-american-jobs_144002688962.pdf ....................18

Maki Park et al., Immigrant and Refugee Workers in the Early Childhood Field, Migration Policy Inst. (Apr. 2015), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrant-and-refugee-workersearly-childhood-field-taking-closer-look .................................................................................13

Miriam Jordan & Annie Correal, Foreign Doctors Could Help Fight Coronavirus. But U.S. Blocks Many, N.Y. Times (updated July 3, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/us/coronavirus-foreign-doctors-nursesvisas.html .................................................................................................................................12

National Foundation for American Policy, The Impact of Administration Policies on Immigration Levels and Labor Force Growth (Feb. 2020), https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Legal-Immigration.NFAPPolicy-Brief.February-2020.pdf .................................................................................................9

vi

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 8 of 33

Miscellaneous Authorities

Page(s)

National Military Family Association, Military Families Relying on Au Pairs Hit Hard by J-1 Visa Ban (June 27, 2020), https://www.militaryfamily.org/militaryfamilies-relying-on-au-pairs-hit-hard-by-j-1-visa-ban/ ...........................................................14

Neil G. Ruiz, Key Facts About the U.S. H-1B Visa Program, Pew Research Ctr. (Apr. 27, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/key-factsabout-the-u-s-h-1b-visa-program/ ............................................................................................11

New American Economy, The Contributions of New Americans in California (Aug. 2016), http://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/nae-ca-report.pdf ...........................................................................5, 6

New American Economy, Immigrant Healthcare Workers Are Critical in the Fight Against Covid-19 (Apr. 9, 2020), https://research.newamericaneconomy.org/report/covid-19immigrant-healthcare-workers/ ................................................................................................12

New American Economy, Immigrants and the Economy in Massachusetts, https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/locations/massachusetts/ ............................................6

New American Economy, Immigrants and the Economy in New Jersey, https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/locations/new-jersey/ .............................................6, 7

New American Economy, Immigrants and the Economy in: United States of America, https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/locations/national/ ..................................6, 7

New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, State of Our Immigrant City (2019), https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/MOIA-AnnualReport-for-2019.pdf ...................................................................................................................7

New York Immigration Coalition, Blueprint for an Immigrant New York (Jan. 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y24hpdjw .....................................................................................................6

Nicole Bateman, Working parents are key to COVID-19 recovery, Brookings Inst. (July 8, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/research/working-parents-are-keyto-covid-19-recovery/ ..............................................................................................................14

Nirmita Panchal, The Implications of COVID-19 for Mental Health and Substance Use, Kaiser Family Found. (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/ ...............21

Robert Fairlie, The Impact of Covid-19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current Population Survey (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 27309, 2020), https://www.nber.org/papers/w27309.pdf .................................................................................9

vii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 9 of 33

Miscellaneous Authorities

Page(s)

United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report to Congress (March 5, 2020), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/Characteristics_of_Specia lty_Occupation_Workers_H-1B_Fiscal_Year_2019.pdf .........................................................16

United States Department of Homeland Security, Profiles on Lawful Permanent Residents: 2017 State (last updated Jan. 6, 2020), https://www.dhs.gov/profiles-lawful-permanent-residents-2017-state ....................................19

United States Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, Fact Sheet #62G: Must an H-1B Worker Be Paid a Guaranteed Wage? (July 2008), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs62G.pdf ..............................16

United States Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, H-1B Program Guidelines, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b ..............................................................16

United States Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, H-2B Program Guidelines, https://tinyurl.com/y2ca62np. ...............................................................................16

United States Department of State, Report of the Visa Office 2019, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics/annualreports/report-of-the-visa-office-2019.html ...............................................................................4

William Wan, The Coronavirus Pandemic is Pushing America into a Mental Health Crisis, Wash. Post (May 4, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/04/mental-healthcoronavirus/..............................................................................................................................21

Yeganeh Torbati, U.S. Denied Tens of Thousands More Visas in 2018 Due to Travel Ban: Data, Reuters (Feb. 26, 2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ban/us-denied-tens-ofthousands-more-visas-in-2018-due-to-travel-ban-data-idUSKCN1QF2KF ............................20

Zoya Gubernskaya & Joanna Dreby, U.S. Immigration Policy and the Case for Family Unity, 5 J. on Migration & Human Sec. 417 (2017), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/233150241700500210 ....................................20

viii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 10 of 33
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE1 The States of California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia respectfully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of two Presidential Proclamations which unilaterally suspend large swathes of the nation’s legal immigration system and several of its most important non-immigrant work visa programs until at least December 31, 2020.2 Absent an injunction, the Proclamations will bar more than 500,000 people from entering the United States this year and will prevent approximately 20,000 employers from bringing valued employees into the United States. Countless additional individuals, families, and employers may be affected in future years if the Proclamations are renewed as is contemplated by their plain texts. The Proclamations are unlawful and their enforcement should be enjoined for the many reasons set forth by plaintiffs. The Proclamations stand to inflict distinct harms upon Amici absent an injunction. Amici’s experience has shown that immigrant participation in the work force does not hinder economic and social development—to the contrary, such participation is vital to the success and survival of our communities. Among other things, immigrants and other foreign-born workers start businesses and create jobs, support other businesses by purchasing goods and services, promote public welfare
1 Amici submit this brief pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o)(1). 2 Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak (Apr. 22, 2020) (internet); Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak (June 22, 2020) (internet). Hyperlinks for sources available on the internet are provided in the Table of Authorities.

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 11 of 33
by paying federal, state, and local taxes, and fill important jobs in sectors that otherwise face difficulty in finding qualified labor. In addition, by providing child care and other forms of caretaking work, immigrants support United States residents in their work. The Proclamations’ sweeping ban will also disrupt numerous industries that are critical to dealing with the COVID-19 crisis, including medical care, science, and technology. Although the Proclamations purportedly aim to alleviate economic distress by reducing competition for employment, the Proclamations will in fact exacerbate the pandemic’s destructive economic effects.
In addition to depriving Amici of the many economic contributions of immigrants and other foreign-born workers, the Proclamations will harm Amici’s residents by compelling the prolonged separation of families. As a result of the Proclamations, hundreds of thousands of parents, grandparents, children, and siblings of United States citizens and legal permanent residents will be unable to obtain visas to reunite with their loved ones in this country. Congress has repeatedly emphasized that family reunification is of utmost importance in our immigration system because strong family structures improve our neighborhoods, communities, and societies. Having the emotional and psychological support of family members is especially significant now, as the uncertainty associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a parallel mental health crisis.
Amici respectfully urge this Court to enjoin the enforcement of the unlawful Proclamations and prevent the irreparable harm they would cause to our economies and marketplaces and to the families and communities within our borders.
2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 12 of 33

ARGUMENT

I.

THE IMMIGRANTS AND FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS BARRED BY THE PROCLAMATIONS

ARE VITAL TO THE STATES’ ECONOMIES AND CIVIC SOCIETIES

The Proclamations eliminate the vast majority of legal immigration pathways to the United

States, as well as some of the most important non-immigrant work visa programs available under

federal law. The Department of State has interpreted the Proclamations as barring not only entry

into the United States, but also the issuance of visas to otherwise qualified prospective immigrants

located abroad. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 107-118 (July 17, 2020), ECF No. 46. As a result of the State

Department’s interpretation, individuals who must receive a visa by a particular date in order to

obtain legal immigration status pursuant to a particular classification will be precluded from

receiving status under that classification. For example, individuals who won the diversity visa

lottery for fiscal year 2020 are required to obtain a visa by September 30, 2020, or they will be unable to immigrate based on this year’s lottery.3 By the federal government’s own estimate, the

Proclamations will bar at least 525,000 individuals from entering the country this year. See id.

¶¶ 136-137.

The first Proclamation, issued on April 22, 2020, broadly suspends the entry of immigrants

who have not yet acquired a visa or who are authorized to travel to the United States pursuant only

to a visa. The April Proclamation stops the immigration of a large majority of persons who would

otherwise be eligible for family-sponsored immigration,4 employment-sponsored immigration, or

3 Because an individual entrant has approximately a 0.37% chance of winning the lottery in any given year, a diversity visa recipient’s failure to secure a visa by September 30 has the practical effect of almost certainly foreclosing her ability to obtain immigration status. See Am. Compl. ¶ 57.
4 The April Proclamation allows for the entry of spouses and unmarried minor children of United States citizens under immediate relative visas. However, the Proclamations bar the entry of parents of United States citizens, who would otherwise qualify for an immediate relative visa, as well as all categories of family-based preference visas, which includes unmarried and married

3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 13 of 33
immigration through the diversity visa program. Indeed, the April Proclamation would have presumptively precluded approximately 70% of the immigrant visas issued in 2019.5
The second Proclamation, issued on June 22, 2020, extends the April Proclamation’s bar
on entry of immigrants through December 31, 2020, with the possibility of further renewal “as
necessary.” The June Proclamation further suspends multiple common forms of non-immigrant
work visas which allow employers to sponsor foreign nationals to work in the United States on a temporary basis—specifically, the H-1B, H-2B, J, and L programs.6 Because an employer bears
substantial financial costs associated with sponsorship, workers arriving pursuant to these programs are often specialized, highly educated, and essential to the company’s ongoing success.7
The H-1B visa program, for example, allows employers to hire skilled foreign
professionals in “specialty occupation[s]” requiring “theoretical and practical application of a body
of highly specialized knowledge” and a “bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or
its equivalent”). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1184(i)(1). The H-2B visa program allows
adult children of United States citizens, siblings of United States citizens, and spouses and children of legal permanent residents. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b), 1153(a).
5 In 2019, the United States issued a total of 462,422 immigrant visas, of which 190,938 were family-sponsored preference visas, 63,442 were immediate relative visas for parents of United States citizens, 20,879 were non-investor employment-based preference visas, and 44,882 were diversity visas. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Report of the Visa Office 2019, tbl. II (“Classes of Immigrants Issued Visas at Foreign Service Posts”) (internet).
6 In 2019, the United States granted 188,123 H-1B visas, 97,623 H-2B visas, 125,999 H-4 visas (for spouses and children of H-1B, H-2B and other H employer visas). The United States also granted 353,279 J-1 visas, 38,282 J-2 visas (for spouses and children of J-1s), 76,988 L-1 visas, and 80,720 L-2 visas (for spouses and children of L-1s). Spouses traveling on H-4 and J-2 visas must separately apply for employment authorization. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv); id. § 214.2(j)(1)(v)(B). See U.S. Dep’t of State, Report of the Visa Office 2019, tbl. XVI(B) (“Nonimmigrant Visas Issued by Classification”) (internet)
7 See, e.g., Alex Nowrasteh, Don’t Ban H-1B Workers: They Are Worth Their Weight in Innovation, Cato at Liberty (May 14, 2020) (internet).
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 14 of 33
employers to hire foreign workers to perform “temporary service or labor” in non-agricultural sectors “if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” Id. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The J visa program allows foreign-born professors, research scholars, teachers, au pairs, and others to temporarily work in the United States. Id. § 1101(a)(15(J); see also 22 C.F.R. pt. 62, subpt. B. And the L visa program allows multinational corporations to transfer high-level executives and managers with “specialized knowledge” to work in a United States-based office on a temporary basis. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The Cato Institute has estimated that the June Proclamation will affect approximately 20,000 United States employers, who will be prohibited from bringing their critical employees to this country, and over 381,000 non-immigrant workers, spouses, and children.8
The Proclamations are premised on the erroneous, dangerous, and counterproductive assumption that immigrants and foreign-born workers threaten the integrity of the United States labor market. To the contrary, Amici’s experience has shown that the advantages of immigration are profound and reciprocal. Not only do immigrants benefit from the opportunities associated with living in the United States, but cities, States, and the country as a whole benefit from immigrants’ contributions to our communities. Immigrants are job creators and job supporters. As of 2017, at least 43% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by first or second-generation immigrants.9 Asian and Latino immigrant entrepreneurs alone contributed a total of $1 trillion in
8 See David J. Bier, Trump’s Migration Ban Could Affect up to 545,500 if Consulates Reopen—Fewer than 18,000 Otherwise, Cato at Liberty (July 7, 2020) (internet); David J. Bier, About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year, Cato at Liberty (July 16, 2020) (internet).
9 See Ctr. for Am. Entrepreneurship, Immigrant Founders of the 2017 Fortune 500 (Dec. 2017) (internet). Eleven California-based Fortune 500 firms—including EBay, Google, and Qualcomm—were founded or co-founded by immigrants. New Am. Econ., The Contributions of New Americans in California 3 (Aug. 2016) (internet).
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 15 of 33
revenue, 6.7 million jobs, and $212 billion in annual payroll.10 Indeed, immigrant-owned companies in the United States employ over 7.9 million workers across a variety of sectors.11 In California alone, one out of every six business owners is an immigrant; in fact, in the Los Angeles area, more than 45% of business owners are immigrants.12 California’s 937,000 immigrant business owners have generated $24.5 billion in revenue to the state’s economy.13 Foreign-born residents also make up 38% of all entrepreneurs in California, generating over $20 billion in income as of 2014.14 Likewise, immigrants own more than 30% of all small businesses in New York State,15 and nearly half of all small businesses in New York City.16 As of 2014, immigrant-owned businesses employed approximately 500,000 New Yorkers,17 and as of 2018, those businesses generated nearly $8 billion in income.18 In Massachusetts, over 70,000 immigrant entrepreneurs provide nearly 169,000 jobs, generating over $27 billion in sales.19 In New Jersey, nearly 390,000 people are employed by over 128,000 immigrant business owners.20 In Maryland, immigrant entrepreneurs represent almost 20% of the State’s business owners and have generated $1.7 billion in combined annual
10 Dan Kosten, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Nat’l Immigration Forum (July 2018) (internet).
11 New Am. Econ., Immigrants and the Economy in: United States of America (internet). 12 Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in California (Aug. 6, 2020) (internet). 13 Id. 14 New Am. Econ., The Contributions of New Americans in California, supra, at 2. 15 Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in New York 4 (June 4, 2020) (internet). 16 Lena Afridi & Diana Drogaris, The Forgotten Tenants: New York City’s Immigrant Small Business Owners, Ass’n for Neighborhood Hous. & Dev. (Mar. 6, 2019) (internet). 17 N.Y. Immigration Coal., Blueprint for an Immigrant New York 3 (Jan. 2019) (internet). 18 Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in New York, supra, at 4. 19 New Am. Econ., Immigrants and the Economy in Massachusetts (internet). 20 New Am. Econ., Immigrants and the Economy in New Jersey (internet).
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 16 of 33
revenue.21 Many other immigrants fill important service sector jobs that support others’ ability to remain in demanding professions, including child care, domestic work, and home health work.22
Foreign-born workers also contribute to their communities by paying taxes and promoting the success of other businesses through the use of their purchasing power. In 2014, for example, immigrants exercised $927 billion in spending power, generating demand for goods and services and in turn creating more jobs.23 Immigrants pay over $458 billion in taxes annually24 and account for approximately $2 trillion in national gross domestic product.25 In New York City alone, immigrants contributed $232 billion—or approximately 25%—of the city’s gross domestic product in 2018.26 In California, immigrant-led households paid over $38 billion in state and local taxes and exercised almost $291 billion in spending power.27 In New Jersey, immigrants paid $9.5 billion in state and local taxes and exercised nearly $66 billion in spending power.28 And in Pennsylvania, immigrant-led households paid $3.3 billion in state and local taxes while generating more than $24 billion in spending power.29 In addition to these economic contributions, immigrants enrich our country’s social and cultural life, injecting new ideas into our intellectual fabric, offering
21 Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in Maryland (Aug. 6, 2020) (internet). 22 Dan Kosten, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: They Are the New American Workforce, Nat’l Immigration Forum (June 5, 2018) (internet). 23 Dan Kosten, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrant Tax Contributions and Spending Power, Nat’l Immigration Forum (Sept. 6, 2018) (internet). 24 New Am. Econ., Immigrants and the Economy in: United States of America, supra. 25 The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration 282 (Francine D. Blau & Christopher Mackie, eds. 2017) (internet). 26 N.Y. City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, State of Our Immigrant City 21 (2019) (internet). 27 See Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in California, supra, at 4-5. 28 New Am. Econ., Immigrants and the Economy in New Jersey, supra. 29 See Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in Pennsylvania (Aug. 2020) (internet).
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 17 of 33
path-breaking contributions in science, technology, and other fields, and ultimately making our diverse communities more desirable places to live.30 II. THE PROCLAMATIONS IMPERMISSIBLY DISREGARD CONGRESS’S DETERMINATION
THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF FOREIGN-BORN INDIVIDUALS IN THE UNITED STATES WORKFORCE PROMOTES ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL GROWTH As explained above, the Proclamations substantially disrupt the nation’s carefully calibrated immigration system, which is the product of decades of well-founded policy judgments made by Congress. Among other things, Congress has repeatedly recognized that expanding the labor force, especially by admitting skilled workers, has substantial benefits for the United States economy. S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 12 (2000). Congress has also recognized the numerous benefits of an immigration system designed to advance the objectives of family reunification, admitting immigrants with useful skills, increasing diversity, and—in the case of J visas allotted under the Fulbright-Hays Act—increasing mutual understanding between the United States and other countries through cultural exchange. Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 580 (D. Or. 2019); see also Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 664 (1978); H.R. Rep. No. 87-721, at 21 (1961); Pub. L. No. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (1961). By setting aside these reasoned determinations, the Proclamations will cause substantial economic harm to Amici, including by diminishing revenue collection, dampening small business creation, adversely impacting schools (especially in rural areas and struggling cities), and reducing employment in key sectors of the economy, including essential services. Moreover, contrary to their stated purpose, the Proclamations will undermine Amici’s ability to forge a robust economic recovery from the damage inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
30 Darrell M. West, The Costs and Benefits of Immigration, 126 Political Sci. Quarterly 427, 437-41 (2011) (internet).
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 18 of 33
A. Foreign-Born Workers Disproportionately Fill Positions in Essential and Underserved Sectors of the Economy.
As a February 2020 study found, policies aimed at curbing immigration will result in “longterm damage to the U.S. economy” resulting in a 35% reduction in the average annual growth in the work force.31 The study concluded that the “U.S. will not be able to maintain its current standard of living unless the U.S. government acts to significantly increase immigration, improve labor force participation, and, together with employers, raise labor productivity growth.”32 The Proclamations, if enforced, will accelerate the realization of these harms.
Contrary to the Proclamations’ assumptions, immigrants create jobs in essential sectors of the economy, including Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields, education and child care, and health care—each of which is critical to combatting COVID-19 and promoting and sustaining economies, civil society, and quality of life. As of February 2020, 80% of immigrant-owned businesses across the country were in “essential” industries. The majority of these businesses have continued operations during the COVID-19 crisis and have therefore continued to employ others in order to fill critical needs for basic goods and food, among other things.33
Immigrants are also valued employees in essential sectors. In California, for example, immigrants make up over one-third of the workforce, filling over 66% of the jobs in California’s agricultural sector, 45% of manufacturing positions, 43% of construction worker positions, and
31 Nat’l Found. for Am. Policy, The Impact of Administration Policies on Immigration Levels and Labor Force Growth (Feb. 2020) (internet).
32 Id. at 3 (quotation marks omitted). 33 Robert Fairlie, The Impact of Covid-19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of EarlyStage Losses from the April 2020 Current Population Survey 8 (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 27309, 2020) (internet).
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 19 of 33
42% of computer and mathematical sciences positions.34 In Hawai‘i, immigrants comprise nearly one quarter of the total labor force, filling 35% of jobs in health care support industries.35 The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened awareness about this country’s reliance on an array of essential services, from telehealth,36 to delivery of goods, services, and food,37 as well as the technological infrastructure and software necessary to support telecommuting where up to half the United States workforce worked from home during the pandemic.38 But despite the critical importance of these essential sectors of the economy during a global pandemic, the Proclamations unreasonably take direct aim at programs that facilitate them.
For example, the June Proclamation’s ban on the issuance of H-1B visas will cut off access to foreign-born skilled workers, two-thirds of whom have filled critical needs in STEM fields where employers otherwise struggle to find qualified employees.39 From 1990 to 2015, the percentage of foreign-born workers as a percentage of the STEM workforce more than doubled.40
34 Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in California, supra, at 4; David J. Bier, Immigrants Are About 1/3 of California’s “Essential Workers, Cato at Liberty (Mar. 30, 2020) (internet).
35 Am. Immigration Council, Immigrants in Hawaii (Aug. 6, 2020) (internet). 36 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Using Telehealth Services (Jun. 10, 2020) (internet). 37 Chris J. Macias, Is the Food Supply Strong Enough to Weather COVID-19?, UCDavis.edu: Feeding a Growing Population (Jun. 25, 2020) (internet). 38 Katherine Guyot & Isabel V. Sawhill, Telecommuting Will Likely Continue Long After the Pandemic, Brookings Inst. (Apr. 6, 2020) (internet). 39 Am. Immigration Council, The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy 6 (Apr. 2016) (internet). 40 Am. Immigration Council, Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States 3 (June 14, 2017) (internet).
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 20 of 33
In Silicon Valley alone, approximately 71% of tech employees are foreign-born.41 Because there is a limited supply of prospective employees with the requisite technical knowledge and expertise, approximately 90% of H-1B visa requests are for jobs that require some high-level STEM knowledge.42 Although the June Proclamation includes several limited exceptions, it will bar the entry of thousands of STEM workers, including software developers and systems administrators, who are essential to maintaining the security and operation of the information technology infrastructure and systems that industries, hospitals, governments, small businesses, banks and educational institutions rely on to function.43
Similarly, immigrants and non-immigrant workers are the backbone of the medical field. As one example, foreign-born doctors serve as medical residents in underserved communities (inner city and rural) in disproportionate numbers.44 In 2017 alone, there were approximately 2,532 medical residents on H1-B visas, many of whom work in inner cities and rural areas.45 As of 2015, nearly 30% of physicians and surgeons in the United States were foreign-born.46 In New Jersey,
41 Ethan Baron, H-1B: Nearly Three-quarters of Silicon Valley Tech Workers Foreign-born, Report Says, The East Bay Times (Jan. 17, 2018) (internet).
42 Neil G. Ruiz, Key Facts About the U.S. H-1B Visa Program, Pew Research Ctr. (Apr. 27, 2017) (internet).
43 Donald Kerwin et al., US Foreign-Born Essential Workers by Status and State, and the Global Pandemic, Ctr. for Migration Studies (May 2020) (internet).
44 M. Renee Zerehi, The Role of International Medical Graduates in the U.S. Physician Workforce 3, 5, Am. Coll. of Physicians (2008) (internet).
45 Dara Lind, Hospitals Are Suddenly Short of Young Doctors—Because of Trump’s Visa Ban, ProPublica (Jul. 17, 2020) (internet).
46 Am. Immigration Council, Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States, supra, at 8.
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 21 of 33
more than 30% of all health care workers are foreign born, including more than 40% of physicians and surgeons, nearly 30% of nurses, and more than half of health aides.47
The Proclamations will therefore have devastating consequences on the provision of health care, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic. “Hospitals in coronavirus hot spots are scrambling to address a shortage of medical professionals to help care for patients, as the number of cases continues to grow and as maintaining a full supply of health care workers, who are themselves falling ill, is challenging.”48 Even prior to the Proclamations’ issuance, foreign health care workers, who are critical to meeting this shortage, were deterred from entering the United States because of significantly reduced staffing at consulates due to COVID-19 concerns.49
While the Proclamations include exceptions for immigrant workers traveling to work in COVID-19-related medical care and health care fields that are either adversely affected by COVID-19 or which are deemed to have a substantial public health benefit, those exceptions fail to ameliorate the Proclamations’ detrimental effects to critical health care institutions. For example, these exceptions fail to protect hospitals and health facilities located in geographical areas that are underserved and dependent on foreign-born workers to sustain operations, but not currently experiencing adverse effects from COVID-19. Moreover, the exceptions do not permit hospitals and health care facilities that are not currently experiencing adversity from the COVID19 pandemic to increase staff in anticipation of providing adequate health care services in the event the community they serve is stricken. And the Proclamations harm hospitals and health care
47 New Am. Econ., Immigrant Healthcare Workers Are Critical in the Fight Against Covid-19 (Apr. 9, 2020) (internet).
48 Miriam Jordan & Annie Correal, Foreign Doctors Could Help Fight Coronavirus. But U.S. Blocks Many, N.Y. Times (updated July 3, 2020) (internet).
49 Id.
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 22 of 33
facilities that are not engaged in COVID-19 related care or otherwise adversely affected by COVID-19 yet depend on foreign-born workers to provide vital preventative and other health care services.
The June Proclamation’s restrictions on J-1, H-1B, and immigrant visas will also cut off an essential source of child care professionals and teachers. Nationally, immigrants make up approximately 20% of early childhood educators.50 Immigrants also make up 8% of the nation’s primary and secondary school teachers.51 In California and New York, they comprise approximately 10-15% of teachers.52 California, which already faces a significant teacher shortage, may experience a “teacher supply disaster[]” caused by the loss of its foreign-born teachers.53 While the annual demand for new teacher credentials was 24,000 in 2016, the state issued only half that— approximately just 12,000 new credentials, an historically low number.54 California’s shortage is particularly acute in mathematics, science, and special education, areas where immigrant teachers are vital.55
The Proclamations will also severely diminish the availability of in-home child care. Immigrant workers disproportionately fill roles in the informal child care industry and are
50 Maki Park et al., Immigrant and Refugee Workers in the Early Childhood Field, Migration Policy Inst. (Apr. 2015) (internet).
51 Dick Startz, Immigrant Teachers Play a Critical Role in American Schools, Brookings Inst. (Mar. 16, 2017) (internet).
52 Id. 53 Linda Darling-Hammond et al., Teacher Shortages in California: Status, Sources, and Potential Solutions, Learning Policy Institute (Oct. 15, 2018) (internet); Startz, supra. 54 Id. 55 Id.
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 23 of 33
especially likely to work as nannies or babysitters for private families in home-based settings.56 More than 20,000 live-in au pairs traveling on J-1 visas work for military families, essential health care workers, and others, allowing those individuals to satisfy demanding professional obligations.57 Moreover, immigrant grandparents and other relatives are a critical source of regular and emergency child care for many families who currently reside in the United States.58
A substantial portion of the United States workforce requires child care: more than 40 million workers have children under the age of 18, and nearly 34 million have children under the age of 14.59 “Without access to childcare, families face significant barriers to economic security and employers struggle to retain a productive workforce.”60 The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated an existing lack of affordable child care into a full-blown crisis. One recent study found that more than 13% of working parents had lost a job or reduced their hours due to a lack of child care.61 In a recent study of working parents in Massachusetts, nearly half of those surveyed responded that “they will not be able to return to work without a consistent child care solution.”62
56 Leila Schochet, Trump’s Attack on Immigrants is Breaking the Backbone of America’s Child Care System, Ctr. for Am. Progress (Feb. 5, 2018) (internet).
57 Nat’l Military Family Ass’n, Military Families Relying on Au Pairs Hit Hard by J-1 Visa Ban (June 27, 2020) (internet); Jordan Salama, The Great Au Pair Rush, N.Y. Times (July 25, 2020) (internet).
58 Ann Carrns, Multigenerational Households: The Benefits and Perils, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2016) (internet).
59 Nicole Bateman, Working parents are key to COVID-19 recovery, Brookings Inst. (July 8, 2020) (internet).
60 Schochet, supra. 61 Alicia Sasser Modestino, Coronavirus Child-care Crisis Will Set Women Back a Generation, Wash. Post (July 29, 2020) (internet). 62 Alissa Haywoode, Results From Our Family Survey, Eye on Early Educ. (May 7, 2020) (internet).
14

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 24 of 33
Experts predict that the child care crisis will result in thousands of mostly female workers leaving their jobs, which will have an especially severe effect on future economic outcomes for single mothers, low-income workers, and women of color.63 Rather than ameliorate unemployment for working parents, the Proclamations will make it worse by barring thousands of potential child care providers from entering the country.
B. Foreign-Born Workers Entering on Non-Immigrant Visas Have a Positive Net Economic Effect without Displacing U.S.-Born Workers.
The Proclamations purport to address the “extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak” and the need to “protect unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs” from new immigrants and foreign-born workers. However, the Proclamations are based on several fundamentally flawed assumptions and undermine rather than enable a strong economic recovery from the pandemic. Among other things, the Proclamations restrict visas for foreign worker classifications that pose little to no threat to the United States labor market. Moreover, studies have repeatedly shown that restrictions on admitting highly skilled labor hinder economies from reaching their potential.
First, the Proclamations will not ameliorate the “extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak” because most of the foreign workers subject to the Proclamations’ bans do not work in professions that are most vulnerable to COVID-19-related job losses. According to a Brookings Institution study, the ten industries most vulnerable to contraction and job loss include food services, bars and drinking places, in-store retailers, laundry services, amusement,
63 Modestino, supra.
15

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 25 of 33
gambling and recreation, and motor vehicle and parts dealers.64 In contrast, H-1B and L visas, two of the visa programs affected by the Proclamations, bring workers who typically occupy positions in STEM fields, education, and executive management.65 Further, federal regulations governing H-1B and H-2B visas require employers to certify that the hiring of these non-immigrant workers will not displace United States workers and will comply with federal wage requirements. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A)(i)-(ii), (n)(1)(E) (requiring “H-1B-dependent employers” to affirm nondisplacement); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.731-733 (requiring sponsoring employer to pay the prevailing wage for the employee’s occupation and provide working conditions that would not affect the working conditions of similarly employed workers);66 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A)-(D), (6)(iv)(A) (requiring sponsoring employer to receive Department of Labor certification that no United States workers are available and that employing the H-2B worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United States workers).67
Second, the Proclamations do not serve their stated purpose of “protect[ing] unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs” because research shows the affected
64 Alan Berube & Nicole Bateman, Who Are the Workers Already Impacted by the COVID19 Recession?, Brookings Inst. (Apr. 3, 2020) (internet).
65 See U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report to Congress 11-12 (March 5, 2020) (internet); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L), (a)(44)(A) (requiring L visa holders to occupy positions that are managerial, executive, or involve specialized knowledge).
66 See also U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Fact Sheet #62G: Must an H-1B Worker Be Paid a Guaranteed Wage? (July 2008) (internet).
67 To the extent there is any concern about misuse of non-immigrant work visas, federal agencies can take enforcement actions that include penalties for violations. See, e.g. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., H-1B Program Guidelines (internet); U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., H-2B Program Guidelines (internet). At most such concerns suggest a possible need for legislative reform targeting such abuses. They do not justify or endorse the sweeping curtailment of the H-1B visa program ordered in the June Proclamation.
16

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 26 of 33
visa programs stimulate economic gains and increases job opportunities for foreign-born and U.S.born residents alike.68 A study analyzing the economies and job markets of cities in which a substantial number of H-1B visas for computer workers were denied in the early years following the 2008 financial crisis concluded that denying H-1B visas did not “help the economies of America’s cities or their U.S.-born workers”; “[i]nstead it cost their tech sectors hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in missed wages.”69 Indeed, the number of jobs for U.S.-born workers in computer-related industries would actually have grown at least 55% faster but for the denial of so many visa applications.70 The same study found that wages for U.S.-born, collegeeducated, computer workers could have grown 4.9% higher during that same period. 71 Other studies have shown that the overall impact of H-1B visas has not lowered wages for United States citizens in STEM because in the majority of fields in which they work, H-1B workers actually make more than their U.S.-citizen counterparts.72 In fact, the H-1B program is associated with an overall increase in wages for non-H-1B visa holders.73 From the time H-1B visas began in 1990 to 2010, a 1% increase in foreign STEM workers’ share of a city’s total employment was
68 Frederick R. Treyz et al., Key Components of Immigration Reform: An Analysis of the Economic Effects of Creating a Pathway to Legal Status, Expanding High-Skilled Visas, & Reforming Lesser-Skilled Visas 1, Reg’l Econ. Models, Inc. (July 7, 2013) (internet).
69 Giovanni Peri et al., Closing Economic Windows: How H-1B Visa Denials Cost U.S.-Born Tech Workers Jobs and Wages During the Great Recession 4, P’ship for a New Am. Econ. (June 2014) (internet).
70 Id. at 5. 71 Id at 17. 72 Jonathan Rothwell & Neil G. Ruiz, H-1B Visas and the STEM Shortage: A Research Brief 1 (May 10, 2013) (internet). 73 Am. Immigration Council, The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy, supra, at 3.
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 27 of 33
associated with increases in wages of 7-8% for both STEM and non-STEM college-educated citizens, and 3-4% for non-college educated workers.74
Moreover, unemployment rates are lower for occupations that use a larger number of H-1B visas.75 Studies have found that for every 100 foreign-born workers in STEM fields with advanced degrees from United States universities, an additional 262 jobs for U.S.-born workers are created, and for every 100 foreign-born workers with advanced degrees (regardless of the university or workforce) an additional 44 jobs are created for U.S.-born workers.76 Those States with the highest number of H-1B visas actually had higher employment for their residents.77
Finally, visa restrictions do not encourage employment of United States citizens: studies confirm that U.S.-based multinational corporations have responded to visa restrictions by simply increasing employment abroad through their affiliates.78 Accordingly, by decimating critical STEM industries, post-secondary educational institutions, and research facilities, the Proclamations will not aid in the nation’s recovery from the current economic crisis, but rather do the opposite.
74 Id. at 4. 75 Id. 76 Madeline Zavodny, Immigration and American Jobs 4, Am. Enter. Inst. & P’ship for New Am. Econ. (Dec. 2011) (internet). 77 Id. 78 Britta Glennon, How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-1B Program (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 27538, 2020) (internet).
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 28 of 33
III. THE PROCLAMATIONS MAY LEAD TO PROFOUND SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HARMS DUE TO PROLONGED FAMILY SEPARATION “The Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’) was intended to keep families together.”
Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2005). The INA’s legislative history “establishes that congressional concern was directed at ‘the problem of keeping families of United States citizens and immigrants united.’” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 795 n.6 (1977) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1199, at 7 (1957)). During the debates surrounding the INA of 1965, Senator Edward Kennedy affirmed that “[r]eunification of families is to be the foremost consideration.” S. Rep. No. 89-748, at 13 (1965). Accordingly, Congress places no limit on the number of immediate relatives of United States citizens who can immigrate to the United States, such as spouses, unmarried children under the age of 21, and parents. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b). Congress also requires the federal government to issue at least 226,000 family-preference visas annually. Id. § 1151(c)(d). Hundreds of thousands of individuals immigrate to the United States annually pursuant to family-based sponsorship. See supra n.5. And many such individuals reunite with family members located in Amici: in 2017, 148,621 individuals obtained lawful permanent residence as immediate relatives of United States citizens or through family-sponsored preferences in California; the number was 107,259 in New York, 14,250 in Colorado, 11,938 in Connecticut, 2,244 in Delaware, 5,396 in Hawai‘i, 40,530 in Illinois, 1,594 in Maine, 25,095 in Maryland, 37,010 in Massachusetts, 18,927 in Michigan, 16,009 in Minnesota, 12,733 in Nevada, 54,440 in New Jersey, 4,002 in New Mexico, 9,221 in Oregon, 27,762 in Pennsylvania, 4,102 in Rhode Island, 787 in Vermont, 29,466 in Virginia, 27,363 in Washington, 6,881 in Wisconsin, and 2,885 in the District of Columbia.79
79 See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Profiles on Lawful Permanent Residents: 2017 State (last updated Jan. 6, 2020) (internet). These figures include both new arrivals and individuals adjusting status.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 29 of 33
If allowed to take effect, the Proclamations will deny hundreds of thousands of United States citizens and legal permanent residents the right to be reunited with their family members. In many instances, these individuals have been waiting for years to reunite with their loved ones in this country. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 138-186. The Proclamations baldly disregard what Congress recognized and multiple studies have confirmed: family reunification benefits the economic, social, and psychological well-being of the affected individuals, while family separation results in a myriad of harms.80 Separating family members from each other can result in negative health outcomes, including mental and behavioral health issues, which can lower academic achievement among children; toxic stress, which can delay brain development and cause cognitive impairment; and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.81 Separation can be particularly traumatizing to children, resulting in a greater risk of developing mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.82 Trauma can also have negative physical effects on children, such as loss of appetite, stomachaches, and headaches, which can become chronic if left untreated.83 Similarly, spousal separation can cause fear, anxiety, and depression.84
80 Zoya Gubernskaya & Joanna Dreby, U.S. Immigration Policy and the Case for Family Unity, 5 J. on Migration & Human Sec. 417, 422-23 (2017) (internet).
81 Colleen K. Vesely et al., Immigrant Families Across the Life Course: Policy Impacts on Physical and Mental Health, Nat’l Council on Family Relations (July 9, 2019) (internet).
82 Allison Abrams, Damage of Separating Families, Psychology Today (June 22, 2018) (internet).
83 Id. 84 Yeganeh Torbati, U.S. Denied Tens of Thousands More Visas in 2018 Due to Travel Ban: Data, Reuters (Feb. 26, 2019) (internet).
20

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 30 of 33
These concerns are especially resonant today because the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a “shadow pandemic of psychological and societal injuries,” including widespread depression and anxiety.85 In a recent poll, nearly half of adults in the United States reported experiencing mental distress over the virus.86 Mental health harms associated with the pandemic have been especially severe for front-line and essential workers.87 Denying families the ability to reunite in the midst of this unprecedented global uncertainty exacerbates the mental health harms caused by the pandemic and deprives Amici’s residents of much needed sources of social support.88
Amici will also feel the impact of such harms on their residents. Intact families strengthen not only the family unit, but the neighborhood, community, and civic society. See, e.g., Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-04 (1977) (“It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.”). “[R]eunification . . . serves the national interest not only through the humaneness of the policy itself, but also through the promotion of the public order and well-being of the nation. Psychologically and socially, the reunion of family members with their close relatives promotes the health and welfare of the United States.”89 Absent an injunction, the Proclamations will exact a tremendous human toll on our residents and communities.
85 William Wan, The Coronavirus Pandemic is Pushing America into a Mental Health Crisis, Wash. Post (May 4, 2020) (internet).
86 Nirmita Panchal, The Implications of COVID-19 for Mental Health and Substance Use, Kaiser Family Found. (Apr. 21, 2020) (internet).
87 Id. 88 Fatih Ozbay et al., Social Support and Resilience to Stress, 4 Psychiatry 35-40 (May 2007) (internet). 89 Final Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy 112 (Mar. 1981) (internet)
21

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 31 of 33

CONCLUSION This Court should grant plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Dated: August 7, 2020

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California MICHAEL L. NEWMAN Senior Assistant Attorney General NANCY A. BENINATI Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOHN APPELBAUM WILLIAM H. DOWNER Deputy Attorneys General

LETITIA JAMES Attorney General State of New York BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General
ESTER MURDUKHAYEVA Assistant Solicitor General

__/s/ William H. Downer____ WILLIAM H. DOWNER Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Amicus Curie State of California
(Counsel listing continues on the next two pages.)

__/s/ Ester Murdukhayeva____ ESTER MURDUKHAYEVA* Assistant Solicitor General Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of New York *Filing pursuant to LCvR 83.2(f)

22

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 32 of 33

PHILIP J. WEISER Attorney General State of Colorado 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203
WILLIAM TONG Attorney General State of Connecticut 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106
KATHLEEN JENNINGS Attorney General State of Delaware 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801
CLARE E. CONNORS Attorney General State of Hawai‘i 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813
KWAME RAOUL Attorney General State of Illinois 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60601
AARON M. FREY Attorney General State of Maine 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333
BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General State of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202

MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
DANA NESSEL Attorney General State of Michigan P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909
KEITH ELLISON Attorney General State of Minnesota 102 State Capitol 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155
AARON D. FORD Attorney General State of Nevada 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701
GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General State of New Jersey Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street, 8th Floor Trenton, NJ 08625
HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General State of New Mexico P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General State of Oregon 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301

23

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 58 Filed 08/07/20 Page 33 of 33

JOSH SHAPIRO Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Strawberry Square, 16th Fl. Harrisburg, PA 17120
PETER F. NERONHA Attorney General State of Rhode Island 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903
THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609
MARK R. HERRING Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219

ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General State of Washington 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504
JOSHUA KAUL Attorney General State of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707
KARL A. RACINE Attorney General District of Columbia 441 4th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001

24

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PRELMINARY INJUNCTION The diversity visa Plaintiffs in Gomez v. Trump (Fatma Bushati, Jodi Lynn Karpes, Shyam
Sundar Koirala, Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, Iwundu épouse Kouadio Golden, and Aya Nakamura) respectfully submit this supplemental motion on behalf of themselves, their beneficiaries, and the proposed subclass of diversity visa lottery winners, for a classwide preliminary injunction directing Defendants to adjudicate their visa applications notwithstanding the suspension of routine visa services at certain consular posts. As explained below, the need for additional relief became clear only through disclosures that Defendants made in this litigation after Plaintiffs submitted their initial motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF 53). In response to the government’s new representations regarding the diversity visa Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs raised the possibility that a motion for compulsory relief would be necessary in their opposition to Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF 56, at 5), and again at the telephonic status conference held August 7, 2020. Plaintiffs submit this motion now in order to avoid any need for supplemental briefing following the completion of briefing on the pending motions (cf. ECF 38), which could delay resolution of this extremely time-sensitive matter.
Given the narrow scope of the issues raised herein, their substantial overlap with issues raised in the already-pending motions, and the fact that the need for this motion arose as a result
1
737882876.2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 10
of Defendants’ disclosures in this litigation, Plaintiffs maintain that no additional extension of the current August 18 due date for Defendants’ omnibus opposition brief is warranted; Defendants did not request such an extension during a telephonic meet-and-confer earlier today. Cf. L. Civ. R. 65.1(c) (providing a seven-day period for opposing a motion for a preliminary injunction). Plaintiffs would not object to a reasonable request for a further enlargement of the page limit for Defendants’ omnibus opposition brief. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendants; Defendants oppose this motion.
1. In their motion for an extension of time (ECF 55), Defendants asserted that, “in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. consular posts worldwide have suspended ‘routine visa services’” and are only “provid[ing] emergency and mission critical visa services.” Id. at 3 (citing State Department guidance referred to herein as the “COVID-19 Guidance”1). During the status conference held on August 7, 2020, counsel for Defendants stated that Defendants intend to argue that Plaintiffs lack standing as a result. Defendants’ argument presumably will be that this Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injuries because the COVID-19 Guidance would prevent Plaintiffs’ and their beneficiaries’ visas from issuing even if the Proclamations are enjoined. At the status conference, counsel further stated, for the first time, that qualified 2020 diversity visa lottery winners are not considered to be “emergency” or “mission critical” cases under the COVID-19 Guidance—even though thousands of such individuals’ visa eligibility will expire if they do not receive their visas by September 30, 2020. Defendants’ counsel reaffirmed during a teleconference earlier today that they intend to raise arguments along these lines to assert a lack of standing.
Before counsel’s disclosures in the extension motion and at the status conference, Plaintiffs
1 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Suspension of Routine Visa Services, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-routine-visaservices.html (last visited August 10, 2020) (Ex. 1 hereto).
2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 10
understood that if the Proclamations were enjoined, the State Department’s “phased resumption of visa services” would at minimum encompass issuance of diversity visas before September 30— either as a “routine” matter or on an “emergency” or “mission critical” basis. See ECF 53-1, at 21 n.18. Defendants had, for example, processed visas (and permitted entry) on an emergency basis for the beneficiaries of Mr. Gomez’s and Mirna S.’s visa petitions in order to prevent them from aging out of their visa eligibility, even at a time when consular posts had not begun their “phased resumption of visa services.” See ECF 37, at 7-8; ECF 41, at 7-8. But Defendants’ disclosures regarding the diversity visa Plaintiffs show that Plaintiffs’ understanding regarding the effect of enjoining the Proclamations was incorrect, necessitating this motion for additional relief.2
2. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that Defendants’ application of the COVID19 Guidance to the diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members (as recently disclosed in this litigation) is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The APA authorizes this Court to issue an injunction “to preserve status or rights pending the conclusion of the review proceedings,” id. § 705, and it should do so here.
a. The COVID-19 Guidance as applied to the diversity visa Plaintiffs (and their beneficiaries, and class members) constitutes final agency action. See ECF 53-1, at 33-34. It provides for the suspension of “routine visa services” at consular posts, and expressly directs that at posts where such services have not yet resumed, visas may still be issued in “emergency” and “mission-critical” situations. Ex. 1 at 1. As Defendants’ counsel has represented to Plaintiffs and the Court, however, the State Department has determined that Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and
2 To the extent that the claims asserted herein require further amendment of the Gomez complaint, Plaintiffs will respectfully request leave to file such a further amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), 15(b).
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 4 of 10
the entire class of 2020 diversity visa applicants will not be considered “emergency” or “missioncritical” cases—not even for purposes of seeking exceptions to the Proclamations, and not even if the Proclamations are enjoined.
This is “the consummation of the … decisionmaking process,” and it “determine[s]” the “rights” of Plaintiffs and other visa applicants by establishing a policy “from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 156, 178 (1997). Defendants unequivocally represented to Plaintiffs and the Court that under the COVID-19 Guidance, Plaintiffs have no rights to have their visa applications adjudicated. And according to Defendants, legal consequences will flow from this policy unless it is enjoined: The policy will prevent all the diversity visa Plaintiffs (and their beneficiaries, and all of the class members) from being issued visas for which they are now eligible, and will prevent those individuals from immigrating based on those visas. Even more significantly, the policy will cause the diversity visa Plaintiffs (and beneficiaries, and class members) to lose their visa eligibility after September 30, 2020. As an additional “legal consequence[],” Defendants apparently will argue that Plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed. And even more broadly, Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance would eliminate the congressionally mandated diversity visa program for more than half of the fiscal year, beginning when consular posts began to suspend routine visa services in March. The requisites for final agency action are met.
b. The State Department’s action is arbitrary and capricious. See ECF 53-1, at 34-38. First, Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance to diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members usurps consular officers’ authority to issue visas, see 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1); Encuentro Del Canto Popular v. Christopher, 930 F. Supp. 1360, 1369 (N.D. Cal. 1996); ECF 53-1, at 35, and contravenes a binding and “mandatory” regulatory requirement that
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 5 of 10
“[w]hen a visa application has been properly completed and executed…, the consular officer must either issue or refuse the visa….” 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a). Consular officers cannot exercise their authority or carry out their duty to adjudicate visa applications if State Department policy is to refuse to allow them to do so.
Second, the State Department has not given adequate reasons for refusing to adjudicate the visa applications of diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members. See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020). The COVID-19 Guidance expressly provides that “emergency” and “mission critical” visa applications may be adjudicated even where “routine” services remain suspended, but the State Department has given no reasons for adopting a policy under which such exceptions are not categorically granted to diversity visa Plaintiffs (and beneficiaries, and class members). Certainly there is no “reasoned explanation” for this decision. See Cigar Ass’n of Am. v. FDA, 436 F. Supp. 3d 70, 84 (D.D.C. 2020). Moreover, as with the Proclamations, the State Department “does not appear to have given meaningful consideration to the exceptionally harsh result of failing to issue visas to diversity visa lottery winners” by September 30, upsetting such individuals’ significant reliance interests. ECF 53-1, at 35-36. “That is ‘an important aspect of the problem,’ and the State Department’s evident failure to give the issue due consideration renders its action unlawful.” Id. (quoting Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1913).
Third, Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance to the diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members is arbitrary and capricious because it “fail[s] to account for … matter[s] of importance under the statute.” Gresham v. Azar, 950 F.3d 93, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2020). As relevant here, its effect is to permanently prevent thousands of diversity visa lottery winners from immigrating, contravening Congress’s direction “to promote diversity in [the] immigration system.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990); see ECF 53-1, at 37 (collecting
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 6 of 10
authorities). The State Department’s wooden application of the COVID-19 Guidance to diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members gives no consideration to its detrimental effects on these congressional policies, which have remained in place for decades despite efforts by President Trump and others to eliminate the diversity visa program. See ECF 53-1, at 5 & n.3.
Fourth, the COVID-19 Guidance irrationally imposes permanent injuries on diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members even though—by the State Department’s own reckoning—it is possible to entertain “emergency” and “mission critical” visa applications. An agency must show a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice[s] made,” Baystate Franklin Med. Ctr. v. Azar, 950 F.3d 84, 89 (D.C. Cir. 2020), and it is impossible to conclude that there is a rational basis for refusing to issue diversity visas and thus to deprive Plaintiffs and class members of their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to immigrate.
Finally, Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance to diversity visa Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and class members “lacks any coherence” and therefore “cannot withstand judicial review,” Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 437 F.3d 75, 77 (D.C. Cir. 2006), because it is being irrationally applied. “A fundamental norm of administrative procedure requires an agency to treat like cases alike. If the agency makes an exception in one case, then it must either make an exception in a similar case or point to a relevant distinction between the two cases.” Westar Energy, Inc. v. FERC, 473 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Here, the diversity visa Plaintiffs and class members are in a position that is virtually identical to that which the original Plaintiffs’ beneficiaries occupied when this case began: They face a hard deadline after which their current visa eligibility will expire. Compare ECF 41, at 5 (describing age-out phenomenon) with ECF 53-1, at 6. Whereas the State Department treats potential age-outs as emergencies (allows them to seek “national interest” exceptions to the
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 7 of 10
Proclamations),3 and has demonstrated in this very litigation that it will go to great lengths to grant visas to prevent prospective immigrants from aging out despite the COVID-19 Guidance and the consular closures (see ECF 37, at 7-8; ECF 41, at 7-8), the State Department provides no similar relief for diversity visa applicants. This is true even though diversity visa applicants face an even greater penalty from delay than do age-outs: While many family-based age-outs can reapply for a visa and eventually receive one as a matter of right (though the wait may be years or decades), a diversity visa applicant who does not timely receive his or her visa has no realistic chance of ever having the opportunity to immigrate again. See FAC (ECF 46) ¶ 57. In this context, the State Department’s refusal to consider diversity visa applicants faced with an imminent deadline as “emergency” or “mission critical” cases is incoherent, arbitrary and capricious, and thus unlawful. See Westar, 473 F.3d at 1241-43 (agency action was “arbitrary and capricious in that it provides no basis in fact or in logic for the [agency’s] refusal to treat [plaintiff] as it had treated [a similarly situated party]”).
3. The State Department’s application of the COVID-19 Guidance to diversity visa applicants should also be enjoined either under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 705, 706(2), or under the Court’s inherent authority to enjoin unlawful executive action, see, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582-89 (1952), because it would unlawfully abolish the diversity visa program for more than half of the 2020 fiscal year. Congress has comprehensively legislated in this area (see ECF 53-1, at 29-32), but has never granted the State Department power to eliminate any portion of the diversity visa program. To the contrary, Congress has made clear that diversity
3 See 9 FAM 402.6-6(K)(d) (consular officials “must process [SU visa] cases as quickly as possible when they are close to aging out”) (emphases added); 7 FAM 1812.4-2.b(4) (in the event of a crisis requiring limitations on visa services, consular officials should “[m]ake provisions for age-out cases, expiring preferences, etc.”).
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 8 of 10
visas must be issued by September 30 each year. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c), 1153(e)(2). And Congress has further mandated that diversity visa lottery winners “shall remain eligible to receive a visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected. Id. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II) (emphasis added). Whatever authority the Executive Branch may have over visas and visa applications, that authority cannot extend so far as to allow the State Department to pocket-veto thousands of complete and fully qualified diversity visa applications. See, e.g., Doe v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (upholding injunction against executive action that “eviscerate[d] the statutory scheme” governing immigrant visas); Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 594 (D. Or. 2019) (executive action is invalid under separation of powers if it “overrides, contravenes, or is otherwise incompatible with any provision of the INA”). The Proclamations themselves are invalid for the same reasons. See FAC ¶ 339.
4. The Gomez diversity visa Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong, specifically to the extent that those claims seek orders compelling adjudication of the plaintiffs’ visa applications. See, e.g., Mohammed ECF 8-1, at 15-24, 26; Aker ECF 4, at 49-50, 68; Fonjong ECF 7-1, at 16-26, 28.
5. The Gomez diversity visa Plaintiffs further incorporate by reference herein their arguments regarding irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest. See ECF 53-1, at 38-44. Plaintiffs further note that Congress has determined that the issuance of diversity visas is in the public interest. See id. at 5 (citing authorities). Defendants may argue that the public interest requires continued suspension of visa services. But some consulates have already resumed “routine” services, and the COVID-19 Guidance expressly provides for “emergency” and “mission critical” exceptions. And Defendants have shown in this action that they are able to safely and expeditiously complete visa processing and issue visas even during the pandemic. See ECF 37, at
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 9 of 10
7-8; ECF 41, at 7-8. Given Defendants’ demonstrated capacity to adjudicate visa applications on an emergency basis, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that any temporary public interest that might be implicated here falls far short of outweighing Plaintiffs’ and the public’s exceptionally strong interests in having the visas issue before Plaintiffs’ eligibility expires on September 30.
6. The foregoing requests for relief dispel any argument by Defendants that the diversity visa Plaintiffs lack standing on account of the COVID-19 Guidance (or other COVID-related factors). The diversity visa Plaintiffs have all complied with all the requirements for obtaining diversity visas, and prior to the cessation of routine visa services each of them had either scheduled a visa interview or been told that his or her case was ready for scheduling.4 An injunction requiring adjudication of the diversity visa Plaintiffs’ visa applications would obviate Defendants’ basis for asserting that the COVID-19 Guidance prevents adjudication of those visas, and would thus defeat any argument that the injuries caused by Defendants’ actions are not redressable. And because “the court need only find one plaintiff who has standing” for the case to proceed, Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014), Defendants’ anticipated argument regarding standing provides no basis to refuse an injunction against the Proclamations.
CONCLUSION The motions for a preliminary injunction should be granted.
4 See Bushati Decl. ¶ 17; Golden Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Karpes Decl. ¶ 7; Kinteh Decl. ¶ 2; Koirala Decl. ¶ 2; Nakamura Decl. ¶ 10.
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 66 Filed 08/10/20 Page 10 of 10

August 10, 2020
Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Stephen Manning (pro hac vice) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice) Jordan Cunnings (pro hac vice) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org jordan@innovationlawlab.org

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Andrew J. Pincus Andrew J. Pincus (D.D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 mingber@mayerbrown.com
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de Mexico, 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 laboni@hoqlaw.com

10

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 79 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ

)

ABDUL MOHAMMED, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

AFSIN AKER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-01419 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01856 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01926 (APM)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 79 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 3

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

CHANDAN PANDA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-02128 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-1907 (APM)

AMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to the telephonic status hearing held on August 13, 2020, in Panda v. Wolf, 20-
cv-1907, the Panda matter is hereby partially consolidated with the instant case, and the court
amends its previous scheduling order as follows:
A. Defendants shall file their Combined Opposition to the Gomez, Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, and to the merits of Counts 1 and 2 of the Panda Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, on or before August 18, 2020. The Opposition shall be no more than 75 pages.
B. Defendants shall also file their Opposition to the Gomez Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification on or before August 18, 2020.
C. The Gomez Plaintiffs shall file a Reply in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before August 24, 2020. The Reply shall be no more than 30 pages.
D. The Gomez Plaintiffs shall also file a Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification on or before August 24, 2020.

2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 79 Filed 08/13/20 Page 3 of 3
E. The Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker Plaintiffs shall file their Combined Reply in Support of Their Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order on or before August 24, 2020. The Combined Reply shall be no more than 30 pages.
F. The Panda Plaintiffs shall file their Reply In Support of the Merits of Counts One and Two of their Preliminary Injunction on or before August 24, 2020. The Reply shall be no more than 30 pages.
G. The court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order on August 27, 2020, at 1:00 p.m.
The parties may not extend any of the above deadlines by stipulation; instead, the parties must seek an extension by motion. Motions to extend deadlines shall indicate whether any previous extensions were requested.

Dated: August 13, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge

3

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

Case No. 1:20-cv-01419

Defendants.

AMICUS BRIEF OF LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 34
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o)(5) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 29(a)(4)(A), amici curiae make the following disclosures: Each of the following amici states that it is not a corporation, it has no parent corporation, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock: Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce; HR Policy Association; Information Technology Industry Council; Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). Each of the following amici states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock: Adobe Inc.; Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers; Amazon.com, Inc.; Apple Inc.; Autodesk, Inc.; Bates White, LLC; Box, Inc.; BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. d/b/a BSA | The Software Alliance; Consumer Technology Association; Dropbox, Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; FWD.us Education Fund; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company; HP Inc.; Institute of International Bankers; Intel Corp.; Juniper Networks, Inc.; Metro Atlanta Chamber; Microsoft Corporation; Netflix, Inc.; North Texas Commission; Partnership for a New American Economy Research Fund; Plaid Inc.; Postmates Inc.; Reddit, Inc.; salesforce.com, inc.; SAP SE; ServiceNow, Inc.; Shutterstock, Inc.; Splunk Inc.; Square, Inc.; Twitter, Inc.; Upwork Inc.; Vail Valley Partnership; Xylem Inc.; Zillow Group, Inc. Amicus Atlassian, Inc. states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlassian Corporation PLC, a publicly traded company. Amicus GitHub, Inc. states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, a publicly traded company. Amicus Internet Association states that it is not a publicly held corporation and does not have a parent corporation. No publicly traded corporation owns ten percent or more of its stock.
i

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 34
Amicus LinkedIn Corporation states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, a publicly traded company.
Amicus New Imagitas, Inc. states that it is a North Carolina corporation whose ultimate parent is Red Ventures Holdco, LP.
Amicus PayPal, Inc. states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of PayPal Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded company.
Amicus Silicon Valley Bank states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of SVB Financial Group, a publicly traded company.
Amicus Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) states that it is a 501(c)(6) professional association incorporated under the laws of the state of Ohio with its principal headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. SHRM does not have any parent company nor does any publicly held corporation have any ownership interest in SHRM.
Amicus SurveyMonkey Inc. states that it is wholly owned by SVMK Inc., a publicly traded company. No other entity, stockholder or affiliate owns more than 10% of SurveyMonkey Inc.
Amicus Uber Technologies, Inc. states that it is a publicly held corporation with no parent company. Based on filings made on February 14, 2020 by SB Cayman 2 Ltd. with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding beneficial ownership, SB Cayman 2 Ltd., a private company, beneficially owns more than 10% of Uber’s outstanding stock. SB Cayman 2 Ltd. is an affiliate of Softbank Group Corp., a publicly held corporation. Based on SEC filings regarding beneficial ownership of Uber’s stock, Uber is unaware of any other publicly held corporation that beneficially owns more than 10% of Uber’s outstanding stock.
ii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 34 Amicus VMware, Inc. states that it is majority owned through a series of entities including VMW Holdco LLC, EMC Corporation, Dell Inc., Denali Intermediate Inc., and Dell Technologies Inc. The lone publicly traded corporation owning 10% or more of VMware, Inc. is Dell Technologies Inc. Amicus Workday, Inc. states that it has no parent corporation, and that T. Rowe Price, a publicly-held corporation, owns at least 10% of its stock.
iii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 5 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... v IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4 I. The Suspended Visa Programs Have A Well-Established And Documented
Track Record Of Benefiting The U.S. Economy. .............................................................. 4 A. The H-1B program for specialty occupations boosts the U.S. economy. .............. 4 B. The H-2B program for nonagricultural workers also serves an essential
role in the economy................................................................................................ 6 C. The L-1 visa program for intracompany transfers keeps jobs in the U.S. and
boosts the competitiveness of U.S. companies. ..................................................... 8 II. Unless It Is Enjoined, The Proclamation Will Continue To Impose Irreparable
Harm On Businesses And The Nation’s Economy............................................................ 9 A. Many leading businesses have recognized that the indefinite suspension of
nonimmigrant visas threatens U.S. competitiveness, ingenuity, and growth. ..... 10 B. The Proclamation is likely to drive talent abroad to the detriment of the
U.S. economy and the benefit of its global competitors. ..................................... 11 C. The sudden suspension of nonimmigrant visas is harming U.S. businesses
and workers in ways that will have lasting impacts............................................. 15 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 19
iv

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 6 of 34
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe #1 v. Trump,
957 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................3 Trump v. Hawaii,
138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ...............................................................................................................3 Statutes 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)......................................................................................................6 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)........................................................................................................................2, 3 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(D) .................................................................................................................8 Regulations and Other Executive Branch Authorities 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) ..........................................................................................................6 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h) ..........................................................................................................................4 85 Fed. Reg. 28843 (May 14, 2020) ................................................................................................7 Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen), Twitter (June 22, 2020),
https://twitter.com/HomelandKen/status/1275201179920760839 ............................................9 Memorandum from USCIS on L-1B Adjudications Policy, PM-602-0111,
(Aug. 17, 2015), https://bit.ly/2PscUXI.....................................................................................8 Proclamation 10052 of June 22, 2020, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants
and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, 85 Fed. Reg. 38263 (June 25, 2020), https://bit.ly/2PrxbN1.................................................................................11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 Transcript of White House Background Press Call Concerning the June 22 Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Nonimmigrants (June 22, 2020), https://perma.cc/Z9YU-MUZK ..............................................................................11 United States Department of State, Important Announcement on H2 Visas, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Mar. 26, 2020), https://bit.ly/2C0nyll.......................................................8
v

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 7 of 34
Other Authorities
American Immigration Council, The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy (Apr. 2020), https://bit.ly/2EViDmZ ..........................................................................................................5, 6
Stuart Anderson, New Trump H-1B Visa Restrictions Will Harm Companies, Forbes (June 23, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Dhf3TQ ..................................................................11, 12
Zachary Arnold & Tina Huang, The US Is Turning Away the World’s Best Minds—And This Time, They May Not Come Back, MIT Technology Review (July 14, 2020), https://bit.ly/33vmLEw..................................................................................15
Shelly Banjo, Trump’s Visa Ban Is Already Hurting Some Tech Job Growth, Bloomberg (July 6, 2020), https://bloom.bg/3ibD7pJ .............................................................15
David J. Bier, About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year, Cato at Liberty (July 16, 2020), https://bit.ly/3i9NxGw ..........................................9
David J. Bier, The Facts About the L-1 Visa Program, Cato at Liberty (June 10, 2020), https://bit.ly/2EWvrtl ......................................................................................................9
Mark Boroush, Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons, National Science Foundation (Jan. 15, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Puq8mK .............................................................................................................13
Tim Cook (@tim_cook), Twitter (June 23, 2020), https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1275407136256712707...................................................10
Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, U.S. Companies Say Visa Rules Are Jobs Boon for Canada, Financial Times (June 26, 2020), https://perma.cc/MP7G-ZSKB ......................14, 15
French Tech Visa, https://bit.ly/30ti6Ro........................................................................................15
Britta Glennon, How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-JB Program, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School (Paper No. 3547655, Feb. 21 2020), https://bit.ly/39XDscO ...........12, 13, 14
Jason Henry, The Visas and The Fury, New York Times (June 23, 2020) ...................................10
H.R. Rep. No. 91-815 (1970), 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. .........................................................................8
IMG Forum, High-Skilled Immigrant Visas, University of Chicago Booth (Feb. 14, 2017), https://bit.ly/3gxUIYI .............................................................................................16
IMG Forum, New Visa Ban, University of Chicago Booth (June 26, 2020), https://bit.ly/33w8Aig ..............................................................................................................18
vi

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 8 of 34
Takao Kato & Chad Sparber, Quotas and Quality, The Effect of H-1B Visa Restrictions on the Pool of Prospective Undergraduate Students from Abroad (May 2010), https://bit.ly/3kozGhF .........................................................................................18
Letter from 324 Employers and Trade, Industry, and Higher Education Associations and Groups Across the American Economy Focused on the High-skilled Workforce to President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf (May 21, 2020), https://bit.ly/3fuKvLd...........................4, 5, 9
Aaron Levie (@levie), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/levie/status/1275194199822856192 ..........................................................14
Tobi Lutke (@tobi), Twitter (June 23, 2020), https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1275406372411146245 ...........................................................14
Steven Musil, Trump Executive Order Suspending H-1B Visas Takes Heat From Tech Giants, CNET (June 23, 2020), https://cnet.co/3fDtnTO ...............................................10
National Foundation for American Policy, Analysis of Employment Data for Computer Occupations, NFAP Policy Brief (May 2020), https://bit.ly/2PugvEA ...............................................................................................................5
William W. Olney & Dario Pozzoli, The Impact of Immigration on Firm-Level Offshoring, Dept. of Economics, Williams College (June 13, 2019), https://bit.ly/3a36loa ................................................................................................................12
Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, & Chad Sparber, STEM Workers, HJB Visas, and Productivity in US Cities, 33 J. Labor Econ. S225 (2015), https://bit.ly/3abRAQ1 .............................................................................................................16
Giovanni Peri & Chad Sparber, Presidential Executive Actions Halting High Skilled Immigration Hurt the US Economy, U.C. Davis Global Migration Center (July 2020), https://bit.ly/2DAAS0q ............................................................................14
Sundar Pichai (@sundarpichai), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/1275192075214966784. ............................................10
Patrick Pichette (@pichette), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/pichette/status/1275257776835608576 .....................................................14
Dan Schulman, LinkedIn (June 22, 2020), https://bit.ly/2PuvYol ................................................11
Brad Smith (@BradSmi), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/BradSmi/status/1275232627453288450 ...................................................10
vii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 9 of 34
Frederick R. Treyz, Corey Stottlemyer, & Rod Motamedi, Key Components of Immigration Reform: An Analysis of the Economic Effects of Creating a Pathway to Legal Status, Expanding High-Skilled Visas, and Reforming Lesser-Skilled Visas, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (2013), https://bit.ly/31myL8C ...............................................................................................................5
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), H-2B VISAS: Additional Steps Needed to Meet Employers’ Hiring Needs and Protect U.S. Workers (Apr. 2020), https://bit.ly/3i94y3y ..........................................................................6, 7
Michael E. Waugh, Firm Dynamics and Immigration: The Case of High-Skilled Immigration, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (Working Paper No. 23387, 2017), https://bit.ly/3fAXURY ......................................................................................6, 16, 17
Madeline Zavodny & Tamar Jacoby, The Economic Impact of H-2B Workers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce & ImmigrationWorks USA (2010), https://bit.ly/39YlkQ4 ................................................................................................................6
Madeline Zavodny, Immigration and American Jobs, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research & Partnership For a New American Economy (Dec. 2011), https://bit.ly/3a3xaZ9............................................................................6
Madeline Zavodny, The Impact of H-1B Visa Holders On The U.S. Workforce, National Foundation for American Policy, NFAP Policy Brief (May 2020), https://bit.ly/3gyJkf0 ..................................................................................................................5
Rule Local Civil Rule 7(o)(2)...................................................................................................................1
viii

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 10 of 34
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amici are corporations, trade associations, and other organizations focused on the business community. They represent a broad range of sectors of the U.S. economy. Collectively, they have hundreds of thousands of employees and members across the country and represent hundreds of billions of dollars in annual economic activity. Amici have extensive experience with employment-based visas, including the H-1B, H-2B, and L-1 programs recently suspended by the President; they include some of the greatest beneficiaries of those programs. They have experienced firsthand the benefits of these programs for their companies, their employees, and the U.S. economy more broadly.1 Based on that experience and knowledge, they submit this brief pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o)(2) to highlight the serious economic impact of suspending these programs and the ongoing and irreparable harms that result from doing so.2
1 A full list of amici is set forth in the attached Appendix. 2 No party to the above-captioned action or any of their counsel authored this brief in whole or
in part or contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief. No third party—other than the amici curiae, their members, or their counsel—contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
1

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 11 of 34
INTRODUCTION For decades, U.S. businesses have welcomed thousands of highly-skilled and motivated workers from abroad to work temporarily in the United States through nonimmigrant visa programs established by Congress. These initiatives, including the H-1B, H-2B, and L-1 visa programs, help drive American growth and innovation by attracting the world’s best talent— including engineers, doctors, bankers, biomedical researchers, software developers, and tech executives—at a time when the global contest to attract skilled workers is increasingly competitive. The programs have been an unequivocal success, earning praise from presidents of both political parties. They are widely understood as benefitting not only U.S. companies and the foreign workers they employ, but also domestic wage earners, families, communities, and the American economy more broadly. On June 22, 2020, President Trump signed Proclamation 10052 (the “Proclamation”), which suspends—through the end of the year and as long thereafter as he deems “necessary”— issuance of new nonimmigrant visas throughout the legal immigration system, including the H-1B, H-2B, and L-1 programs. The stated ground for the indefinite suspension is that entry of nonimmigrant workers at this time is “detrimental to the interests of the United States” given “economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak” and a purported lack of “alternative means to protect unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs.” According to the Administration’s own estimates, the President’s actions will prevent more than half a million work-authorized individuals from coming to the United States by year’s end. And experts estimate the Proclamation will prevent roughly 20,000 employers from filling positions during that same period. These policies were undertaken as a purported exercise of the President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which requires, at the threshold, a “find[ing]” that his actions serve “the interests
2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 12 of 34
of the United States.” While Section 1182(f) affords great deference to the President “‘in the context of international affairs and national security,’” “his power is more circumscribed when he addresses a purely domestic economic issue.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1067 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2409 (2018)). As the Ninth Circuit recently explained in a related context, the provision does not provide “limitless power to deny visas to immigrants.” Id. at 1065.
Amici submit that the Proclamation’s indiscriminate and sudden suspension of nonimmigrant visa programs, including the H-1B program for highly-skilled individuals and L-1 program for intracompany transfers, fundamentally disserves the interests of the United States by stifling the ability of U.S. businesses to attract the world’s best talent, drive innovation, and further American economic prosperity. The Proclamation essentially nullifies a carefully balanced and congressionally approved framework for legal immigration, “raising serious questions as to whether the President has effectively rewritten provisions of the INA.” Doe #1, 957 F.3d at 1067. And because it “was issued with virtually no factual findings,” with “minimal reasoning,” id., and against the weight of authority demonstrating the benefits of these programs, it cannot support a “find[ing]” that the suspension serves “the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Already global competitors in Canada, China, and India, among others, are pouncing at the opportunity to attract well-trained, innovative individuals. And American businesses are scrambling to adjust, hiring needed talent to work in locations outside our nation’s borders. The Proclamation did not consider these costs. And it was based on the false assumption that the suspension would protect domestic workers. In fact, amici and American businesses more broadly will continue to be irreparably damaged by the Proclamation, to the detriment of their workers and customers, the broader economy, and the future of American innovation and leadership.
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 13 of 34
ARGUMENT I. The Suspended Visa Programs Have A Well-Established And Documented Track
Record Of Benefiting The U.S. Economy. Congress enacted and refined the H-1B, H-2B, and L-1 visa programs, recognizing that they would benefit the U.S. economy. Study after study and expert after expert have confirmed as much: these programs have driven innovation, increased employment, and fueled economic growth, with scant evidence of detrimental effects on domestic employees. And amici’s realworld experiences reinforce the conclusions of these many academic and governmental analyses.3 A. The H-1B program for specialty occupations boosts the U.S. economy. The H-1B program provides temporary visas and employment authorization for “specialty” occupations, conditioned on Department of Labor certification of a Labor Condition Application. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h). Since its establishment in 1952, the H-1 visa classification has allowed U.S. employers to hire professionals born outside the country. Since 1990, this category has been subject to numerical limits and a labor condition application and has been designated the “H-1B visa.” Today it is most commonly associated with the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The modern economy increasingly depends on complex information technology and management of vast troves of data. Accordingly, American companies across many sectors and areas of the country employ H-1B visa holders in many capacities, including as operation research analysts, software engineers, database architects, system analysts, and scientists directly engaged in research and development
3 See, e.g., Letter from 324 Employers and Trade, Industry, and Higher Education Associations and Groups Across the American Economy Focused on the High-skilled Workforce to President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf (May 21, 2020), https://bit.ly/3fuKvLd.
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 14 of 34
of all types.4 These individuals are central to the daily operation and continued growth of
American businesses across industries. And research overwhelmingly shows that these “H-1B
visa holders do not adversely affect U.S. workers” but rather benefit them, as the H-1B program
“increases innovation, productivity and profits at H-1B employers and boosts total productivity
and innovation in the United States,” as well as “employment among other workers in an
occupation.”5
That is to say, “[a]rguments that [these] highly skilled, temporary foreign workers are
freezing out [U.S.-born] workers are rebutted by the best available empirical evidence.”6
Contrary to the Proclamation’s premise, unemployment rates are very low for jobs that use large
numbers of H-1B visas—like STEM occupations—signaling that labor demands for these
positions already exceeds the supply.7 The data further reveal that “H-1B workers complement
U.S. workers, fill employment gaps in many STEM occupations, and expand job opportunities
for all.”8 Modeling of a modest expansion of the program projected the creation of more than 1
million new jobs over 25 years,9 while modeling of its elimination projected a marked reduction
4 See, e.g., American Immigration Council, The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy (Apr. 2020), https://bit.ly/2EViDmZ at 6 (noting diversity of occupations and geographic areas).
5 Madeline Zavodny, The Impact of H-1B Visa Holders On The U.S. Workforce, National Foundation for American Policy, NFAP Policy Brief (May 2020), https://bit.ly/3gyJkf0 at 1– 2 (citing and summarizing studies).
6 American Immigration Council, supra note 4, at 4 (surveying studies). 7 National Foundation for American Policy, Analysis of Employment Data for Computer
Occupations, NFAP Policy Brief (May 2020), https://bit.ly/2PugvEA. 8 American Immigration Council, supra note 4 (citing studies); see also May 21, 2020 Letter
by 324 Signatories, supra note 3 at app. 2-4 (citing studies). 9 Frederick R. Treyz, Corey Stottlemyer, & Rod Motamedi, Key Components of Immigration
Reform: An Analysis of the Economic Effects of Creating a Pathway to Legal Status, Expanding High-Skilled Visas, and Reforming Lesser-Skilled Visas, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (2013), https://bit.ly/31myL8C at 1.
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 15 of 34
in GDP.10 Further, “[o]verwhelming evidence shows that H-1B workers do not drive down wages of [U.S.-born] workers”—and indeed may lead to increased wages for employees in the United States.11
B. The H-2B program for nonagricultural workers also serves an essential role in the economy.
The H-2B program covers temporary nonagricultural workers, and is often used in the landscaping, hospitality, forestry, and food processing industries to meet seasonal demand.12 By law, an H-2B visa can be issued only when the United States Department of Labor determines that “qualified workers in the United States are not available and that the alien’s employment will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed United States workers.” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) (limiting such visas to when “unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country”).
Like the H-1B program, the H-2B program is linked to increased employment for domestic workers and increased economic activity. One study found that “100 H-2B workers results in an additional 464 jobs” for US workers.13 An April 2020 study by the Government
10 Michael E. Waugh, Firm Dynamics and Immigration: The Case of High-Skilled Immigration, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (Working Paper No. 23387, 2017), https://bit.ly/3fAXURY at 29.
11 American Immigration Council, supra note 4, at 3. 12 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), H-2B VISAS: Additional Steps
Needed to Meet Employers’ Hiring Needs and Protect U.S. Workers (Apr. 2020), https://bit.ly/3i94y3y at 11–12. 13 Madeline Zavodny, Immigration and American Jobs, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research & Partnership For a New American Economy (Dec. 2011), https://bit.ly/3a3xaZ9 at 11; see also Madeline Zavodny & Tamar Jacoby, The Economic Impact of H-2B Workers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce & ImmigrationWorks USA (2010), https://bit.ly/39YlkQ4.
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 16 of 34
Accountability Office (GAO) similarly found a positive correlation between H-2B workers and economic activity. According to the GAO, “employers reported shutting down operations in the absence of H-2B workers,” explaining that “barriers to finding U.S. workers [for the same positions] included remote location and seasonality of the work.”14 “Most” of the interviewed employers said their business planning was negatively affected by uncertainty about the availability of H-2B visas, a consideration of relevance to the current executive action; 12 of 14 employers studied who were unable to obtain requested visas saw decreased revenues; and companies supplying those employers similarly saw their own sales decrease when H-2B workers were unavailable.15 The GAO analyses also revealed that “counties with H-2B employers generally had lower unemployment rates and higher weekly wages than those without H-2B employers.”16
The Executive Branch itself recently recognized the importance of the H-2B program in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 14, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued a temporary final rule to allow more flexibility in hiring or extending the employment of H-2B visa holders already in the country. 85 Fed. Reg. 28843 (May 14, 2020). Although the change was directed only at the food supply chain, DHS acknowledged that other roles filled by H-2B workers were “nonetheless critical to public health and safety, or the economic and national security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure.” Id. at n.11. Similarly, prior to the Proclamation, the Department of State announced that it would continue to process H-2 applications at consular posts as a “national security priority,” notwithstanding the
14 GAO, supra note 12 at 2. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 13–14.
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 17 of 34
suspension of “routine” visa services as a result of COVID-19.17 As the Department of State explained, this was because “the H-2 program is essential to the economy and food security of the United States and is a national security priority.”18
C. The L-1 visa program for intracompany transfers keeps jobs in the U.S. and boosts the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
The L-1 program allows multinational companies to temporarily transfer existing employees to the United States to perform “managerial” or “executive” functions, or functions requiring “specialized knowledge” of the company’s products, processes, or procedures. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(D). Congress enacted this program 50 years ago to remove restrictions on “the exchange and development of managerial personnel from other nations vital to American companies competing in modern-day world trade.” H.R. Rep. No. 91-815, at 5 (1970), 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. (84 Stat. 116) 2750, 2754. The L-1 category was visionary in allowing a firm to transfer existing employees to where they are needed to maximize business growth; it is a workforce relocation tool for a global economy. Or in the words of USCIS, the program ended prohibitions that “unduly restricted the transfer and development of foreign personnel vital to the interests of U.S. businesses.”19 “Congress has determined that the ability to transfer company personnel with specialized knowledge is important in fostering the growth and competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Companies should be able to transfer their specialized knowledge employees to do business in an increasingly global marketplace.”20
17 United States Department of State, Important Announcement on H2 Visas, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Mar. 26, 2020), https://bit.ly/2C0nyll.
18 Id. 19 Memorandum from USCIS on L-1B Adjudications Policy, PM-602-0111, (Aug. 17, 2015),
https://bit.ly/2PscUXI at 2. 20 Id. at 15.
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 18 of 34
Congress’s expectation and goal have been borne out. As one study explains, “[f]ar from displacing U.S. workers on net, allowing multinationals to bring employees into the United States from abroad prevents them from moving their entire operations abroad.”21 To the same end, on May 21, 2020 (well into the COVID-19 pandemic), 324 employers and organizations who rely on high-skilled workforces wrote to the Administration to explain that the program “plays a direct role in supporting job creation and job retention in the United States, as well as expanding U.S. advanced manufacturing, continuing U.S.-centered research and development, increasing exports from the U.S., and encouraging foreign direct investment into the U.S.”22
II. Unless It Is Enjoined, The Proclamation Will Continue To Impose Irreparable Harm On Businesses And The Nation’s Economy. The Proclamation jeopardizes the benefits of nonimmigrant visa programs. Absent an
injunction, roughly 20,000 U.S. employers seeking to hire foreign workers will be impacted by year’s end.23 And while the Administration suggests its actions have “clear[ed] the American job market of competition,”24 no evidence supports this. In reality, based on numerous studies and the experience of amici, the impact on American workers, businesses, and the economy more broadly will be adverse, enduring, and irreparable.
21 David J. Bier, The Facts About the L-1 Visa Program, Cato at Liberty (June 10, 2020), https://bit.ly/2EWvrtl.
22 May 21, 2020 Letter by 324 Signatories, supra note 3. 23 David J. Bier, About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year,
Cato at Liberty (July 16, 2020), https://bit.ly/3i9NxGw. 24 See Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/
HomelandKen/status/1275201179920760839.
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 19 of 34
A. Many leading businesses have recognized that the indefinite suspension of nonimmigrant visas threatens U.S. competitiveness, ingenuity, and growth.
After the President announced the Proclamation, many of America’s leading companies, including many amici, denounced the policy as harmful to innovation and growth, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Amazon stated that “[p]reventing high skilled professionals from entering the country and contributing to America’s economic recovery puts America’s global competitiveness at risk.”25 Facebook recognized that “[h]ighly-skilled visa holders play a critical role in driving innovation,” which is “something we should encourage, not restrict.”26 Uber unequivocally stated the suspension “will hurt American businesses.”27 Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was “[d]eeply disappointed by [the] proclamation,” adding: “[T]his nation of immigrants has always found strength in our diversity, and hope in the enduring promise of the American Dream. There is no new prosperity without both.”28 Microsoft President Brad Smith observed “[n]ow is not the time to cut our nation off from the world’s talent or create uncertainty and anxiety.”29 Google CEO Sundar Pichai, a first-generation immigrant, was similarly “[d]isappointed,” recognizing that “[i]mmigration has contributed immensely to America’s economic success” and “ma[de] it a global leader in tech.”30 And PayPal CEO Dan Schulman
25 Jason Henry, The Visas and The Fury, New York Times (June 23, 2020), https://nyti.ms/2XvR6yG.
26 Id. 27 Steven Musil, Trump Executive Order Suspending H-1B Visas Takes Heat From Tech
Giants, CNET (June 23, 2020), https://cnet.co/3fDtnTO. 28 See Tim Cook (@tim_cook), Twitter (June 23, 2020), https://twitter.com/tim_cook/
status/1275407136256712707. 29 See Brad Smith (@BradSmi), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/BradSmi/
status/1275232627453288450. 30 See Sundar Pichai (@sundarpichai), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/
sundarpichai/status/1275192075214966784.
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 20 of 34
warned that the suspension “will slow our progress as a nation” by blocking “current employees [who are] looking to bring their talents to the U.S.” and depriving American businesses of “talented individuals who are filling roles that would otherwise remain vacant.”31
Amici and many other leading businesses and organizations, particularly those with substantial R&D needs, share these views. They are rooted in a common understanding, informed by experience and backed by empirical research: That nonimmigrant visa programs help drive American innovation, competitiveness, and growth, and their suspension—for any amount of time—irreparably harms American workers, businesses, and the economy.
B. The Proclamation is likely to drive talent abroad to the detriment of the U.S. economy and the benefit of its global competitors.
Rather than “free[ing] up” positions for domestic workers,32 the suspension forces many companies to create jobs outside the U.S., particularly for highly-specialized positions like those for which H-1B visa holders qualify. The vast majority of H-1B visa holders work in computer occupations.33 The U.S. labor market for these highly-specialized positions is very tight, and the COVID-19 pandemic only compounds this reality by increasing the public’s reliance upon technology and employers’ need to fill tech-related positions.
The Proclamation cites increased unemployment in (unspecified) “industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions,”34 and suggests that entry
31 See Dan Schulman, LinkedIn (June 22, 2020), https://bit.ly/2PuvYol. 32 See Transcript of White House Background Press Call Concerning the June 22 Presidential
Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Nonimmigrants (June 22, 2020), https://perma.cc/Z9YU-MUZK (quoting an individual who the White House described as a “senior administration official”). 33 Stuart Anderson, New Trump H-1B Visa Restrictions Will Harm Companies, Forbes (June 23, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Dhf3TQ. 34 Proclamation 10052 of June 22, 2020, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 21 of 34
of additional nonimmigrant visa workers “presents a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans affected by the extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.”35 But the unemployment rate in the U.S. for individuals in computer occupations declined from 3% in January of this year to 2.8% in April, and further still to 2.5% in May, while the jobless rate for all other occupations more than tripled from 4.1% to 13.5%.36
The indefinite suspension of nonimmigrant visas, many of which would help fill positions in an increasingly tight high-skill labor market, will drive the search for applicants abroad. One recent and widely-cited empirical study, for example, concluded that “increasingly stringent restrictions on H-1B visas,” like the 2004 drop in the H-1B visa cap, “direct[ly]” led to increased employment at foreign affiliates of U.S. multinationals.37 Such restrictions drove firms to open new foreign affiliates and to increase employment at existing foreign locations, with the strongest effect “among R&D-intensive firms.”38 Crucially, in response to prior curbs on nonimmigrant visas, U.S. multinationals not only increased the absolute levels but also the share of their total foreign employment, primarily to three countries: Canada, with its close proximity and more flexible high-skilled immigration policies, as well as India and China, which are rich in highskilled human capital.39 As the study cautions, any policies ostensibly seeking to mitigate
Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, 85 Fed. Reg. 38263 (June 25, 2020), https://bit.ly/2PrxbN1. 35 Id. 36 Anderson, supra note 33. 37 Britta Glennon, How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-JB Program, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School (Paper No. 3547655, Feb. 21 2020), https://bit.ly/39XDscO at 24; see also William W. Olney & Dario Pozzoli, The Impact of Immigration on Firm-Level Offshoring, Dept. of Economics, Williams College (June 13, 2019), https://bit.ly/3a36loa. 38 Glennon, supra note 37, at 25. 39 Id.
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 22 of 34
unemployment among Americans should consider that policies aimed at reducing immigration have the unintended consequence of encouraging firms to move jobs abroad.40 Of course, that hardly “protect[s] unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs,” as the Proclamation professes to do.41
This is straightforward: Diverting skilled workers overseas deprives the U.S. of critical talent needed to sustain growth and drive innovation. And the need for these skills is all the more acute due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If these highly specialized workers cannot come to the United States, employers will be forced to employ them overseas—often along with other supporting employees and resources—or else give up that function altogether, harming their business.
One especially problematic spillover is the disruption of U.S.-based R&D activities across the manufacturing, biomedical, semiconductor, and many other sectors. The United States performs one-quarter of global STEM R&D, the largest percentage for any nation, and the share of R&D performed in the U.S. has been on the rise in the past decade.42 73% of all development research in the U.S. is performed by private-sector businesses, with 80% of that research performed by U.S. multinational firms well-situated to send high-skilled jobs abroad to triage ongoing harms that the H- and L-visa suspensions are causing.43 “From a nationalistic perspective, this is problematic; if skilled foreign-born workers are at a U.S. firm’s foreign affiliate instead of in
40 Id. at 24–26. 41 Proclamation 10052, supra note 34. 42 Mark Boroush, Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons,
National Science Foundation (Jan. 15, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Puq8mK. 43 Id. at 7–8, 16, 33–38.
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 23 of 34
the U.S., the innovative spillovers that they generate will go to another country instead.”44 And as other leading economists have observed, “[l]ost technological and productivity growth in the US could mean increased growth elsewhere.”45
Predictably, other countries are poised to benefit from the U.S.’s wholesale suspension of nonimmigrant visas. As Box, Inc. CEO Aaron Levie warned, when “you restrict immigration, the jobs still get created, just somewhere else.”46 One Fortune 100 CEO put a finer point on it, suggesting the Proclamation “may be a Canadian Jobs Creation Act. You can go to Toronto and hire people there and work quite effectively.”47 Indeed, Twitter’s Canadian chairman, Patrick Pichette, offered his own message to H-1B seekers: “[J]ust look to the North, where we welcome you (and your family) with open arms.”48 And the CEO of a major Ottawa-based ecommerce platform similarly urged individuals affected by the suspension to “consider coming to Canada instead.”49
The diversion of top talent is already happening. The CEO of a leading consulting firm explained that instead of rescinding offers to those affected by the new H-1B and L-1 visa rules,
44 Glennon, supra note 37, at 25. 45 Giovanni Peri & Chad Sparber, Presidential Executive Actions Halting High Skilled
Immigration Hurt the US Economy, U.C. Davis Global Migration Center (July 2020), https://bit.ly/2DAAS0q. 46 See Aaron Levie (@levie), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/levie/status/ 1275194199822856192. 47 Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, U.S. Companies Say Visa Rules Are Jobs Boon for Canada, Financial Times (June 26, 2020), https://perma.cc/MP7G-ZSKB. 48 See Patrick Pichette (@pichette), Twitter (June 22, 2020), https://twitter.com/pichette/ status/1275257776835608576. 49 See Tobi Lutke (@tobi), Twitter (June 23, 2020), https://twitter.com/tobi/status/ 1275406372411146245.
14

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 24 of 34
the firm will “by necessity . . . move them to other countries, probably Canada.”50 Similarly, one Berlin-based online realtor had “raised a total of $15 million in venture capital funding” to “hire up to 50 American workers in its New Jersey and California offices.”51 But due to the Proclamation, it is considering moving their “North American headquarters to Toronto.”52
At the same time, global competitors are aggressively updating their immigration systems to attract skilled workers. For example, the UK fast-tracks visas for scientists and “plans to overhaul its immigration system to lower barriers for skilled workers.”53 Australia launched a Global Talent program that recruits highly-skilled workers worldwide.54 France has introduced the French Tech Visa, “a simplified, fast-track scheme for non-EU startup employees, founders and investors to obtain a [French] residence permit.”55 These countries realize, as one of China’s leading venture capitalists put it, that “while the US is driving talent away, it is the perfect time for us to race to bring them back.”56
C. The sudden suspension of nonimmigrant visas is harming U.S. businesses and workers in ways that will have lasting impacts.
The Proclamation is based on the assumption that nonimmigrant visa programs “pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers.”57 That is simply wrong.
50 Edgecliffe-Johnson, supra note 47. 51 Shelly Banjo, Trump’s Visa Ban Is Already Hurting Some Tech Job Growth, Bloomberg
(July 6, 2020), https://bloom.bg/3ibD7pJ. 52 Id. 53 Zachary Arnold & Tina Huang, The US Is Turning Away the World’s Best Minds—And This
Time, They May Not Come Back, MIT Technology Review (July 14, 2020), https://bit.ly/33vmLEw. 54 Id. 55 French Tech Visa, https://bit.ly/30ti6Ro. 56 Arnold & Huang, supra note 53. 57 Proclamation 10052, supra note 34.
15

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 25 of 34
One prominent economic analysis found that between 1990 and 2010, a 1 percentage point increase in the “foreign STEM share of a city’s total employment”—“made possible by the H-1B visa program”—increased the wage growth of U.S.-born college-educated labor by 7–8 percentage points and the wage growth of non-college-educated U.S.-born workers by 3–4 percentage points.58 A key reason for this result is the skillset complementarity between domestic and foreignborn workers.59 On the flip side, the notion that curbing H-1B inflows somehow helps domestic workers finds little support. When polled in 2017, not a single member of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel—which includes over 40 leading economists from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley—agreed with the following proposition: “If the U.S. significantly lowers the number of H-1B visas now, employment for American workers will rise materially over the next four years.”60 And yet the Proclamation adopts this false assumption as its core premise. Indeed, it goes a step further, suggesting that, aside from the suspension, little “alternative means” exist to avoid a “potentially protracted economic recovery with persistently high unemployment.”61 In reality—and contrary to the Proclamation’s stated goal of “protect[ing] unemployed Americans from the threat of competition” purportedly posed by would-be visa holders62—research suggests curbing H-1B visas depresses domestic wages, with “low-skilled workers [harmed] in particular.”63
58 Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, & Chad Sparber, STEM Workers, HJB Visas, and Productivity in US Cities, 33 J. Labor Econ. S225, S252 (2015), https://bit.ly/3abRAQ1.
59 See id. at S245, S247–48. 60 81% percent of the participants disagreed with the proposition and the remaining 19% were
uncertain. See IMG Forum, High-Skilled Immigrant Visas, University of Chicago Booth (Feb. 14, 2017), https://bit.ly/3gxUIYI. 61 Proclamation 10052, supra note 34. 62 Id. 63 Waugh, supra note 10, at 3, 31.
16

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 26 of 34
Specifically, an economic study modeling the “complete elimination” of the H-1B visa program found “essentially zero” change to wages for high-skilled Americans in year one and a relatively “sharp[]” near-term drop for low-skilled wages.64 The model also found a corresponding drop in GDP, beginning with a 0.13% drop in year one and culminating in a 3.7% decrease over time if the policy were to stand.65 Restricting high-skilled immigration is likely to have many such “unintended[] negative consequences”66 and will do nothing to shield Americans from “displac[ement] and disadvantag[e] . . . during the current recovery,” as the Proclamation aims to do.67
It would be a mistake to view the Proclamation’s impact as limited to the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. While the suspension forces companies to make decisions in the short-term— such as the diversion of employment to foreign affiliates—these decisions will have irreversible long-term effects. Again, new H-1B hires or intracompany L-1 transfers that would have driven growth in the United States will instead go elsewhere, and once those decisions are made—and the corresponding hires, training, team building, and business plans are implemented in another country—there is often no turning back. The U.S. economy, and U.S. workers and employers, will suffer permanent harm, even if the President does not seek to extend the suspension beyond this year.
In a June 2020 survey of the aforementioned IGM Economic Experts Panel, a full 98% of leading economists either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that, “[e]ven if it is temporary, the ban on
64 Id. at 14, 27–29. 65 Id. at 29. 66 Id. 67 Proclamation 10052, supra note 34.
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 27 of 34
visas for skilled workers, including researchers, will weaken US leadership in STEM and R&D.”68 And 93% of those same economists felt that “[s]ignificantly fewer top foreign students will be attracted to US universities as a result of increased restrictions on visas for skilled workers.”69 Again, research confirms this.70 By shrinking the number of foreign students who would otherwise seek to build a life in the U.S., America deprives itself of a wealth of future entrepreneurs and innovators.71
The immediate impact of the Proclamation is evident among the amici. Signatories play key roles in the information and communications technology sectors, and their inability to reliably secure H-1B and L-1 visas disrupts new product roll-outs, upgrades, and production efforts. These programs are all key to meeting surge capacity or R&D deadlines tied to telemedicine, work-fromhome, and distance learning, all vital to the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One signatory runs a leading business relying on a highly integrated global supply chain, where shortages in one region cannot readily be mitigated by production in other regions. This requires bringing expert engineers from its offices in other regions of the world or having its suppliers do so. But without access to L-1B visas, deadlines will be missed and equipment repairs delayed. This affects not only the company but the nation, because the company’s technology supports healthcare, hospital systems, virtual learning, remote working, data centers, cloud services, critical
68 IMG Forum, New Visa Ban, University of Chicago Booth (June 26, 2020), https://bit.ly/33w8Aig.
69 Id. 70 See, e.g., Takao Kato & Chad Sparber, Quotas and Quality, The Effect of H-1B Visa
Restrictions on the Pool of Prospective Undergraduate Students from Abroad (May 2010), https://bit.ly/3kozGhF at 2 (“Since foreign-student interest in a US degree is partly driven by the hope that it will improve access to the US labor market, policies reducing H-1B visas are likely to deter foreign students from pursuing tertiary American education.”). 71 See id.
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 28 of 34
manufacturing, and service industries. Other signatories facilitate short-term U.S.-based work for managers as L-1A visa holders
or specialized knowledge L-1B professionals. One might need dozens of L-1B engineers on U.S. assignment for a four- to six-week period carefully timed with American colleagues to complete joint troubleshooting on a new product. Another might need L-1A visa holders to manage functions over a years-long period key to clinical testing of a new food product or developing proprietary trading or financial services. All these carefully laid plans have been thrown into tumult in ways that will inflict harm for years to come.
CONCLUSION The President’s suspension of nonimmigrant visa programs, supposedly to “protect” American workers, actually harms those workers, their employers, and the economy. Rather than shielding domestic workers from the threat of foreign competition, the Proclamation all but ensures that firms will need to hire abroad to fill highly-skilled positions, for which the domestic demand far exceeds the available supply of workers. Extensive economic research confirms that more, not less, nonimmigrant visas drives positive economic outcomes for U.S. workers, businesses, and the national economy. But beyond the overwhelming data undermining the Proclamation’s purported rationale, the Administration’s actions send a fundamentally un-American message to those abroad who might otherwise have brought their skills and ingenuity to the United States. For many decades, this country has been a magnet to these talented people, who have—along with U.S.-born workers and innovators—made our economy the most dynamic in the world. The Proclamation prevents U.S. companies from attracting the world’s best and brightest, and deprives those innovative, highly-skilled individuals of opportunities to further America’s short-term recovery and long-term economic growth.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 29 of 34

Dated: August 10, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

Ethan D. Dettmer* Jonathan N. Soleimani* GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Tel.: 415-393-8200 Fax: 415-393-8306 *pro hac vice application forthcoming

/s/ Stuart F. Delery Theodore B. Olson, SBN 367456 Stuart F. Delery, SBN 449890 David A. Schnitzer, SBN 1022420 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Tel.: 202-955-8500 Fax: 202-467-0539

Counsel for Amici Curiae

20

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 30 of 34
APPENDIX: LIST OF AMICI 1. Adobe Inc. 2. Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers 3. Amazon.com, Inc. 4. Apple Inc. 5. Atlassian, Inc. 6. Autodesk, Inc. 7. Bates White, LLC 8. Box, Inc. 9. BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. d/b/a BSA | The Software Alliance 10. Consumer Technology Association 11. Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce 12. Dropbox, Inc. 13. Facebook, Inc. 14. FWD.us Education Fund 15. GitHub, Inc. 16. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 17. HP Inc. 18. HR Policy Association 19. Information Technology Industry Council 20. Institute of International Bankers 21. Intel Corp. 22. Internet Association 23. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 31 of 34
24. LinkedIn Corporation 25. Metro Atlanta Chamber 26. Microsoft Corporation 27. Netflix, Inc. 28. New Imagitas, Inc. 29. North Texas Commission 30. Partnership for a New American Economy Research Fund 31. PayPal, Inc. 32. Plaid Inc. 33. Postmates Inc. 34. Reddit, Inc. 35. salesforce.com, inc. 36. SAP SE 37. Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 38. ServiceNow, Inc. 39. Shutterstock, Inc. 40. Silicon Valley Bank 41. Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) 42. Splunk Inc. 43. Square, Inc. 44. SurveyMonkey Inc. 45. Twitter, Inc. 46. Uber Technologies, Inc.
2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 32 of 34 47. Upwork Inc. 48. Vail Valley Partnership 49. VMware, Inc. 50. Workday, Inc. 51. Xylem Inc. 52. Zillow Group, Inc.
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 33 of 34
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that that the foregoing brief contains 5351 words, and complies with the requirements of Local Civil Rules 5.4 and 7(o).
/s/ Stuart F. Delery Stuart F. Delery

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 82 Filed 08/12/20 Page 34 of 34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of August, 2020, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served upon all parties via CM/ECF.
/s/ Stuart F. Delery Stuart F. Delery

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 1 of 104

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419

Defendants.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1. On June 22, 2020, President Trump signed a proclamation (the “June

Proclamation”) that, with the stroke of a pen, eliminates for the rest of the year—and for an

indefinite period going forward—a vast portion of the country’s immigration system. The White

House itself estimates that the President’s action will block approximately 525,000 work-

authorized individuals from coming to the United States by the end of the year. Experts estimate,

based on data from prior years, that the Proclamation will prevent approximately 20,000 employers

from bringing needed workers into the United States.

2. The Proclamation is part of a series of measures intended to achieve the goal of

substantially shutting down congressionally authorized immigration to the United States. In

addition to the ban of immigrants and the ban of nonimmigrants effectuated by the Proclamation,

the Administration has significantly reduced refugee and asylee admissions to the United States,

taken multiple steps to remove international students from the United States, indefinitely closed

U.S. consulates around the world and announced the furlough of approximately 80% of the

employees of USCIS.

2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 2 of 104
3. Through the latest Proclamation, the President has indefinitely separated families, thrown the business plans of U.S. companies into chaos, eliminated visa categories that allow hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals to live and work in the United States, and rejected decades of Congressional judgments on the terms and conditions upon which individuals may come to this country.
4. The Proclamation extended and expanded an earlier April 22, 2020 ban on the entry of immigrants (the “April Proclamation,” and together with the June Proclamation, “the Proclamations”). The President seeks to justify this action by pointing to the “extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak” and by professing a need to “protect unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents” and foreign-born workers. Based on the assertion that the nation’s immigration system “lack[s] sufficient alternative means” to address this problem, the June Proclamation effectively eliminates most of the family- and employment-based immigrant visa categories, the diversity visa program, and the H-1B, H-2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa programs. The June Proclamation will remain in effect for the rest of the year and enables the President to continue these entry bans thereafter as long as he deems them “necessary.”
5. The June Proclamation’s entry bans, however, rest on a fatal, flawed assumption: that there is a fixed number of jobs in this country for which competition is a zero-sum game, such that the admission of immigrants and foreign-born workers necessarily “poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery.” But Congress has already rejected that premise, and so has the overwhelming weight of economic research. There is no evidence showing that immigrants and foreign-born workers “displace” U.S. workers, while there is overwhelming evidence that immigrants and foreign-born workers create additional jobs in the
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 3 of 104
United States by consuming goods and services, innovating, and contributing to human and physical capital formation, all of which are essential to long-term and sustained economic growth.
6. The June Proclamation’s entry restrictions are irrational, undermining its asserted goals of protecting U.S. workers and aiding the country’s economic recovery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The ban affects foreign-born workers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers upon whom the economy relies on for stability and continued growth, and hamstrings U.S. companies around the country from effectively managing their labor needs. For example, it prevents frontline physicians who would be represented by Plaintiff SEIU Healthcare (CIR) from entering the country in the midst of a pandemic. It also prevents Plaintiff PowerTrunk, Inc.—a communications technology innovator that sells novel and exclusive technology to entities such as New Jersey Transit and Los Angeles International Airport—from bringing to the United States its most qualified and knowledgeable employee.
7. The June Proclamation’s entry suspensions also ban thousands of individuals who are not authorized (or who do not intend) to work in the United States, and who therefore cannot contribute to the purported labor-market problem that the Proclamation is supposedly meant to address. Banning entry of such individuals only prevents them from contributing their purchasing power to the U.S. economy. Instead of protecting the U.S. labor force, the June Proclamation endangers the country’s economy—to the ultimate detriment of U.S. workers.
8. Even apart from harming the economy and reducing U.S. companies’ global competitiveness, the June Proclamation inflicts an intolerable human cost by separating thousands of families, in defiance of one of the bedrock principles of our country’s immigration system— family unification. For many families who were on the cusp of reuniting, the June Proclamation prolongs their separation, preventing husbands and wives, parents and children, and grandparents
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 4 of 104
and grandchildren from starting their lives together in the United States. For example, Plaintiff Nazif Alam has been separated from his wife for two years already—and if she is not admitted into the country soon, she will lose her opportunity to pursue a Master’s degree at Cornell University. Plaintiff Carmen Ligia Pimentel was expected to give birth to her first child today, even as her husband has been stranded in the Dominican Republic.
9. The effects on winners of the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery program are even more extreme. By virtue of winning the lottery, these individuals secured a statutorily guaranteed, oncein-a-lifetime opportunity to immigrate to the United States. But in order for these individuals to realize that congressionally created opportunity, their visas must issue by a statutorily mandated deadline of September 30, 2020 (the end of the 2020 fiscal year). Because the June Proclamation extends beyond that deadline, and because Defendants have implemented the Proclamations to forbid not only entry but also the antecedent step of issuing a visa, the result is to unilaterally and permanently revoke diversity lottery winners’ visa eligibility. And that in turn will mean that highly qualified visa applicants from around the world—from Gambia and Cote D’Ivoire, Albania and Tajikistan, Nepal and Japan—may never have the opportunity either to pursue their American dreams or to promote Congress’s goal of increasing the diversity of this country’s immigrant populations.
10. All of this is unlawful. Congress has already considered and rejected the immigration cuts the President seeks to implement unilaterally through the June Proclamation. Over the course of seven decades, Congress consistently has maintained and expanded the U.S. immigration system, even in the face of severe economic contractions, striking a considered balance between protecting domestic jobs and encouraging immigration to reunify families, promote diversity, and give domestic employers the necessary tools to manage their workforces
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 5 of 104
and weather economic downturns. The June Proclamation seeks to unilaterally rewrite the federal immigration laws, imposing new and harsh restrictions that Congress has refused to adopt. In so doing, the June Proclamation contravenes multiple provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), exceeds the scope of the President’s statutory authority, and violates the separation-ofpowers and due-process principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
11. Plaintiffs challenge the June Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation of it, under this Court’s inherent authority to review executive actions that exceed the President’s authority, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue appropriate declaratory relief, and that it preliminarily and permanently enjoin the June Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation thereof, in their entirety.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has additional remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because (a) this is a civil action in which Defendants are the President and federal officers and agencies of the United States, (b) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Columbia, and (c) Defendants are headquartered in this district. 14. Plaintiffs have standing to sue. Defendants’ actions are causing and will continue to cause Plaintiffs imminent, concrete, and irreparable injuries-in-fact, as detailed herein, by preventing the individual Plaintiffs and the beneficiaries of the sponsoring Plaintiffs from obtaining visas and entering the country, despite the fact that these individuals would be granted
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 6 of 104
those benefits if not for the June Proclamation. Defendants’ actions are depriving the employer Plaintiffs of the critical services and expertise provided by the foreign nationals who are unable to obtain visas because of the June Proclamation. And Defendants’ actions are depriving the institutional Plaintiffs of the funding they would have received from the entry of foreign nationals who are unable to obtain visas because of the June Proclamation. The requested relief will redress these injuries-in-fact by allowing these individuals to obtain the immigration benefits for which they are otherwise eligible.
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Nazif Alam is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in New York, New York. He has sponsored his wife, a citizen of Bangladesh, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for spouses of lawful permanent residents. Mr. Alam and his wife are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Alam is classified as an essential worker, and his work and well-being have been adversely affected by his inability to bring his wife to join him in the United States. 16. Plaintiff Carmen Ligia Pimentel is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in Houston, Texas. She has sponsored her husband, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for spouses of lawful permanent residents. Ms. Pimentel’s baby was expected to be born on or about August 12, 2020. Ms. Pimentel and her husband are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Pimentel has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her husband to
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 7 of 104
join her in the United States to support her through her pregnancy and to join her for the birth of their child.
17. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in Lawrence, Massachusetts. He has sponsored his unmarried minor children, aged 12 and 17, who are both citizens of the Dominican Republic, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for children of lawful permanent residents. Mr. Lebron and his children are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Lebron has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his children to join him in the United States.
18. Plaintiff Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo is a U.S. citizen residing in Houston, Texas. He has sponsored his father, a citizen of Nigeria, for an immigrant visa as an immediate relative. Mr. Nwankwo and his father are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Nwankwo has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his father to join him in the United States.
19. Plaintiff Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jiménez is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in Hoover Alabama. He has sponsored his unmarried minor son, a citizen of Chile, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for the children of lawful permanent residents. Mr. Sarniguet Jimenez and his son are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Sarniguet Jimenez has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his son to join him in the United States.
20. Plaintiff Angela Sinon is a U.S. citizen residing in White Plains, New York. She has sponsored her unmarried adult son, a citizen of the Philippines, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for the adult sons and daughters of lawful permanent
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 8 of 104
residents. Ms. Sinon is elderly and a single parent, who relies on her adult son for all of her basic life activities. Ms. Sinon and her adult son are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Sinon has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her adult son to join her in the United States.
21. Plaintiff Loida Phelps is a citizen of the United States residing in Glen Burnie, Maryland. She has sponsored her daughter, a citizen of the Philippines, for lawful permanent residence in the family-based, second preference category for the unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. Ms. Phelps’s petition on behalf of her daughter also includes her daughter’s three children. Ms. Phelps and her daughter are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation, and the daughter’s oldest child—Ms. Phelps’s grandchild—could “age out” during the validity of the Proclamation. Ms. Phelps has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her daughter and grandchildren to join her in the United States.
22. Plaintiff Nancy Abarca is a citizen of the United States residing in Maryland Heights, Missouri. She has sponsored her brother, a citizen of the Philippines, for lawful permanent residence in the family-based, fourth preference category for the brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens. Ms. Abarca’s brother is married to a citizen of the Philippines, and the couple has two children, born in 1996 and 1999. The family is unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation, and its younger child could “age out” during the validity of the Proclamation. Ms. Abarca has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her brother and his family to join her in the United States.
23. Plaintiff Mohamed Saleh is a citizen of the United States residing in San Francisco, California. He has sponsored his son, a citizen of Yemen, for lawful permanent residence in the family-based, third preference category for the married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. Mr.
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 9 of 104
Saleh’s petition on behalf of his son also included his son’s spouse and children. Mr. Saleh’s son was unable to complete the immigrant visa process for his 10-year-old child—Mr. Saleh’s grandchild—because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Saleh has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his grandchild to join him in the United States.
24. Plaintiff Fatma Bushati is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Albania residing in Shkodra, Albania. Ms. Bushati submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Bushati has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
25. Plaintiff Jodi Lynn Karpes is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of South Africa residing in Johannesburg, South Africa. Ms. Karpes submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Karpes has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
26. Plaintiff Shyam Sundar Koirala is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Nepal residing in Kathmandu, Nepal. Mr. Koirala submitted an immigrant visa application based on his selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Koirala has been adversely affected by the delay in his application to immigrate to the United States.
27. Plaintiff Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Gambia residing in Banjul, Gambia. Ms. Kinteh submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 10 of 104
immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Kinteh has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
28. Plaintiff Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Cote D’Ivoire residing in Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire. Ms. Iwundu submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Iwundu has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
29. Plaintiff Aya Nakamura is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Japan residing in Tokyo, Japan. Ms. Nakamura submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Nakamura has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
30. Plaintiff 3Q Digital is a digital marketing agency headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, with other offices in San Francisco, Denver, Austin, San Diego, Raleigh, and Charlottesville. 3Q Digital has 330 employees in the United States, consisting of U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals. 3Q Digital has petitioned for H-1B visa status to employ a citizen of India in the United States in a specialty occupation position. The petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but the candidate is unable to secure the required H-1B visa and travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. 3Q Digital has been adversely affected by the inability of the candidate to begin work in the United States.
31. Plaintiff ASSE International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit. ASSE is engaged in a private-public partnership with the Department of State
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 11 of 104
to manage and administer exchange visitor programs that use the J-1 nonimmigrant visa category. Because the June Proclamation forbids the entry of individuals on J-1 visas – the type of visa used by participants in ASSE’s exchange programs—and because the Department of State has decided to implement the June Proclamation by no longer issuing J-1 visas, the June Proclamation has stopped ASSE from continuing to operate its programs and ASSE has been forced to provide refunds totaling more than a million dollars to host companies that would have employed its interns or trainees. ASSE is currently receiving no income because of the June Proclamation, has been forced to terminate 5 of its 33 full-time employees, and has placed an additional 3 employees on furlough effective August 1, 2020. Because of the June Proclamation, ASSE has been adversely affected by its inability to conduct its exchange program.
32. Plaintiff EurAuPair International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit. EurAuPair is engaged in a private-public partnership with the Department of State to manage and administer an exchange visitor program that uses the J-1 nonimmigrant visa category. EurAuPair runs an exchange visitor program for au pairs, who come to the United States on J-1 nonimmigrant visas. The J-1 au pair program allows qualified parents or guardians, who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and who have a child for the au pair to look after, the opportunity to host an au pair in their home. Because of the June Proclamation, EurAuPair cannot conduct is exchange visitor program for au pairs. It is currently receiving no income, has been forced to terminate 3 of its 11 full-time employees, and has placed another two employees on furlough effective August 1, 2020. EurAuPair has been adversely affected by its inability to conduct its program due to the June Proclamation.
33. Plaintiff SEIU Healthcare (CIR) is a labor organization headquartered in Long Island City, New York. CIR is the largest housestaff union in the country, representing
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 12 of 104
approximately 17,000 physicians in California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Washington, D.C. Its members regularly include interns and residents working in hospitals in H-1B nonimmigrant visa status as specialty occupational professionals. Its members also regularly include interns and residents working in hospitals in J-1 nonimmigrant visa status. CIR’s members and future members normally travel to the United States in June and July. CIR’s future members have been unable to travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. CIR has been adversely affected by the inability of its future members to enter the United States, and CIR’s current members have been adversely affected by the increased hours they have to work to make up for the loss of physicians who should have arrived on H-1B and J-1 visas.
34. Plaintiff PowerTrunk, Inc. is a commercial radio equipment company headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. PowerTrunk supplies radio equipment used by transit systems nationwide, including the New Jersey Transit Corporation, NY Metropolitan Transit Authority, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport. PowerTrunk has eleven employees, who include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals. PowerTrunk petitioned for L-1B visa status to employ a citizen of Spain in the United States in a specialty occupation position. The petition was approved by USCIS, but the candidate is unable to secure the required L-1 visa and travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. PowerTrunk has been adversely affected by the inability of the candidate to begin work in the United States.
35. Plaintiff Shipco Transport Inc. (Shipco) is headquartered in Chatham, New Jersey. Shipco is one of the world’s leading neutral Non-Vessel Operating Carriers (NVOCC). Shipco has 21 branch offices and 425 employees in the United States, consisting of
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 13 of 104
US citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visa holders. Shipco has petitioned for L-1A status to employ a citizen of Denmark in the United States in a managerial position. The petition was approved by USCIS, but the candidate is unable to secure the required L-1 visa and travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. Shipco has been adversely affected by the inability of the candidate to begin work in the United States.
36. Plaintiff Superior Scape, Inc. (Superior) is headquartered in Shelby Township, Michigan. Superior is a landscape contractor. Superior has a year-round staff of 14 employees, as well as 50-55 seasonal workers during peak periods. Its workforce consists of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visa holders. Superior submitted applications for labor certification to the U.S. Department of Labor for a pool of H-2B seasonal, non-agricultural workers. The applications were certified, but Superior has been unable to proceed with H-2B sponsorship for these workers because of the June Proclamation. Superior has been adversely affected by the inability of the H-2B workers to begin work in the United States.
37. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. In that capacity, he issued the Presidential Proclamation challenged in this lawsuit.
38. Defendant William Barr is the Attorney General of the United States and has responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103. He is sued in his official capacity.
39. Defendant Department of State (DOS) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant visas abroad. The Proclamations assign DOS a variety of responsibilities regarding their implementation and enforcement.
14

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 14 of 104
40. Defendant Michael Pompeo is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamations by all DOS staff. He is sued in his official capacity.
41. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. The Proclamations assign DHS a variety of responsibilities regarding their implementation and enforcement.
42. Defendant Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamations by all Department of Homeland Security staff. He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS STATUTORY BACKGROUND 43. The INA was enacted in 1952 and has since been amended several times. The 1965 amendment created the version of the INA that endures today. That amendment established “a new system of selection designed to be fair, rational, humane, and in the national interest,” S. Rep. No. 89-748 (1965), as reprinted in 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328, 3332, which Congress “approached with foresight and caution.” H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), as reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1678. This new system was the product of “painstaking study, as well as careful weighing of equities, human rights, and continuous consideration of the social, economic, and security
15

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 15 of 104
interests of the people of the United States.” H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), as reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1678.1
44. The comprehensive system that Congress created in the INA expresses and reflects
Congress’s intent that foreign nationals who meet certain qualifications may come to the United
States to further four principal goals: promoting family reunification, admitting immigrants with
skills that are useful to the U.S. economy, protecting foreigners in need of humanitarian relief, and
increasing diversity. Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 580 (D. Or. 2019); see also Elkins v.
Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 664 (1978); H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990), as reprinted in 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710 (summarizing statutory history).
45. To serve those goals, Congress has prioritized admission of family members to
support its goal of “preservation of the family unit,” H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), as reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1680,2 established an annual “diversity visa” lottery program for the
express purpose of “maintain[ing] an ongoing diverse flow of immigrants,” 136 Cong Rec. H8629-02 1990,3 created the J exchange visa “to promote a better understanding of the United States
1 Pub. L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (amending 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, Sections 1101, 1151-57, 1181-82, 1201, 1254-55, 1259, 1322, 1351). 2 See, e.g., Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-395, 114 Stat. 1631 (2000) (H.R. 2883) (amending INA to confer U.S. citizenship automatically and retroactively to certain foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizens); Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000, Title IX of Pub. L. No. 106-553, § 1103, 114 Stat. 2762 (2000); Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 3359 (1965) (granting 74 percent of all immigrant visas to family reunification categories); see also Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879, 886 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “Congress’s general purpose in enacting [8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) on sibling immigration] was to keep families intact . . . .”); see also Philip E. Wolgin, “Family Reunification is the Bedrock of U.S. Immigration Policy,” Center for American Progress (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2018/02/12/446402/familyreunification-bedrock-u-s-immigration-policy/. 3 See also, e.g., Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (2000) (VTVPA, precursor to TVPRA); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
16

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 16 of 104
in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries,” H.R. Rep. No. 87-271, at 21 (1961),4 and put in place the L visa to allow multi-national employers to bring managers, executives, and employees with specialized knowledge to the United States on a temporary basis, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L); see also id. § 1184(c)(2)(F).
46. The INA also authorizes the issuance each year of tens of thousands of temporary H nonimmigrant visas for workers in a wide range of occupations and industries, as well as for those workers’ families. Such visas are subject to strict numerical visa caps, specific visaeligibility criteria, and strong enforcement mechanisms to “facilitat[e] the migration of professional, managerial, and skilled foreign workers without adversely affecting U.S. workers and U.S. students entering the labor market.”5 Among other things, Congress has prescribed a comprehensive set of inadmissibility provisions designed to protect American workers. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) (foreign nationals seeking to “perform[] skilled or unskilled labor” are inadmissible unless the Secretary of Labor certifies that “there are not sufficient [U.S.] workers”
Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (IIRIRA); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c). 4 See, e.g., 22 U.S.C. §§ 2451-2464 (establishing various educational and cultural exchange programs). 5 Ruth Ellen Wasem, “Temporary Professional, Managerial, and Skilled Foreign Workers: Policy and Trends,” Congressional Research Service, at 1 (Jan. 13, 2016), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43735.pdf.
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 17 of 104
to perform the same job, and that their admission “will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed”).
Immigrant Visas 47. The INA’s immigrant visa provisions reflect Congress’s intent to permit “worldwide level of immigration,” 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a), based on, among other things, an allocation of family-based immigrant visas “made available to individuals who have family members in the United States” and diversity-based immigrant visas “to promote diversity in our current immigration system.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. I (1990) as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6715, 6728.
Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens 48. Recognizing that it is “antifamily to allow . . . long separations” of family members, 136 Cong. Rec. H-8629-02 (1990), the INA makes available visas for “immediate relatives”—the parents, spouses, and unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b). 49. Affirming that “family reunification” is “the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy” and serves the “national interest,” Congress has prioritized the admission of these “immediate relatives” by excepting the visas available to them from any numerical limits. Id. As a practical matter, this means that immigrant visas are always immediately available to qualified immediate relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
Family-based Preference Visas 50. Apart from visas for immediate relatives, family-based immigrant visas are available in four delineated “preference” categories based on the familial relationship between the sponsor and the beneficiary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a). Derivative spouses and unmarried minor
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 18 of 104
children are entitled to the same preference category as the “principal” beneficiary. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d); 9 FAM 502.2-3(C)(a).6
51. Congress has allocated an annual minimum of 226,000 family-based preference visas, and an annual maximum of 480,000 such visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii). In addition, each foreign country is limited to 7 percent of the total number of family-based preference visas made available in any given year, unless there are visas available that would otherwise go unused. 8 U.S.C. § 1152. The actual number of family-based visas issued in a particular preference category varies from year to year and depends in part on how many visas are granted in other preference categories. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153.
52. Family-based visas are distributed to eligible applicants through a complex system of queues; thus, an intending immigrant must wait in line for a visa to become available before he or she may apply to receive it. Because the demand for visas regularly exceeds supply, persons eligible for visas in the preference categories must often wait years, or even decades, for the opportunity to immigrate to the United States. See Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41, 48 (2014).
53. Congress expressly considered the impact of family-based immigration on the labor market when it created the modern-day family preference visa system. At the time that Congress drafted and enacted the Immigration Act of 1990, it relied on the nation’s top economists to conclude that increased family-based immigration, and therefore overall levels of immigration, benefits the U.S. economy. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6717.
6 “FAM” refers to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which is available at https://fam.state.gov/.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 19 of 104

Diversity visas 54. Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-649) amended the INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” to “enhance and promote” the diversity of immigration to the United States. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1, at 48 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6728. 55. Through the INA, Congress has made up to 55,000 diversity visas available each year. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e). To be eligible for a diversity visa, an applicant must be a citizen of a country with low levels of immigration to the United States, as determined by the Attorney General,7 and must have either a high school diploma or two years of qualifying work experience. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1)–(2). 56. Applicants enter a random and always over-subscribed visa lottery, which is held once each fiscal year. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33. For fiscal year 2018, approximately 14.7 million people entered the lottery with the hopes of winning one of the 55,000 available visa slots.8 Thus, any individual entrant had about a 0.37 percent chance at winning the lottery. In other words, an individual entering the lottery every year may expect to win once every 267 years. 57. Assuming that a lottery winner submits the requisite documentation and is found admissible to the United States, he or she must be granted a visa. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), 1153(e)(2); 22 C.F.R. § 40.6. In the interests of preserving family unity, a lottery winner’s spouse

7 For example, forty percent of diversity visas have traditionally gone to African countries, which

are underrepresented in other immigrant categories. See American Immigration Council, “The

Diversity Immigrant Visa Program:

An Overview,” (Nov. 2017),

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_diversity_immigran

t_visa_program_an_overview.pdf.

8 See U.S. Dep’t of State, Diversity Visa Program, DV 2016-2018: Number of Entries Received During Each Online Registration Period by Country of Chargeability, https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/DiversityVisa/DVStatistics/DV%20AES%20statistics %20by%20FSC%202016-2018.pdf.

20

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 20 of 104
and unmarried minor children may also immigrate through the program as derivatives. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(e), 1153(d). Once the visa issues, it is normally valid for a maximum of six months. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(c).
58. By statute, a diversity lottery winner must receive his or her visa by the end of the federal government’s fiscal year (September 30) for the year in which he or she has won the lottery. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). Failure to obtain the visa by that date results in permanent loss of the opportunity to immigrate based on that year’s lottery. Id. There is no provision for extension of this deadline. Although a person who misses the deadline may enter subsequent lotteries, the chance of winning again is miniscule.
Nonimmigrant Visas 59. In addition to permanent immigrant visas, Congress has created temporary nonimmigrant visas for the purpose of meeting “the demands of American business in the international marketplace.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710. These visa categories, which include the H, J, and L categories described below, enable U.S. employers to sponsor foreign nationals to come and work in the United States on a temporary basis. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H), (J), (L). In creating and expanding these temporary nonimmigrant visa categories, Congress has recognized the “principle that labor markets have demonstrated time and time again: additional people entering the labor force, whether native-born students out of school, immigrants, or nonimmigrants, expand job
21

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 21 of 104

opportunities and create other jobs through innovation, entrepreneurship, and money spent on consumer items like food, clothing, and housing.” S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 12 (2000).
H Visas 60. Congress established the H visa category to allow the entry of three different categories of temporary workers: (1) workers “of distinguished merit and ability” who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services of an exceptional nature requiring such merit and ability”; (2) workers who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform other temporary services or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country; and (3) workers who are “coming temporarily to the United States as an industrial trainee.” Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952), Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
H-1B Visas 61. The H-1B visa category allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign professionals in “specialty occupation[s]” requiring “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge” and a “bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent).” 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1); see id. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). H-1B positions for workers in specialty occupations primarily fall within occupations in the “STEM” (science, technology, engineering, and math) and computer-related fields.9 62. For an H-1B visa to issue, a sponsoring employer must commit to pay the prospective visa recipient a minimum salary of $60,000, and must attest, in a Labor Condition

9 Alex Nowrasteh, “Don’t Ban H-1B Workers: They Are Worth Their Weight in Innovation,”

Cato at Liberty (May 14, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-ban-h-1b-workers-they-are-

worth-their-weight-patents; see also Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers,

USCIS

(Mar.

5,

2020),

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/reports-

studies/Characteristics_of_Specialty_Occupation_Workers_H-1B_Fiscal_Year_2019.pdf.

22

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 22 of 104
Application (LCA), that the employer will pay the employee the “prevailing wage” for his or her occupation; will provide working conditions that would not affect the working conditions of other similarly employed workers; and has provided notice of the LCA to its currently employed workers so that they may file a complaint if the employment of the H-1B worker adversely affects their own wages or working conditions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.731, 655.732, 655.733, 655.736.
63. In addition, any “H-1B dependent employer”—an employer for whom H-1B skilled workers constitute a specified minimum percentage of its workforce, depending on the size of the business—must also affirm in its LCA that hiring an H-1B worker would not displace any U.S. workers and that it has taken good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job for which it seeks the H-1B worker. 20 C.F.R. § 655.739; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n).
64. The maximum number of H-1B visas (cap and cap-exempt) that may be issued is currently 85,000 per year. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1184(g)(1)(a), 1184(g)(5)(C).
65. The spouses and minor children of H-1B sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on H-4 visas. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv); Pub. L. No. 91-225, 84 Stat. 116 (1970). The status of H-4 derivatives depends on the continued employment of the H-1B employee. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
66. Most H-4 derivative visa holders are not legally authorized to work in the United States. Only H-4 spouses (not H-4 children) may obtain such authorization, and they may do so only by applying for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which is generally available only if the H-1B visa holder has an approved I-140 petition to obtain a permanent immigrant visa. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
23

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 23 of 104
H-2B Visas 67. H-2B visas allow U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals “to perform temporary service or labor” in non-agricultural sectors “if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).10 In creating the H-2B visa category for temporary non-agricultural workers in 1990, Congress stressed that “[t]he essential feature of the H-2[B] program” is “the requirement that efforts be made to find domestic workers before admitting workers from abroad” and that “the importation of foreign workers will not be allowed if it would adversely effect [sic] the wages and working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-682, pt. 1. (1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5684. 68. To sponsor and hire an H-2B temporary worker, an employer must receive an approved labor certification from the Department of Labor, confirming that no U.S. workers are available and that the employment of an H-2B worker will not adversely affect the wage rate and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A)-(D), (6)(iv)(A). The employer must also establish that the need for an H-2B employee is temporary— in other words, that the need is “for a limited period of time” that “will end in the near, definable future.” Id. § 214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B). 69. The Immigration Act of 1990 imposed an annual cap of 66,000 H-2B visas that remains in place today. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(1)(B).
10 Agricultural workers fall under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa category. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The June Proclamation’s entry suspension does not apply to such workers. See generally June Proclamation § 2.
24

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 24 of 104
70. Although the spouses and minor children of H-2B sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on H-4 visas, it is rare for H-2B workers to bring family on H-4 visas.11
J Visas 71. Congress created the J visa category in 1961 in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (Fulbright-Hays Act) “to enable the Government of the United States to promote a better understanding of the United States in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries.” H.R. Rep. No. 87-721, at 21 (1961). See also Pub. L. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (1961). 72. The INA makes J-1 visas available to a variety of individuals, including students, scholars, trainees, teachers, professors, research assistants, specialists, and leaders in fields of specialized knowledge or skill, to pursue temporary work in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J). Implementing regulations have created J-1 visa programs for, among others, trainees and interns, 22 C.F.R. § 62.22; teachers, id. § 62.24; camp counselors, id. § 62.30; au pairs, id. § 62.31; and summer students in work/travel programs, id. § 22.62.32. 73. The summer work/travel program has a cap of 109,000 visas per year. Employers who seek to hire summer students in this program, as well as employers seeking to hire interns and trainees, must certify that in doing so they “will not displace U.S. workers at worksites where they will place program participants.” Id. § 62.32(n)(3); see also id. § 62.22(f)(2). Employers who hire summer students in work/travel programs also must confirm that they “have not experienced layoffs in the past 120 days and do not have workers on lockout or strike.” Id. § 62.32(n)(3).
11 David J. Bier, “The Facts About H-4 Visas for Spouses of H-1B Workers,” Cato at Liberty (June 16, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/facts-about-h-4-visas-spouses-h-1b-workers
25

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 25 of 104
74. The spouses and minor children of J-1 sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on J-2 visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J). J-2 spouses are not automatically entitled to work in the United States but may seek employment authorization. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(j)(1)(v)(B).
L Visas 75. Congress established the L visa category in 1970 to allow multinational corporations to transfer executives, managers, or employees with “specialized knowledge” to an office here in the United States on a temporary basis. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 76. To qualify for an L visa, an employee must have been employed abroad by the sponsoring employer for at least one year. Id. L-1A visas are available to managers and executives. Id. L-1B visas are available to workers with specialized knowledge, either of the company’s product and its application in international markets, or of the company’s processes and procedures. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). L visas are approved in the first instance for a maximum of three years. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(11). An employer may renew an L-1A visa for a manager or executive for up to 7 years, and an L-1B visa for a worker with specialized knowledge for up to 5 years. 77. The spouses and minor children of L-1 sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on L-2 visas, which Congress created at the same time as L-1 visas. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). To avoid discouraging critical L-1 employees from relocating to this country, the statute categorically permits spouses on L-2 visas to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(E). L-2 children, however, are not eligible for such work authorization.
26

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 26 of 104
78. Congress has not imposed numerical limits on L-1 visas and has allowed multinational companies to bring into the United States as many of their foreign employees as necessary, so long as the employees meet the visa’s requirements.
79. According to the Congressional Research Service, the L-1 visa is “essential to retaining and expanding international businesses in the United States.”12 When investigating whether L-1 visa holders have displaced U.S. workers, the Office of the Inspector General of DHS found that claims of job displacement “do not seem to represent a significant trend.”13
80. U.S. companies rely on H-1B, H-2B and L-1 employees. For example, entire projects are dependent upon the ability of U.S. employers to transfer L-1B employees to bring knowledge of the foreign company’s operations to the U.S. Companies transfer L-1A executives and managers as an integral part of their plans for starting or expanding operations in the United States. H-1B employers pay substantial fees to the government and to attorneys and go through a lengthy, multi-tier process to assure themselves of the availability of H-1B workers who are needed for specific projects.
81. Congress has in recent years repeatedly refused to enact legislation that would have limited legal immigration and visa issuance. Specifically, the proposed Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act was introduced in February 2017 (S. 354) and was later reintroduced in August 2017 (S.B. 1720) and in 2019 (H.R. 2278). The proposed legislation would have (among other things) eliminated all family sponsorship beyond spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents; reduced the visa allocation for
12 See supra note 5. 13 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Office of the Inspector General, Review of Vulnerabilities and Potential Abuses of the L-1 Visa Program, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_0622_Jan06.pdf (last visited on July 17, 2020).
27

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 27 of 104
family-based visas by more than 60 percent; eliminated the diversity lottery; and moved to “meritbased” point immigration system. The legislation failed every time it was introduced.
THE APRIL PROCLAMATION 82. On April 20, 2020, President Trump tweeted that “[i]n light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!”14 83. Two days later, on April 22, 2020, President Trump announced and executed Presidential Proclamation 10014, 85 Fed. Reg. 23441 (the “April Proclamation”), which broadly suspended the entry of aliens as immigrants into the United States for 60 days, with limited exceptions. The April Proclamation is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. 84. The April Proclamation took effect at 11:59 Eastern Daylight Time on April 23, 2020, approximately 30 hours after the President signed it. 85. The April Proclamation was not issued in response to any national-security or foreign-relations consideration; it was ostensibly a response to the COVID-19 crisis and the pandemic’s effects on the U.S. labor market. But it does not reflect any agency fact-finding; nor does it cite research or analysis of any kind. As justification for restricting immigration, the April Proclamation cited a so-called “excess labor supply” resulting from the purported “impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in an environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor.”
14 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Apr. 20, 2020, 10:06 PM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1252418369170501639, attached as Exhibit B; see Betsy Klein, Priscilla Alvarez & Kevin Liptak, Trump claims he will temporarily suspend immigration into the US due to coronavirus fears, CNN (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/donald-trump-immigraiton-halt-coronavirus/index. html.
28

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 28 of 104
86. Specifically, the April Proclamation noted that lawful permanent residents (i.e., aliens who have entered the country on immigrant visas) have “immediate eligibility to compete for almost any job, in any sector of the economy,” and asserted without explanation that “[e]xisting immigrant visa processing protections” are inadequate either “to protect already disadvantaged and unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents,” or to support “recovery from the COVID-19 outbreak.”
87. The April Proclamation broadly suspends the entry of intending immigrants if, as of the Proclamation’s effective date of April 23, 2020, the intending immigrants:
(a) were outside the United States (April Proclamation § 2(a)(i)); (b) did not have a valid immigrant visa (id. § 2(a)(ii)); and (c) did not have a valid official travel document other than a visa (id.
§ 2(a)(iii)).15 88. The April Proclamation provides for nine limited exceptions to its otherwise broad suspension of immigration, including (as relevant to this case) a vague exception for immigrants “whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.” Id. § 2(b)(ix). 89. The April Proclamation states that a consular officer “shall determine, in his or her discretion,” whether an immigrant qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions. It also directs the Secretary of State to “implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish in the Secretary of State’s discretion,” and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to
15 The prospective immigrants in this case are not covered by § 2(a)(iii), as they seek entry pursuant to various classes of visas.
29

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 29 of 104
“implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion.”
90. The April Proclamation was set to expire by its own terms 60 days after its effective date (i.e., on June 22, 2020), but it provided that it could “be continued as necessary.” The April Proclamation did not specify the circumstances under which it would, in the President’s view, no longer be “necessary.”
THE JUNE PROCLAMATION 91. On June 22, 2020, President Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10052, 85 Fed. Reg. 38263 (the “June Proclamation”), which extends the April Proclamation’s entry suspension of individuals seeking immigrant visas and adds sweeping new restrictions on the entry into the United States of individuals seeking certain nonimmigrant visas. A copy of the June Proclamation is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit C. 92. With respect to immigrant visas, the June Proclamation amends the April Proclamation’s broad entry suspension by extending it until at least December 31, 2020. June Proclamation § 1(a). As with the April Proclamation, the June Proclamation provides that the immigrant visa entry suspension may “be continued as necessary” but does not specify the conditions under which the conditions requiring the suspension will no longer be considered “necessary.” 93. The June Proclamation seeks to justify the continuation of the immigration suspension on grounds that “the considerations present in [the April Proclamation] remain,” and that the President lacks “sufficient alternative means to protect unemployed Americans from the
30

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 30 of 104
threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents.” As with the April Proclamation, the President provided no analytical basis for these assertions.
94. With respect to nonimmigrant visas, the June Proclamation states that the “Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security reviewed nonimmigrant programs” and concluded that “the present admission of workers within several nonimmigrant visa categories also poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery.”
95. The June Proclamation states that “between February and April of 2020, more than 17 million United States jobs were lost in industries in which employers are seeking to fill worker positions tied to H-2B nonimmigrant visas,” and that “[d]uring this same period, more than 20 million United States workers lost their jobs in key industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions.” The June Proclamation also states that “the May unemployment rate for young Americans, who compete with certain J nonimmigrant visa applicants, has been particularly high—29.9 percent for 16-19 year olds, and 23.2 percent for the 20-24 year old group.”
96. Without analysis or further factual support, the June Proclamation states that “[t]he entry of additional workers through the H-1B, H-2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa programs . . . presents a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans affected by the extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.”
97. The June Proclamation broadly suspends entry into the country of “any alien seeking entry pursuant to any of the following nonimmigrant visas”:
31

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 31 of 104
(a) “an H-1B or H-2B visa, and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien [i.e., spouses and children seeking to enter pursuant to H-4 visas]” (June Proclamation § 2(a));
(b) “a J visa to the extent the alien is participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program, and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien” (id. § 2(b)); and,
(c) “an L visa, and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien” (id. § 2(c)).
98. The June Proclamation’s entry suspension became effective at 12:01 Eastern Daylight Time on June 24, 2020, just over one day after the President announced it. Id. § 7.
99. The entry suspension set forth in the June Proclamation is set to expire on December 31, 2020, but “may be continued as necessary.” Id. § 6. The June Proclamation does not specify the conditions under which its entry suspension will, in the President’s view, no longer be “necessary.”
100. As amended, the nonimmigrant entry suspension applies to any intending nonimmigrant visa applicant who, as of the June Proclamation’s effective date (June 24, 2020):
(a) was outside the United States (id. § 3(a)(i)); (b) “d[id] not have a nonimmigrant visa, of any of the classifications specified
in section 2 of this proclamation and to which the alien is seeking entry”16; and
16 This language is provided in Proclamation No. 10054, 85 Fed. Reg. 40085, which the President signed on June 29, 2020, and which amends § 3(a)(ii) of the June Proclamation. The amending Proclamation is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamationamendment-proclamation-10052/ and is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit D.
32

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 32 of 104
(c) did not have an official travel document other than a visa (id. § 3(a)(iii)).17 101. The June Proclamation’s nonimmigrant entry suspension provides for four exceptions, including (as relevant to this case), “any alien whose entry would be in the national interest as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.” Id. § 3(b)(iv). 102. Like the April Proclamation, the June Proclamation states that a consular officer “shall determine, in his or her discretion,” whether an individual qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions. Id. § 4(a). It again directs the Secretary of State to “implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish in the Secretary of State’s discretion,” and conversely directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion.” Id. 103. The June Proclamation directs the Secretary of State, Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “establish standards” to “define categories of aliens covered by section 3(b)(iv),” the “national interest” exception. Id. § 4(a)(i). The June Proclamation states that the exception includes those who “are critical to the defense, law enforcement, diplomacy, or national security of the United States; are involved with the provision of medical care to individuals who have contracted COVID-19 and are currently hospitalized; are involved with the provision of medical research at United States facilities to help the United States combat COVID-
17 Again, the prospective immigrants in this case are seeking visas and so are not covered by § 3(a)(iii).
33

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 33 of 104
19; or are necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States.” Id. To date, the Secretaries have not publicly announced any “standards” governing the “national interest” exception, including whether these enumerate grounds are the exclusive bases on which to obtain a national interest exception.
104. Seemingly in response to this litigation, the June Proclamation specifically provides that “[t]he Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exercise the authority under section 3(b)(iv) of this proclamation and section 2(b)([ix18]) of Proclamation 10014 to exempt noncitizen children who would as a result of the suspension in section 2 of this proclamation or the suspension in section 1 of Proclamation 10014 age out of eligibility for a visa.” Id.
105. The June Proclamation directs that noncitizens covered by § 3(b)(iv)’s “national interest” exception “shall be identified by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees, in his or her sole discretion.” Id. § 4(a)(ii).
AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCLAMATIONS 106. The State Department posted to its website an announcement concerning the April Proclamation on or about April 23, 2020. See ECF 21, at 9 & n.8. That announcement has since been updated to reflect the June Proclamation’s extension of the existing restrictions on
18 As the Court observed in its order of June 23, 2020, “[t]he reference . . . to . . . ‘section 2(b)(iv) of Proclamation 10014’ appears to be a scrivener’s error,” as it appears to be meant to reference the April Proclamation’s “national interest” exception, which “is found in section 2(b)(ix)” of that Proclamation (not section 2(b)(iv)). ECF No. 41, at 4 n.2.
34

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 34 of 104
immigration.19 The announcement summarizes the April Proclamation’s scope and exceptions,
and directs the reader to the text of the April Proclamation for further information.
107. DOS posted to its website a similar announcement summarizing the June
Proclamation’s scope and exceptions, and directing the reader to the text of the June Proclamation for further information, on or about June 23, 2020.20
108. Although DOS suspended routine visa services on or about March 20, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,21 the Bureau of Consular Affairs has advised that “U.S. Embassies and Consulates are beginning a phased resumption of routine visa services.”22
109. The Bureau of Consular Affairs has also published, through a series of tweets, a
brief FAQ regarding the State Department’s implementation of the June Proclamation. The FAQ
largely repeats the language contained in the June Proclamation but adds, in response to the
question whether the June Proclamation will “impact Diversity Visa applicants,” that “the
suspension does apply to DV applicants” and that “[t]he Proclamation will expire on December 31
19 U.S. Dep’t of State, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/Proclamation-Suspending-Entry-ofImmigrants-Who-Present-Risk-to-the-US-labor-market.html (last visited on July 17, 2020). A copy is attached as Exhibit E. 20 U.S. Dep’t of State, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/proclamation-suspendingentry-of-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-who-present-risk-to-the-US-labor-market-during-theeconomic-recovery-following-the-COVID-19-outbreak.html (last visited on July 17, 2020). A copy is attached as Exhibit F. 21See U.S. Dep’t of State, Suspension of Routine Visa Services, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-routine-visaservices.html (last visited on July 17, 2020). 22 See U.S. Dep’t of State, Phased Resumption of Routine Visa Services (July 14, 2020), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/phased-resumption-routine-visaservices.html (last visited on July 17, 2020).
35

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 35 of 104
unless extended”—i.e., after the September 30, 2020 deadline for Diversity Visas to issue for the current fiscal year.23
110. The Bureau of Consular Affairs Twitter account has also responded to a number of individual queries regarding the Proclamations’ effect. For example:
(a) In response to the question “[w]hat’s going to happen to” Diversity Visa 2020 winners who have not yet had an interview, the Bureau responded that “the Proclamation suspends the issuance of several categories of immigrant visas, including Diversity Visas. While the proclamation is in place, the issuance of diversity visas is not permitted.”24
(b) Responding to a follow-up question, the Bureau reiterated, “We will not be issuing diversity visas while the proclamation remains in effect. The proclamation will expire on December 31, 2020, unless continued. The September 30, 2020, deadline for DV-2020 has not been extended.”25
(c) In response to a question whether 2020 Diversity Visa applicants “can . . . do the interview” despite the June Proclamation, the Bureau responded that “DV-2020 applicants who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23, 2020, are subject to the proclamation’s restrictions unless eligible
23 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 23, 2020, 7:49 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1275576629947822080, attached as Exhibit G. 24 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 24, 2020, 7:02 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1275927372269846529, attached as Exhibit H. 25 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 29, 2020, 8:24 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277578676574568448, attached as Exhibit I; see also U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 29, 2020, 9:00 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277587840428367874, attached as Exhibit J (similar).
36

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 36 of 104
for an exception. The September 30, 2020, deadline for obtaining a visa has not been extended.”26 (d) In response to the question whether a Diversity Visa 2020 lottery winner who is “waiting for [an] interview” is “affected by [the] proclamation of President Trump,” the Bureau stated, “Applicants for immigrant visas covered by the proclamation, including DV-2020 applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23, 2020, are subject to the proclamation's restrictions unless eligible for an exception,”27 and that “[t]he September 30, 2020, deadline for DV-2020 applicants to obtain their visa has not been extended.”28 (e) The Bureau gave the same answer to the observation that even if Diversity Visa holders “are suspended from entering till after the proclamation ends,” “[t]he Proclamation only suspends entry, it does not mention suspending the Interview and Visa Issuance process.”29 (f) With respect to nonimmigrant visas, in response to the following question:
I’m on H1 and inside US. My wife and kid have H4 approval notices but no valid visa stamps on passports, that means their August appointment is useless and they can’t get visa stamps and can’t get in although they don’t have SSN and can’t work here?
26 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (July 6, 2020 10:29 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1280146948054487041, attached as Exhibit K; 27 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 26, 2020, 10:20 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1276520628577882112, attached as Exhibit L. The tweet to which the Bureau was responding appears to have been deleted. 28 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 26, 2020, 12:00 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1276545941819056128, attached as Exhibit M. 29 See U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 30, 2020, 12:29 pm), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1278002698487554052, attached as Exhibit N.
37

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 37 of 104
The Bureau responded,
We will not be issuing H-1B, H-2B, L, or certain J visas, and their derivatives through December 31, 2020, unless an exception applies.30
(g) In response to a question regarding where to “read a National Interest
waiver procedure,” the Bureau stated, “per the Proclamation please contact
[the Department of Homeland Security] for information on a national interest waiver.”31 Neither Proclamation directs DHS alone to issue such
information, and to Plaintiffs’ knowledge DHS has not done so.
111. A search of the Bureau’s Twitter feed shows that it has continued to reiterate these positions.32
112. Plaintiffs’ individual experiences bear out that the State Department has
implemented the Proclamations by refusing to issue visas. See infra ⁋⁋ 138-291.
113. On or about June 22, 2020, DHS posted to its website an announcement concerning the June Proclamation.33 The announcement summarizes the June Proclamation’s scope and
30 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 30, 2020, 8:15 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277938802259042304, attached as Exhibit O. The tweet to which the Bureau was responding appears to have been deleted. See also U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 29, 2020, 8:22 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277578175741153281, attached as Exhibit P (similar in response to question whether an “H4 will be allowed to get [a] visa stamp if [the principal] H1 [visa holder is already] in US…?”). 31 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), Tweet to Albert Alam, TWITTER (June 30, 2020, 12:56 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1278009405460676609, attached as Exhibit Q. The Bureau misidentified the Department of Homeland security’s Twitter account as “@DHS”; the correct account is @DHSgov. 32 See generally https://twitter.com/search?q=proclamation%20(from%3Atravelgov)&f=live. 33 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Trump Administration, DHS Prioritizes American Citizens for American Jobs, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/06/22/trump-administration-dhs-prioritizesamerican-citizens-american-jobs (last visited on July 17, 2020). A copy is attached as Exhibit R.
38

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 38 of 104
exceptions and directs the reader to the full text of the June Proclamation. It states that DHS “will begin implementing” the June Proclamation but does not specify how it will be implemented.
114. DHS’s announcement further states that it “is also directed to use all available tools to transition to a merit-based immigration system, ending often-exploited avenues for fraud and abuse.” Neither the April Proclamation nor the June Proclamation, however, contains any provision concerning a “merit-based immigration system,” and DHS’s announcement provides no other citation for this asserted “direct[ive].”
115. On July 16, 2020, DOS posted to its website an announcement regarding its implementation of the June Proclamation.34 It states, apparently under the authority of the Proclamations’ “national interest” exceptions, that “limited exceptions may be provided” to:
• applicants who are subject to aging out of their current immigrant visa classification before the relevant Proclamations expire or within two weeks thereafter;
• certain H and J visa applicants who are traveling to work in support of a critical U.S. foreign policy objective (such as COVID-19 response) and/or traveling at the request of the U.S. government; and
• spouses and children of certain visa class holders, such as H, J, and L visa holders who are already excepted from, or not subject to, the June Proclamation.
34 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Exceptions to Presidential Proclamations (10014 & 10052) Suspending the Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Presenting a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/exceptions-top-p-10014-10052-suspending-entry-of-immigrants-non-immigrants-presenting-risk-to-us-labormarket-during-economic-recovery.html (last visited July 17, 2020). A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit S.
39

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 39 of 104
116. DOS’s announcement further states that it “will continue to issue H, L, and J visas to otherwise qualified derivative applicants who are otherwise currently excepted or where the principal applicant is currently in the United States.”
117. The announcement further affirms that “[a]pplicants for immigrant visas covered by the proclamation, including Diversity Visa 2020 (DV-2020) applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23 are subject to the proclamation's restrictions unless eligible for an exception.”
118. On August 12, 2020, the State Department published new guidance regarding the “national interest” exceptions to the Proclamations.35 Plaintiffs are analyzing what effects (if any) this new guidance may have on their claims.  
THE JUNE PROCLAMATION CONFLICTS WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND THE PROCLAMATION’S OWN STATED GOALS
119. Although the June Proclamation purports to be supported by economic and labor market justifications, those justifications are contradicted by all established economic research. Indeed, they appear to have been created out of whole cloth and without any consideration of the issues.
120. The June Proclamation rests on a fundamentally flawed premise: that its restrictions on the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants into the United States are necessary to protect the U.S. labor force during a time of economic contraction, because foreign-born workers “pose[] a
35 U.S. Dep’t of State, National Interest Exceptions to Presidential Proclamations (10014 & 10052) Suspending the Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Presenting a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak (Aug. 12, 2020), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/exceptions-to-p-p10014-10052-suspending-entry-of-immigrants-non-immigrants-presenting-risk-to-us-labormarket-during-economic-recovery.html
40

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 40 of 104
risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers”—especially during a time of high unemployment.
121. This premise is contrary to decades of economic research. Indeed, numerous economists of all political stripes have thoroughly discredited the “fallacy” that “there is a fixed amount of work to be done.”36 In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published a 642-page “Consensus Study Report” authored by a panel of nearly 40 economists from across the policy and political spectrum—including “immigration sceptics.” The Report concluded that inflows of foreign-born workers have no significant effect on the overall employment levels of U.S. workers.37
122. Congress has likewise rejected that “there is a fixed number of jobs for which competition is a zero-sum game,” such that immigrants and foreign-born workers “presen[t] a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans.” S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 12 (2000). Instead, Congress has found that “labor markets have demonstrated time and time again [that] additional people entering the labor force, whether native-born students out of school, immigrants, or non-immigrants, expand opportunities and create other jobs through innovation, entrepreneurship, and money spent on consumer items like food, clothing, and housing.” Id.
123. Congress has therefore found, and economic studies consistently show, that increased immigration levels into the U.S. have had positive impacts on the employment levels
36 Economics A-Z Terms Beginning with L, The Economist, https://goo.gl/BvRwKU; see also Paul Krugman, Lumps of Labor, N.Y. Times (Oct. 7, 2003), https://goo.gl/GyYTG5. 37 THE NAT’L ACAD. OF SCIS., ENG’G., AND MED., THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF IMMIGRATION (The National Academies Press 2017), https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/1.
41

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 41 of 104
and incomes of U.S.-born workers.38 This is because foreign-born workers innovate more, creating jobs and increasing the productivity of U.S. workers;39 they complement, rather than compete with, U.S.-born workers in the workforce;40 and they participate in the economy as consumers, stimulating demand.41
124. Perhaps for this reason, Congress has three times in the past four years refused
invitations to curtail legal immigration. See supra ¶ 81.
125. The June Proclamation’s sweeping ban on both immigrant and nonimmigrant entry,
which the Department of State has decided to implement by refusing to issue visas in any of the
covered categories, is therefore directly and irrationally contrary both to decades of Congressional
judgment and to the June Proclamation’s own stated economic goals. By dramatically limiting the
number of foreign nationals entering the U.S. economy at a time when consumer demand is already
38 See, e.g., Jacqueline Varas, Am. Action Forum, How Immigration Helps U.S. Workers and the Economy (Mar. 20, 2017), https://goo.gl/ovHQEh; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Immigration Myths and Facts (Apr. 14, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/yay4xjm9. 39 Giovani Peri & Chad Sparber, Global Migration Center, Presidential Executive Actions Halting High Skilled Immigration Hurt the US Economy. https://globalmigration.ucdavis.edu/presidentialexecutive-actions-halting-high-skilled-immigration-hurt-us-economy. 40 See, e.g., Matthew Denhart, George W. Bush Institute, America’s Advantage: A Handbook on Immigration and Economic Growth 70, 118 (3d ed., Sept. 2017), https://tinyurl.com/y4ykokn9; Gretchen Frazee, 4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy, PBS NewsHour (Nov. 2, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/yxlwzkth; Maria E. Enchautegui, Immigrant and Native Workers Compete for Different Low-Skilled Jobs, The Urban Institute: Urban Wire (Oct. 13, 2015), https://tinyurl.com/ycayp6ky; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supra note 38. 41 Kenneth Megan, Bipartisan Policy Ctr., Immigration and the Labor Force (Aug. 25, 2015), https://goo.gl/8p3SP8 (“[A] breadth of research indicates that immigration can be complementary to native born employment, as it spurs demand for goods and services”); Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity, Fed. Reserve Bank of S.F. Econ. Letter (Aug. 30, 2010), https://goo.gl/jK17fcl; Buttonwood, Keep on Trucking, The Economist (Feb. 11, 2012), https://goo.gl/x8vqaL (“When people work for a living, they earn money. They spend that money on goods and services that are produced by other people.”).
42

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 42 of 104

low, the June Proclamation hinders recovery of both the economy and the labor market. “Far from helping American workers, barring immigrants is likely to make the economy less productive.”42
126. Many of the particular immigration restrictions effected by the June Proclamation are irrational for additional reasons.
127. First, the June Proclamation, as implemented, suspends visa issuance and entry for thousands of individuals who cannot or will not seek employment in the United States, and therefore do not contribute to the alleged problem of job competition that the June Proclamation purports to address. These restricted individuals include children; elderly, retired, or disabled parents; students; and individuals who are legally not permitted to work, such as H-4 spouses and children.
128. Second, the June Proclamation, as implemented, suspends visa issuance and entry for thousands of workers for whom a precondition of visa approval is that such workers will not take a job away from a U.S. worker—and therefore cannot “pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers.” In particular, the INA requires the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that no U.S. workers are available before employers may hire H-2B workers. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); see 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6)(iii). The same is true for employers seeking to hire workers through the J-1 summer work/travel program or trainee/intern program—they must certify that hiring such workers will not “displace” any U.S. workers. 22 C.F.R. §§ 62.22(f)(2), 62.32(n)(3). These certification requirements ensure that it is legally and practically impossible for the H-2B visa program to be responsible for the “more than 17 million United States jobs [that] were lost in industries in which employers are seeking to fill worker positions tied to H-2B

42 Ilya Somin, The Danger of America’s Coronavirus Immigration Bans, THE ATLANTIC (June 28,

2020),

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/danger-americas-coronavirus-

immigration -bans /613537/.

43

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 43 of 104
nonimmigrant visas”; for the J exchange program to be responsible for the “particularly high” unemployment rates for “young Americans, who compete with certain J nonimmigrant visa applicants”; or for workers on H-2B or J-1 visas to “present[] a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans,” as the June Proclamation incorrectly claims.
129. Third, the June Proclamation, as implemented, suspends visa issuance and entry for thousands of H-1B and L-1 workers who play critical roles in job preservation and creation, and whose entry would therefore alleviate the effects of “the extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.”
130. Many H-1B visas, for example, are provided to IT professionals, who have helped to transition much of the U.S. workforce to working from home during the COVID-19 crisis and who are needed to maintain the technology that allows the work-from-home economy to continue.43
131. H-1B visa holders are also disproportionately likely to patent new technologies. Restricting their entry therefore not only denies U.S. companies the opportunities for growth and job creation that would have otherwise resulted from those new technologies,44 but also “risk[s] reducing growth and productivity” as companies “off-shore” jobs to countries where they are able to hire skilled foreign workers.45 Indeed, recent academic research by the Wharton School of
43 Alex Nowrasteh, President Trump’s Cancellation of Many Work Visas Will Hurt the American Economy, Cato at Liberty (June 22, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trumpscancellation-many-work-visas-will-hurt-american-economy. 44 Id. 45 Letter from 324 employers and trade, industry, and higher education associations and groups across the American economy focused on the high-skilled workforce to President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf (May 21, 2020), https://competeamerica.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/26/2020/05/324-Signatory-Business-Letter-to-President-and-SecretariesNonimmigrant-Visa-Facts-5-21-2020.pdf.
44

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 44 of 104
Business confirms that restrictions on high-skilled immigration causes firms to send jobs elsewhere by “open[ing] new foreign affiliates abroad” and increasing employment “at existing foreign affiliates.”46
132. H-1B visa holders are also hired for particular specialty occupations, and the majority of those specialty occupations are currently experiencing economic stability and success as opposed to the high unemployment currently experienced in other parts of the U.S. economy. Although the June Proclamation states that “more than 20 million United States workers lost their jobs in key industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions,” that assertion ignores that U.S. employers seeking to hire H-1B workers cannot hire any worker from an entire industry, but instead must hire someone seeking to work in a specific type of job. Data on the top H-1B jobs—not industries—shows that between January 2020 and May 2020, total employment increased by about 185,000 in the top 20 H-1B occupations, which account for 85 percent of all H-1B requests.47 In fact, DHS data shows that 66 percent of all H-1B workers work in computer-related occupations, in which the unemployment rate through April 2020—at the height of stay-at-home-orders in the United States—was 2.8 percent.48 For this
46 Britta Glennon, How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-1B Program, SSRN (2020) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3547655; see also S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 19 (2000). (“In 1998, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote, ‘If U.S. companies are told to put up “No Vacancy” signs, they are inevitably going to move more knowledge operations overseas, and that will spur more innovation, wealth creation, and jobs over there.’”) 47 David J. Bier, “The Facts About H-4 Visas for Spouses of H-1B Workers”, Cato at Liberty (July 7, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-h-1b-ban-based-misreading-economic-statistics. 48 Supra note 46.
45

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 45 of 104
reason, too, the ban on H-1B entry/visa issuance is contrary to the economic data: there are plenty of jobs in the highly skilled occupations most commonly held by H-1B visa holders.49
133. The June Proclamation is similarly irrational with respect to L visas. These workers must demonstrate significant institutional knowledge, expertise, or experience specific to the sponsoring company. Such workers are not fungible, and do not compete with unemployed U.S. workers for open positions.
134. Moreover, L-visa holders are crucial for job creation in the United States because they provide critical on-the-ground leadership for multinational employers seeking to invest in their U.S. affiliates. According to the Congressional Research Service, the L-1 visa category is “essential to retaining and expanding international businesses in the United States,” not least because it allows multinational corporations to bring key employees, including top executives, to the United States on a temporary basis to oversee investments and set up new operations here. In creating the L visa, Congress found that “[s]uch intracompany transfers have contributed immeasurably to the growth of American enterprise throughout the world and to the international trade of the United States.” H.R. Rep. 91-851, at 2755 (1970).
135. In short, the June Proclamation’s effects are directly and irrationally contrary to its asserted purposes and cursory findings. Rather than protecting the U.S. labor force, as it claims to do, the June Proclamation endangers the U.S. economy by cutting off the supply of foreign-born workers, innovators, and consumers that the economy relies on for stability and continued growth. At the same time, the Proclamation prohibits individuals with no intention of working in the U.S.
49 In addition, H-1B-dependent employers must certify that the position for which the foreign worker is being recruited cannot be filled by a United States worker. See supra ¶47; 22 C.F.R. § 655.738.
46

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 46 of 104
from contributing their purchasing power to the U.S. economy, to the ultimate detriment of U.S.
workers.
THE PROCLAMATIONS AND DEFENDANTS’ IMPLEMENTATION HARM PLAINTIFFS
136. The Proclamations have effectively shut down a significant portion of the U.S.
immigration system. The CATO Institute estimates that at least 164,000 immigrants and 381,000
nonimmigrant workers and their derivatives have been and will be banned through the June
Proclamation’s effective date, which will also affect approximately 20,000 U.S. employers seeking to bring workers in on nonimmigrant visas.50 The White House estimates that the June
Proclamation will affect at least 525,000 people.
137. The Proclamations and their implementation therefore cause Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated entities and individuals substantial, concrete, particularized, and irreparable
injury.
Family-Based Immigrant Visa Plaintiffs
138. Plaintiff Nazif Alam is a Lawful Permanent Resident originally from Bangladesh.
On March 29, 2019, he filed a petition to sponsor his wife, a prospective student at Cornell
University who currently resides in Bangladesh, for an F2A immigrant visa. USCIS approved the
50 See David J. Bier, “Trump’s Migration Ban Could Affect Up to 545,500 if Consulates Reopen— Fewer than 18,000 Otherwise,” Cato at Liberty (July 7, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/trumpsmigration-ban-could-affect-545500-consulates-reopen-fewer-18000-otherwise; David J. Bier, “About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year,” Cato at Liberty (July 16, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/about-20000-us-employers-are-affected-trumpstravel-bans-year. The Migration Policy Institute has issued similar estimates. See Migration Policy Inst. (@MigrationPolicy) TWITTER (Jun. 22, 2020, 5:42 PM) https://twitter.com/MigrationPolicy/status/1275167186794024962; see also Sruthi Darbhamulla, Trump’s COVID-19 visa bans may alter the face of American immigration beyond the pandemic, THE CHICAGO REPORTER (July 8, 2020), https://www.chicagoreporter.com/trumps-covid-19-visabans-may-alter-the-face-of-american-immigration-beyond-the-pandemic/ (providing similar estimates from the American Immigration Council).
47

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 47 of 104
visa petition on February 14, 2020, and Mr. Alam submitted all necessary documentation in support of the visa on April 8, 2020. The only remaining step was for Mr. Alam’s wife to attend a consular interview.
139. Mr. Alam has been waiting to be reunited with his wife for two years. They are two young adults who are on the cusp of beginning their American dream together. The last several months of their separation have been particularly trying, as Mr. Alam is an essential employee in the food distribution industry in New York City. He works for the firm Harold Levinson Associates LLC, where he is responsible for ensuring that the grocery shelves of the convenience stores for which he is responsible are stocked with much-needed supplies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have been allowed to work from home to avoid exposure to the virus, but Mr. Alam has not had that luxury. He comes home every day with the anxiety of having been exposed to one of the most lethal viruses in modern history. Not having his wife’s support, comfort, and companionship during these difficult times has left him even more stressed and burned out.
140. Mr. Alam’s wife will be fully supported financially when she arrives in the United States. Not only will she be supported by her husband’s steady job; she also has been accepted to a Master’s program at Cornell University for fall 2020. It is a rare opportunity for any person, and more so for a woman from a developing country, to be accepted into an esteemed institute like Cornell University. This came at a steep cost: dedication, effort, and many sleepless nights in order to get good scores in standardized tests and to write exceptional essays. Mr. Alam and his wife stand to lose the initial monetary deposit that was made to Cornell to secure his wife’s admission. Her inability to attend Cornell would also result in severely restricting her earning potential and her ability to contribute to the economy of this country when she is here and ready
48

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 48 of 104
to enter the job market, thereby severely harming their effort in pursuing the American dream. Mr. Alam has the necessary resources to support his wife for the eighteen months of her educational program when she will be a full-time student and not working.
141. In late April 2020, when Mr. Alam learned about the Presidential Proclamation, he was devastated, because he knew it would prolong his separation from his wife, but he hoped that it would only last for 60 days. When he learned in late June that the entry bar affecting his wife would extend at least another six months, if not indefinitely, he was beside himself. It is emotionally wearing on Mr. Alam to be separated from his wife.
142. On July 11 and 12, 2020, Mr. Alam contacted the National Visa Center and the U.S. Consulate in Dhaka Bangladesh to inquire about the visa process for his wife. The Consulate only told Mr. Alam that “that they were awaiting approval from the Consulate in Bangladesh to approve the case being forwarded.”
143. Plaintiff Carmen Ligia Pimentel is a lawful permanent resident originally from the Dominican Republic. She sponsored her husband Luis Beltre Rondon, who currently resides in the Dominican Republic, for an F2A immigrant visas. Ms. Pimentel was expected to give birth to the couple’s first child on or about August 12, 2020.
144. Ms. Pimentel filed her husband’s visa petition with USCIS on or around January 18, 2018, which was approved on or around September 27, 2019. On March 16, 2020, the National Visa Center confirmed that the application was documentarily qualified, and Ms. Pimentel’s husband was eligible for a visa interview.
145. Ms. Pimentel has been separated from her husband for about two and a half years. Because the couple anticipated that he would receive his visa in short order, they made the decision to try to get pregnant and start a family sooner than later. They are both in the workforce, and
49

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 49 of 104
once their baby is born, they had planned for one of them to stay home with the baby while the other worked, to avoid the cost of childcare. However, when Ms. Pimentel received the happy news in February 2020 that she was several months pregnant, and her husband had still not been scheduled for a visa interview, she requested expedited processing to secure the interview as soon as possible. The request was approved on or about March 20, 2020, but because of the COVID19 pandemic, they did not hear anything further for about a month. In late April 2020, the Consulate contacted Ms. Pimentel’s husband to inquire further about his request for an expedited interview and confirmed that his circumstances warranted expedition. However, they further informed him that they could not schedule his interview because of the Presidential Proclamation banning immigration for 60 days.
146. Through her attorney, Ms. Pimentel contacted her congressional representative to ask how to invoke the “national interest” exception so that her husband would not have to miss the birth of their first child. She held out hope that the Proclamation would not be extended beyond the initial 60-day period so her husband could join her thereafter.
147. In late June 2020, when Ms. Pimentel learned the President had extended the Proclamation through the end of the year, and perhaps indefinitely, she was devastated. Her separation from her husband has been extremely hard on her, particularly because he has not been there to provide her emotional support as she navigated her first pregnancy. Although she speaks to her husband on a daily basis, this is no substitute for the comfort and companionship his physical presence could provide. She is also heartbroken about the prospect of not having her husband there with her for the birth of their child, the most beautiful moment of their lives. But even worse is the prospect that her husband will also be separated from his child and be unable to help her care for him here in the United States, potentially indefinitely. Ms. Pimentel cannot easily travel to the
50

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 50 of 104
Dominican Republic to reunite with her husband once her child is born, particularly in light of the risk of becoming exposed to the COVID-19 virus.
148. On July 10, 2020, Ms. Pimentel’s attorney contacted the office of her Congressional representative, Sylvia R. Garcia, to seek an exception to the entry suspension for her husband. On July 13, 2020, the U.S. Embassy in the Dominican Republic responded: “Thank you for your inquiry … According to our records Ms. Pimentel petitioned for her husband Luis Beltre Rondon … as such, the visa application falls under the recent Presidential Proclamation …, and we cannot process this visa until the expiration of the Proclamation.”
149. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron is a Lawful Permanent Resident originally from the Dominican Republic. On April 25, 2018, he filed applications to sponsor his two minor daughters (ages 12 and 17) for F2A immigrant visas. On February 26, 2020 the National Visa Center notified him that his applications were complete and that his daughters were eligible for visa interviews.
150. Mr. Lebron has been living apart from his two minor daughters for 7 years, and for over two years since his petition was approved. Although Mr. Lebron was eligible to sponsor his daughters earlier, when he became a lawful permanent resident in 2013, he was in an abusive relationship and wanted to wait before bringing his daughters to live with him. In the meantime, his mother has been their primary caretaker, while he provided for them financially. However, his mother is now advanced in age and is no longer healthy enough to adequately care for his daughters. Mr. Lebron also cannot return to the Dominican Republic for any significant length of time to care for his daughters without jeopardizing his career and financial stability, his Lawful Permanent Resident status, and his eligibility to become a U.S. citizen.
51

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 51 of 104
151. In late April 2020, Mr. Lebron learned about the April Proclamation that banned immigration for 60 days, which prompted him to try to seek expedited emergency interviews in light of his mother’s precarious health situation. However, he has to date received no response to this request.
152. Upon learning that the Proclamation entry suspension was being extended to the end of the year, and possibly indefinitely, Mr. Lebron has become distraught. After waiting for his daughters’ visa applications to become current for more than two years, he now faces the prospect that they will continue to be separated for at least another six months, and possibly indefinitely. This has caused him great fear and anxiety, particularly because of his mother’s precarious health situation. His mother could take a turn for the worse at any time, leaving his minor daughters to fend for themselves in a country where they have no other support structure.
153. On July 14, 2020, Mr. Lebron contacted the National Visa Center to seek an emergency interview for his daughters, in order to invoke an exception to the June Proclamation. Congresswoman Lori Trahan also made a request for an emergency interview on Mr. Lebron’s behalf on July 17, 2020. As of the filing of this Amended Complaint, he has not received a response to his request.
154. Plaintiff Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo is a U.S. citizen who was born in Nigeria. On March 18, 2018, he filed a petition to sponsor his father Sylva Nwankwo, who resides in Nigeria, for an immigrant visa. The petition was approved on February 18, 2020. After submitting all necessary paperwork, Mr. Nwankwo has been waiting for his father to be scheduled for a visa at the Consulate in Nigeria.
155. Mr. Nwankwo has been separated from his father for over two and half years since he sponsored his immigrant visa. The separation has been very difficult and has resulted in less
52

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 52 of 104
and less personal interaction with his father as time goes by. He misses his father’s love, care, guidance and discipline, which is essential to his balanced development. Mr. Nwankwo is an undergraduate student in electrical engineering and looks to his father as his role model and mentor. His father is a well-established engineer with a current license from the State of California.
156. When Mr. Nwankwo learned in late April 2020 about the Presidential Proclamation’s initial 60-day ban on immigration, and then in late June about the extension of the ban for another six months, if not longer, he and his family were heartbroken. This protracted and possibly indefinite separation has made Mr. Nwankwo feel disappointed and troubled. He had to go through many difficult life events without his father’s support but was holding out hope that he only had to wait for his companionship a short time longer. But when he learned about the prolonged and potentially indefinite separation imposed by the June Proclamation, his hopes were crushed by the uncertainty of how much longer it would take to reunite with his father.
157. Plaintiff Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jiménez is a Lawful Permanent Resident originally from Chile. On December 20, 2017, shortly after he became a Lawful Permanent Resident, Mr. Jimenez sponsored his now 19-year old son, Claudio, for an F2A immigrant visa. The application took two years to process but was finally approved on August 22, 2019.
158. At that time, Claudio was temporarily living with his father in the United States. On August 23, 2019, Mr. Jimenez sent Claudio to Chile to carry out consular visa processing there. He anticipated that he would be separated from Claudio for only a few months, and diligently worked to submit all documents in support of his application to ensure that they would be reunited soon. By January 22, 2020, Claudio was documentarily qualified for a visa interview. The interview was originally scheduled for March 20, 2020, in Santiago, Chile, but was rescheduled to March 30, and then was indefinitely postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
53

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 53 of 104
159. Mr. Jimenez has now been separated from his son for almost a full year during one of the most critical periods in his son’s life. Claudio was planning on starting college at Auburn University or Troy University in Oklahoma in the fall of 2020. Both schools expressed interest in offering Claudio a full scholarship. He had expressed an interest in studying nuclear engineering so that one day he could enlist in the U.S. Navy and, after that, go to work for NASA. Mr. Jimenez is very proud of his son and is eager to see him pursue higher education and advance his career in the near future.
160. When the Presidential Proclamation was announced in late April, Mr. Jimenez held out hope that it would expire after 60 days, as it initially stated, so that his son’s plans to start college in the fall would not be disrupted. When the Proclamation entry suspension was extended for at least the next six months and possibly indefinitely, Mr. Jimenez was emotionally devastated. What was supposed to be a brief separation from his son has turned out to be an extended, if not indefinite family nightmare. Not only was Mr. Jimenez’s dream to see his son begin higher education in the United States destroyed, it also meant Mr. Jimenez would have to suffer prolonged and potentially indefinite separation from his son, with whom he had expected to reunite months ago. He is only able to communicate with his son by phone once a week because of issues with the telephone signal, which has been difficult to bear. Mr. Jimenez has spent thousands of dollars on legal counsel and government fees in connection with his son’s immigration processing to hasten being reunited with him, which now appears to have been for naught. He also has had to spend additional money providing for his son’s living expenses in Chile, and he must pay for any medical expenses out-of-pocket as his son has no health insurance there.
54

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 54 of 104
161. Mr. Jimenez has requested an emergency interview for his son, in order to invoke an exception to the June Proclamation. As of the filing of this Amended Complaint, he has not received a response to his request.
162. Plaintiff Angela Sinon is a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines and worked for the United Nations in New York for 25 years before retiring in 2013. On January 5, 2009, she filed a petition to sponsor her unmarried adult son Emmanuel Sinon for an F2B immigrant visa. The petition was approved on September 24, 2009, and her son was finally scheduled for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Manila on March 10, 2020.
163. Ms. Sinon’s son was living with her in the United States, but when his interview was scheduled, he returned to the Philippines for the interview. However, the interview was canceled because Mr. Sinon had to wait eight weeks for the results of a medical test. Mr. Sinon’s test ultimately came back negative, so he was again ready for the interview. But the Consulate has not rescheduled Mr. Sinon’s interview.
164. Though Ms. Sinon has been separated from her son for only a few months, she has suffered greatly, and this suffering has only become more severe with each day he is away from her. Ms. Sinon is an elderly, unmarried woman, and she relies on her son for all of her basic life activities. Both of her parents have passed away, and her son is the only family she has left. Ms. Sinon’s son assists her with all of her daily activities, including buying groceries, taking her to her medical appointments, doing household chores, and paying her bills. Because of all of the day-today assistance her son provides, Ms. Sinon has suffered significantly these last few months that her son has been in the Philippines awaiting his visa. She has also suffered financially because of the separation from her son. She has had to pay for his apartment and living expenses in the Philippines while he awaits visa processing there, which she can ill afford on her retiree income.
55

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 55 of 104
165. Her son has a Bachelor’s degree, and Ms. Sinon was expecting her son to help support her financially once he obtained his immigrant visa and was able to find employment. He has been volunteering for the American Red Cross since 2013, and before that for the Department of Veterans Affairs from 2000 to 2013, always looking to give back to his adopted country.
166. When Ms. Sinon learned in late April that the April Proclamation would ban immigration for 60 days, and then in late June that it would be extended to the end of the year, if not longer, she was heartbroken and devastated. She has been waiting for her son’s visa to become current for 10 years. The prospect of having to wait to reunite with him for at least another six months, if not indefinitely, is more than she can bear.
167. On July 13, 2020 Ms. Sinon contacted the U.S. Consulate in Manilla to seek an emergency interview for her son, in order to invoke an exception to the June Proclamation. As of the filing of this Amended Complaint, she has not received a response to her request.
168. Plaintiff Loida Phelps is a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines. On March 18, 2009, she filed a petition to sponsor her unmarried adult daughter Maria Lourdes Aligam Dolom for an F2B immigrant visa, together with her three granddaughters Marylour Angela Dolom Reano, Sebastian Dolom Lozano, and Marylour Angela Dolom Lozano, all of whom currently reside in the Philippines. The petition was approved on April 22, 2010. Because her oldest granddaughter was close to aging out of her visa preference category, she was initially approved to expedite their visa interview, and she scheduled medical appointments for July 14, 2020 in Manila.
169. Ms. Phelps has been separated from her daughter and granddaughters for the last 20 years, and began the process of reuniting with them 11 years ago. She successfully petitioned to bring her other two daughters to the United States in 2003. They are now married, have children
56

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 56 of 104
and live ten minutes away from Ms. Phelps. It has been her life-long dream to have all of her children and grandchildren together with her in the United States.
170. Ms. Phelps was set to achieve her family reunification dream when in late April, and then again in late June, the Proclamation forced her to defer it further, possibly indefinitely. However, the consequences of this delay are dire. Ms. Phelps is in her 60s and has a number of health issues, including osteoporosis, arthritis, migraines and a benign breast tumor that her doctor is monitoring. She longs to have the comfort of her whole family around her, and worries that her declining health will rob her of the ability to enjoy their company if their arrival continues to be delayed. Though Ms. Phelps has tried to visit her daughter and granddaughters in the Philippines regularly, each trip is a bit harder than the last, and she is not sure how much longer she will be able make these long journeys.
171. Her daughter and granddaughters will not only be able to support her as she advances in age, but they will also contribute to American society. Her eldest granddaughter is a senior in college studying medical technology in the Philippines, and has plans to enter a masters’ program in this field when she comes to the U.S.
172. Complicating matters is the fact that Ms. Phelps’ granddaughter Marylour Angela Dolom Reano may be entitled to an exemption under the Proclamation because she may age out while the Proclamation is in effect on October 26, 2020, under the rules of the Child Status Protection Act. However, this is cold comfort for the family, as her granddaughter, a derivative applicant, cannot immigrate unless her mother Maria Lourdes first receives a her visa.
173. Ms. Phelps’s attorney has repeatedly attempted to contact the Embassy through the U.S. Travel Docs system, to seek an exception to the Proclamation, but to date has had no response.
57

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 57 of 104
174. Plaintiff Nancy Abarca is a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines. On February 9, 1995, she submitted a petition to sponsor her brother Renato Gawat, together with his wife Christina Tesaluna Gawat, and their minor daughter Maria Andrea Tesaluna Gawat, who currently reside in the Philippines. The petition was approved on December 13, 1999, they have submitted all of the necessary paperwork. Their case is now “current” according to the July 2020 Visa Bulletin, and they are awaiting a visa interview.
175. Ms. Abarca has been waiting 25 years to reunite with her brother and his family in the United States. While she knew the wait would be long under the sibling fourth preference category, the time has taken its toll on her health in ways that she did not expect. She suffers from asthma, arthritis and diabetes. Because of the heightened risks of the COVID-19 pandemic, she can no longer carry out full time work as a registered nurse. She worries that a flare up of any of her health conditions could greatly diminish the quality of her time with her brother if and when he eventually makes it here. Ms. Abarca is no longer able to make the 10,000 mile journey to see her brother and his family in the Philippines.
176. When Ms. Abarca learned in late April that her plans to reunite with her brother and his family would be further delayed because of the Proclamation, she was disappointed, but was prepared to wait the specified additional two months. However, when she learned that the Proclamation would be extended to the end of the year, if not indefinitely, she was devastated. She has longed to see her brother and his family settled in the U.S. near her. She has also longed to see her niece, the next generation of her family, carry on their legacy here. Her niece is studying architecture in the Philippines, and had hoped to complete her studies in the U.S., and go on to become a self-supporting professional who will contribute to American society.
58

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 58 of 104
177. Complicating matters is the fact that Ms. Abarca’s niece may be entitled to an exemption under the Proclamation because she may age out while the Proclamation is in effect. Her niece’s birthday is November 26, 2020. However, this is cold comfort for the family, as her niece, derivative applicant, cannot immigrate unless Renato first receives his visa.
178. On July 12, 2020, Ms. Abarca’s lawyer contacted the U.S. Embassy in Manila seeking an emergency interview for her brother and his family, in order to invoke an exception to the Proclamation. As of the filing of this Complaint, they have not received a response to this request.
179. Plaintiff Mohamed Saleh is a U.S. citizen originally from Yemen. Mr. Saleh became a citizen in 2000, and shortly thereafter petitioned for his immediate family to immigrate to the United States, including his wife, two daughters and two sons. His son Abu Bakr’s petition was not approved until 2016, and in the intervening years Abu Bakr got married in Yemen, and had four children there, including a daughter R.S. (now ten years old), all of whom he added to the petition.
180. Although Abu Bakr received his visa in 2016, Mr. Saleh asked the U.S. Embassy to hold off issuing visas to Abu Bakr’s wife and four children at that time, so that Abu Bakr could spend some time working and saving money to support them. A few years later, in October 2019, Abu Bakr contacted the U.S. Embassy in Egypt to continue processing visas for his wife and children.
181. The Embassy scheduled the interviews for Abu Bakr’s family in February 2020. Abu Bakr’s family traveled from Yemen to the Egypt to attend the interview. At the interview, the officer granted the family a waiver from Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the “Muslim Ban”), because they had nobody to support them in Yemen. The day after the interview, the Embassy
59

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 59 of 104
called the family and asked them some further questions about R.S., which were similar to the questions they had asked at the interview—mainly relating to information they had provided on their DS 260 form. The family answered the questions the same day. Within a few days, the whole family, except for R.S., received their visas. The Embassy official assured them that R.S. would be issued a visa soon as well.
182. However, when weeks passed and R.S. had still not received her visa, Abu Bakr contacted the Embassy several times between March and June 2020 to inquire when the visa would be ready. He explained that the rest of the family’s visas were about to expire, and that they needed R.S.’s visa so they could travel as a family back to the U.S. The Embassy told Abu Bakr that they could not issue the visa because it was in administrative processing.
183. In late April, Mr. Saleh contacted the office of their local Congressional representative Nancy Pelosi, who contacted the Embassy on their behalf. The Embassy informed Pelosi’s office that the visa could not be issued because of the Proclamation. Mr. Saleh also contacted an attorney who contacted the Embassy on their behalf to seek an exception to the Proclamation for R.S. However, the Embassy simply relayed that they could not issue the visa.
184. In late June, because their visas would soon expire, the rest of Abu Bakr’s family was forced to travel to the U.S. or risk losing their visas, which they had waited four years to obtain. They asked the Embassy to extend their visas, so that they could wait for R.S.’s visa to be issued, but they were told that there was no guarantee that the visas would be reissued once they expired. Though it was heartbreaking to do, they had no choice but to leave R.S. with acquaintances in Egypt, who agreed to look after her for a while.
185. Since R.S. was separated from her family, the whole family has been inconsolable. They each speak to R.S. almost every day, each taking turns to check on her. She is a young girl
60

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 60 of 104
and feels sad and alone in a foreign country, living with people she barely knows. She cries on each phone call, in turn leaving Mr. Saleh and his family miserable knowing there is little they can do to console her from so far away, let alone take care of and protect her.
186. The harm Mr. Saleh’s family is suffering because of their separation from R.S. is profound. While Abu Bakr’s wife plans to return to Egypt to be with her young daughter while they wait out the saga of securing her visa, she cannot do so until she gets her green card. Abu Bakr also is unable to travel to be with R.S. because he is the family’s sole breadwinner and cannot take leave from his job. Having R.S. in Egypt is taking a toll on the family’s finances as well, as Abu Bakr has to support both his family in the U.S. and R.S. in Egypt. R.S. would normally have been starting school in a few months, but she will be missing school if she continues to live in limbo in Egypt much longer. Mr. Saleh has not seen his granddaughter R.S. since she was a baby, and was looking forward to being reunited with her, and finally having his whole family together after so many years. Now he wonders if that will ever happen during his lifetime, leaving him heartbroken.51
Diversity Visa Lottery Winners 187. Plaintiff Fatma Bushati is a citizen and resident of Albania. Ms. Bushati has a Master’s degree in Business Administration and works as a human resources professional for Albania’s healthcare system. She applied for the FY 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery in 2019 on behalf of herself and her immediate family, including her husband Eldis Bushati and her daughter Alia Bushati, age 3. On May 11, 2019, she received notice that she had been selected to participate in
51 R.S. received her visa from the U.S. Embassy in Egypt on or about August 11, 2020. She boarded a flight from Egypt to the United States on August 12, 2020, and is expected to arrive in San Francisco and be reunited with her family on August 13, 2020. Mr. Saleh will voluntarily dismiss his claims if and when R.S. has fully completed her immigration process and rejoined her family.
61

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 61 of 104
the 2020 Diversity Visa Program, bringing her family one step closer to realizing their lifelong dream of immigrating to the United States. On March 12, 2020, she received notification from the Department of State that she was “ready to be scheduled for an interview when [her] case number becomes current.” However, because of the Proclamations, Ms. Bushati has never been scheduled for her visa interview.
188. Ms. Bushati has entered the Diversity Visa Lottery every single year since she turned 18 years old because she has long admired the United States, its justice system and freedoms, and its opportunities for upward mobility. All of these things are sorely absent in her native Albania, an economically and politically unstable country. Although she understood her chances of obtaining a diversity visa were slim, throughout her adult life she took intentional steps to ensure she could be successful in the United States, including learning English and obtaining relevant skills and education to succeed in the U.S. job market.
189. Ms. Bushati has specialized skills in the healthcare industry and would be able to contribute much-needed human capital to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic at a time when the U.S. healthcare system is under considerable strain. She works as a human-resources professional for the Office of the Operations of Health Care Services for the entire northern region of Albania. In this role, she is responsible for fulfilling the personnel needs of more than 80 healthcare facilities, including support staff, doctors, and nurses. During the COVID-19 crisis, she has been working day and night to ensure the healthcare facilities have the personnel they need. She is highly employable and plans to seek a health care administration job in the United States. Ms. Bushati’s husband has a Bachelor’s degree in finance but works as a plumber because of the limited career opportunities in his field in Albania.
62

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 62 of 104
190. Ms. Bushati has family in the United States, including her husband’s aunt, who has submitted an affidavit of support on their behalf, and she has already expended financial resources in anticipation of the Bushati family’s arrival. Her aunt recently purchased a new condo, in which she has placed furniture and home goods so the Bushati family can live comfortably while they get their bearings and find gainful employment in the United States.
191. But the Bushati family’s hopes and plans to realize the American dream were upended when, in April 2020, Ms. Bushati learned of the Presidential Proclamation suspending immigration to the United States for 60 days, and she later learned that the suspension would be extended through at least the end of the year, if not indefinitely. Upon hearing the news, Ms. Bushati and her family have been suffering from mental anguish and anxiety, as the immigration ban will forever change their lives for the worse.
192. The June Proclamation will forever destroy Ms. Bushati’s dream of immigrating to the United States if she is unable to receive her diversity visa before the end of the federal fiscal year. She never imagined that, after spending the past 13 months diligently fulfilling all of the conditions and requirements of the visa, the rug would be pulled out from under her just months before her American dream was to be realized. She had plans to be self-sufficient in the United States, and is now sorely disappointed by the injustice of the June Proclamation’s arbitrary and irrational denial of her ability to immigrate.
193. The U.S. Consulate in Tirana, Albania, has stated that diversity visa applicants will not be scheduled for an emergency visa interview prior to September 30, 2020. Nonetheless, on July 12, 2020, Ms. Bushati contacted the U.S. Consulate to request an emergency interview, in order to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. The Consulate replied on July 13, stating: “the Presidential Proclamation 10014 suspended the issuance of several categories of immigrant
63

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 63 of 104
visas, including diversity visas. This proclamation was recently extended until December 31, 2020. Applicants for immigrant visas covered by the proclamation, including Diversity Visa 2020 (DV-2020) applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23, 2020, are subject to the proclamation's restrictions. The September 30, 2020, deadline to obtain an immigrant visa for DV-2020 has not been extended.”
194. Plaintiff Jodi Lynn Karpes is a citizen of South Africa, where she currently resides. Ms. Karpes is an accomplished public relations specialist who runs her own business. She applied for and was selected as a winner for the FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery. Thereafter, she applied for a visa number, which is current, meaning a visa is available if she is able to schedule her interview. However, as of the filing of this Amended Complaint, she has not yet had an interview.
195. Ms. Karpes did have an interview scheduled, but in May 2020, she received notification from the U.S. Embassy in South Africa that her interview had been cancelled. On July 13, 2020, Ms. Karpes requested an emergency immigrant interview. The Consulate declined her request and stated that “[a]ll routine visa processing has been suspended until 30 December 2020 due to the Presidential Proclamation for coronavirus. There are exceptions for IR1/IR2s, CR1/2s visas. We are not conducting any visa interviews at the moment and awaiting guidance on how to process and scheduled visa interviews.”
196. Ms. Karpes is a highly educated business professional who has degrees and certificates from educational institutions around the world. She has a Bachelor’s degree in business from the University of South Africa, a teaching diploma from Trinity College of London, and a diploma in digital marketing from Digital Marketing Institute—Vega School of Brand
64

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 64 of 104
Advertising. She also spent a semester at Scottsdale Community College in Arizona, where she fell in love with America and began to dream about immigrating here.
197. In 2007, Ms. Karpes established her own business in South Africa, GreenQueen Communications, where she works as a public relations specialist.
198. Ms. Karpes entered the Diversity Visa Lottery to overcome the limited professional opportunities she has in South Africa and other societal challenges associated with the country’s depressed economy. Although she has developed important skills and achieved business success in South Africa, her opportunities for professional and business growth are limited there. The country’s unemployment rate remains above 20 percent, crime is high, and there is rampant inequality in income and educational opportunities. This has not been an ideal environment in which to advance herself professionally, let alone grow her business.
199. In April 2020, she learned about the April Proclamation banning immigration to the United States for 60 days. On June 22, 2020, she learned that the President had extended the immigrant ban for the rest of the year, if not indefinitely, which would likely end her chance to immigrate. The news was devastating for her, as she had already made plans to move her life to the United States and expand her business there. She had plans to move to Tulsa, Oklahoma to live with a friend and develop a business plan that would result in the creation of more American jobs.
200. Plaintiff Shyam Sundar Koirala is a citizen of Nepal, where he currently resides with his wife. Mr. Koirala is a microbiologist by training, and works at an India-based pharmaceutical company. Mr. Koirala has entered the diversity lottery each year for the last ten years so that he could come to the United States and build a new life for his family here. On May 7, 2019, Mr. Koirala’s dream came true: he received notification from the U.S. State Department’s
65

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 65 of 104
Diversity visa website that he had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program, bringing him one step closer to realizing his goal of improving his family’s standard of living. On December 16, 2019, he received notification from the Department of State that he had “submitted all required documentation to the Kentucky Consular Center and [was] ready to be scheduled for an interview when [his] case number becomes current.”
201. Mr. Koirala grew up with modest means—both of his parents are farmers—but he strived to improve his lot in life through education and hard work. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in microbiology. For the last seven years he has been working at the India-based pharmaceutical company RPG Life Sciences, where he is a territory business manager. His wife Bhumika is also a professional, working for the past eight years as a banking assistant at a bank in Nepal. While they have become established in their careers, they have few paths to further upward mobility given that Nepal continues to be an underdeveloped country with a struggling economy.
202. Once Mr. Koirala was selected, he began to make concrete plans to start a new life in the United States, including by saving money and foregoing investment opportunities in Nepal. His plan was to continue his career in the pharmaceutical industry in the United States. His wife also planned to continue her career in the banking and finance industry.
203. However, Mr. Koirala’s hopes and plans were put on hold in late April 2020, when his family learned about the Presidential Proclamation’s 60-day ban on immigration. Their dreams were later shattered in late June 2020, when they learned that the President had extended the ban through the end of the year, if not indefinitely. Since they are required under the diversity visa program to secure visas by September 30, 2020, they understood their opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. was likely gone.
66

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 66 of 104
204. On July 14, 2020, as a last-ditch attempt to resurrect their dream to come to America, Mr. Koirala contacted the U.S. Embassy to request an emergency interview to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. He received a form response that failed to address his request for an emergency interview. The U.S. Embassy stated, “Please be informed that as of March 17, 2020, the United States Embassy in Kathmandu is canceling routine Diversity visas and nonimmigrant visa appointments. From March 23, 2020, the U.S. Embassy is canceling all routine immigrant visa appointments. We will resume routine visa services as soon as possible but are unable to provide a specific date at this time.”
205. Plaintiff Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh is a citizen of Gambia where she currently resides. Ms. Kinteh has a degree in economics and works as a statistician. On October 4, 2018, she applied for a diversity visa for herself and her immediate family, including her husband Cherno Aboubacarr Jagne, her 6-year-old stepson Modou Lamin Jagne, her 3-year-old daughter Neima Aisha Jagne, and her 1-year-old daughter Fatimah Dagga Jagne. On May 7, 2019, she received notification from the U.S. Department of State that she had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program. On February 19, 2020, after receiving notification from the U.S. Department of State that she had submitted all necessary documentation, she was scheduled for a visa interview on April 21, 2020 at the U.S. Embassy in neighboring Senegal. The U.S. Embassy later postponed her interview to August 6, 2020.
206. Ms. Kinteh entered the Diversity Visa Lottery to seek better professional and educational opportunities for herself and her children. Ms. Kinteh works as a statistician at The Gambia Bureau of Statistics. Her educational training in economic theory has taught her about the intricate relationship between human resource development and economic growth. Though she enjoys her work in The Gambia, she knows that the country’s position on the lower rungs of the
67

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 67 of 104
global economic ladder make it difficult to put her human resources to the best use there. She feels that the U.S., with its vast opportunities, is the only place she can truly achieve her dreams. She has instilled her hopes and dreams for bigger and better opportunities in her young children, who are especially excited about the prospect of coming to America. Her daughter Neima Aisha wants to study medicine and become a doctor when she grows up. Ms. Kinteh’s husband works for himself and runs a software and web design company. He too is looking to use his skills to expand his business in the United States, and ideally create jobs there.
207. In late April 2020, Ms. Kinteh learned about the April Proclamation suspending immigration to the U.S., and later learned of the news in late June that the entry suspension was being extended through at least the end of the year. Since hearing about the June Proclamation and its potential to permanently end their plan to immigrate to the United States, her whole family has become heartbroken and sorely disappointed. They had already been making firm plans to move to Seattle, Washington to live near her uncle. He runs an adult care facility in Everett, Washington and offered Ms. Kinteh and her husband jobs there until they are able to gain their own professional footing. He also provided affidavits of support to bolster their immigration petitions, and has committed to provide them room and board in the U.S. until they could support themselves. Knowing that their earnings would not be enough to foot their travel bills, Ms. Kinteh and her family have sold property to secure the necessary resources. The news of the Proclamations was particularly painful for her children, who had started dreams of meeting Santa Claus and receiving a gift from him during the Christmas season, building a snowman, and visiting Disneyland.
208. On July 12, 2020, Ms. Kinteh contacted the U.S. Embassy in Dakar to inquire about the status of her August 6, 2020 interview. Having received no response, on July 13, 2020, she
68

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 68 of 104
requested an emergency interview, hoping to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. That same day, the U.S. Embassy in Dakar responded, asking her to “explain [her] matter of urgency,” and “[w]hat exception to the Presidential Proclamation [she] believe[s] [she] fall[s] under.” Ms. Kinteh immediately responded, explaining that the deadline to obtain a Diversity visa was fast approaching on September 30, 2020 and seeking guidance on what else the U.S. requires her to present to meet an exception to the June Proclamation. As of the filing of the Complaint, Ms. Kinteh has not received any response to this request
209. Plaintiff Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden is a citizen of Cote D’Ivoire, where she currently resides. Ms. Iwundu is a chemist by training but currently works in the hospitality industry. She applied for a Diversity visa on November 2, 2018 on behalf of herself and her immediate family, including her husband Kouadio Kouassi Constant, their 3-year-old daughter Kouadio Moaye Deborah Roxanne Chidinma, and their 9-month-old daughter Kouadio Akachi Kenora Rébecca. She was selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program on January 7, 2020, bringing them one step closer to realizing their dream of improving their standard of living in the U.S. On January 9, 2020, Ms. Iwundu was notified by the Department of State that she had “submitted all required documentation to the Kentucky Consular Center and [was] ready to be scheduled for an interview when your case number becomes current.” She was scheduled for a visa interview on April 28, 2020 but it was canceled on April 7, 2020, and it has not been rescheduled.
210. Ms. Iwundu applied for the Diversity Visa Lottery because of the limited economic opportunities available to them in the tiny nation of Cote D’Ivoire. Though Ms. Iwundu and her family have built a decent life for themselves, their education and professional skills have not been put to the best use, and they are eager to take advantage of the far greater opportunities available
69

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 69 of 104
to both them and their children in the U.S. While Ms. Iwundu is a chemist by training, she is currently working as a receptionist at the five-star Radisson Blue Hotel in Abidjan. Her husband is self-employed and runs his own real estate business, and also runs a digital printing business. He plans to continue his current business ventures in the United States, and potentially create jobs in this country.
211. In late April 2020, Ms. Iwundu learned about the April Proclamation suspending entry to the United States of potential immigrants like herself with pending visa applications, and in late June she learned the entry suspension was being extended through at least the end of the year. The news of the June Proclamation, and its impact on her and her family’s plan to immigrate to the United States, felt like a grave injustice to Ms. Iwundu. She has a particularly low visa preference number, meaning that her chances of receiving a diversity visa were good, and therefore had begun making concrete plans to move to the U.S. She and her husband had been planning to invest in a restaurant in Cote D’Ivoire but put those plans aside in order to preserve their resources to have a nest egg with which to start their new lives in the U.S. She was particularly devastated to have lost the opportunity to pursue higher education in the United States, and to expand her children’s educational opportunities as well.
212. On July 13, 2020, Ms. Iwundu contacted the U.S. Embassy to request an emergency interview in order to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. On July 14, 2020, she received a form response, stating in pertinent part: “As of March 17, 2020, the United States Embassy in Abidjan has cancelled all routine nonimmigrant and immigrant visa appointments, as well as DNA testing. We will resume routine visa services as soon as possible, but are unable to provide a specific date at this time . . . . For immigrant visas, including Diversity Visas, you will be contacted once your visa appointment is able to be re-scheduled.” Ms. Iwundu received a further, more
70

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 70 of 104
definititive response from the Embassy the next day: “It will not be possible to schedule your DV interview before September 30, 2020 due to the restrictions in the Presidential Proclamation on Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak. On June 22, the President extended these restrictions through December 30, 2020. At this time, applicants for the Diversity Visa do not meet the criteria provided for a national interest exception. We understand your request and desire for an interview, but unfortunately will not be able to facilitate this under the current immigration laws.”
213. Plaintiff Aya Nakamura is a citizen of Japan, where she currently resides. She was a student in the United States for several years, and has degrees in business and applied science. She applied for a diversity visa in 2019, and learned that she had won the lottery on May 7, 2019, while she was living in the United States on F-1 student visa status in New York, New York. On June 19, 2020 after submitting all the necessary paperwork, she was notified that her visa interview was “ready for scheduling.”
214. At that time, she had completed her degrees and was on a post completion Optical Practical Training period authorized by the F-1 student visa. But rather than complete this training period, she decided to return to Japan on January 1, 2020, to complete visa consular processing there, so that she could return to the United States with a green card.
215. Winning the Diversity Visa Lottery was a dream come true for Ms. Nakamura, who had spent significant time in the United States completing her studies and could not imagine ever leaving permanently. She had applied for the Diversity Visa Lottery four times while she was in the United States on F-1 student visa status before she won the lottery in 2019. She had also invested significant resources into obtaining degrees in the United States, to best position herself
71

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 71 of 104
to succeed professionally if she were able to make this her permanent home. She has plans to become a Certified Public Accountant and work as a CPA. She also has dreams of opening her own accounting firm and creating jobs in the United States.
216. Her dreams were upended, however, when in late April 2020, she learned of the Presidential Proclamation suspending immigration to the U.S. for 60 days. Her dreams were further devastated when she learned in late June 2020 that the suspension would last until at least the end of the year and possibly indefinitely. Ms. Nakamura has now spent so much time in the United States that she fears she will no longer fit back into Japanese society if she is forced to stay there. The devastation of being denied the diversity visa will forever change her life.
217. The website for the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Japan indicates that they will “process a limited number of visa applications on an emergency basis,” providing a list that “represents the types of visas that are eligible to request an emergency appointment.” That list does not include diversity visa applicants.52
218. On July 13, 2020, Ms. Nakamura’s immigration attorney contacted the U.S. Consulate in Tokyo on her behalf to request an emergency interview. The Consulate responded that “[a]ll diversity (DV) immigrant visa appointments have been cancelled at this time.” On July 16, 2020, Mr. Dunn again contacted the U.S. Consulate in Tokyo to request an emergency interview, specifically to seek an exception to the proclamation. As of today’s date, Mr. Dunn has not received a response to this request.
52 See Qualifications for Emergency Appointment Request, U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Japan, https://jp.usembassy.gov/visas/emergencyappo/ (last visited on July 17, 2020).
72

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 72 of 104
Nonimmigrant Visa Sponsors (H-1B, H-2B, J and L) 219. Plaintiff 3Q Digital is a digital marketing agency that is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Illinois, with multiple offices in the United States and abroad. In 2019, its gross income was over $15 million. 220. 3Q Digital has 330 employees in the United States. More than 95% of its staff are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. 221. 3Q Digital is the largest independent digital marketing agency. According to its Chief People Officer, Laura Rodnitzky, its success is due to the diligent efforts and dedication of its knowledgeable staff. 222. 3Q Digital has been so successful, it was not forced to downsize during the economic downturn caused by COVID-19. While it initially furloughed approximately 3% of its staff, it has already brought many of those furloughed workers back for full-time work and did not lay off a single U.S. worker. 223. 3Q Digital prefers to hire American workers, but sometimes it has been unable to find them to fill key roles that are critical to 3Q Digital’s success and that of its clients. In those instances, 3Q Digital has found success hiring foreign nationals. 224. Over the course of several years, 3Q Digital has petitioned to sponsor approximately ten H-1B nonimmigrant, temporary workers to perform specialized work at its U.S. offices. 225. One of those petitions was for Balaji Bhat, whom 3Q Digital sought to continue to employ as a Search Engine Account Manager, which is a specialty occupation. At the time – March 30, 2018 – Bhat was already working for 3Q Digital in that role; he was in the United States in F-1 OPT status and sought to change status to H-1B.
73

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 73 of 104
226. Bhat has a Bachelor’s degree in Economics and a Certificate in New Media and Humanities from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Massachusetts.
227. On November 27, 2018, USCIS denied 3Q Digital’s H-1B petition on behalf of Bhat. Bhat was forced to leave the United States.
228. Bhat has continued to work for 3Q Digital from its Singapore affiliate as a Search Engine Marketing Account Manager. The time difference between Singapore and the United States has harmed his ability to collaborate with other 3Q team members. He is only able to work overlapping hours with his U.S. clients and team members on 4 days a week and, even then, not for the entire work day. He is separated from his family in San Francisco, California. 3Q Digital is also unable to invest in Bhat’s talent by providing him with training and development activities, and Bhat is unable to pursue management opportunities within his team. 3Q Digital fears that due to these difficulties, he may seek employment elsewhere, to 3Q Digital’s detriment.
229. In March 2019, 3Q Digital filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the USCIS denial of its H1B petition for Bhat. On March 6, 2020, the district court held that USCIS abused its discretion when it denied 3Q Digital’s petition. On June 15, 2020, USCIS approved the H-1B petition for Bhat.
230. Upon receiving the USCIS approval, Bhat immediately began compiling all the necessary paperwork. He filed the DS-160 Nonimmigrant Visa Form on June 24, 2020, and requested an emergency H-1B visa interview, because all U.S. consulates were closed for routine visa appointments at the time.
74

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 74 of 104
231. However, on June 22, 2020, President Trump issued the June Proclamation, barring the entry of H-1B visa holders. Because of the Proclamation, Bhat has been unable to obtain a visa to enter the United States.
232. The inability to bring Bhat and other foreign nationals to work in its U.S. offices harms 3Q Digital and its ability to meet its clients’ needs. The inability to bring talented foreign nationals to work in its U.S. offices hampers 3Q Digital’s continued economic growth and impedes its ability to create more jobs for U.S. workers.
233. Plaintiff ASSE International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
234. ASSE is engaged in a private-public partnership with DOS to manage and administer exchange visitor programs for J-1 nonimmigrants.
235. ASSE runs three J-1 exchange programs that have been harmed by the June Proclamation. The first of those exchange programs is part of DOS’s Summer Work Travel Program, which is open for current university students at foreign universities coming to the United States to work in a seasonal job for their summer break. The second affected exchange program is part of DOS’s Intern Program, which offers on-the-job training opportunities of up to 12 months to individuals who are current full-time students at foreign universities, or have completed a foreign university degree within the last year. The third of affected exchange program is part of DOS’s Trainee Program, which allows up to 18 months of on-the-job training for individuals who completed their degree more than a year ago and also have one year of employment experience; this program is also an option for individuals without a degree but in possession of five years of related employment. For all three programs, DOS’s regulations require orientation, cultural, and community events to be integrated into the J-1 participant’s stay.
75

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 75 of 104
236. So far in 2020, only 98 summer work and travel participants, 80 interns, and 49 trainees have been able to enter the United States through ASSE. In comparison, 3,287 summer work and travel participants, 229 interns, and 174 trainees were able to enter the United States through ASSE in 2019.
237. Because the June Proclamation forbids the entry of individuals on J-1 visas—the type of visa used by participants in ASSE’s exchange programs—and because DOS has decided to implement the June Proclamation by no longer issuing J-1 visas, the June Proclamation has stopped ASSE from continuing to operate its exchange programs.
238. In 2020, ASSE has had to provide refunds of $123,238 to host companies that would have employed its interns or trainees, and has had to pay $1,012,843 in cancellation refunds to its foreign partners in the summer work and travel program. ASSE has had to pay these refunds because individuals were not able to come to the United States on J-1 visas as originally planned.
239. ASSE is currently receiving no income because of the June Proclamation. 240. ASSE has been forced to terminate five of its 33 full-time employees. It has placed another three employees on furlough, with the furlough to begin on August 1, 2020. If the routine entry of J-1 visa holders does not resume for the rest of 2020, ASSE will need to furlough or terminate at least eight additional employees. 241. Absent the June Proclamation, ASSE would not have had to furlough or terminate multiple employees, and would not have had to pay over a million dollars in refunds. ASSE anticipates that if the June Proclamation’s entry restrictions do not end, ASSE will run out of money by early 2021.
76

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 76 of 104
242. Plaintiff EurAuPair International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit. EurAuPair is engaged in a private-public partnership with DOS to manage and administer an exchange visitor program that uses the J-1 nonimmigrant visa category.
243. EurAuPair runs an exchange visitor program for au pairs, who come to the United States on J-1 nonimmigrant visas. The J-1 au pair program allows qualified parents or guardians, who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and who have a child for the au pair to look after, the opportunity to host an au pair in their home. The au pair’s childcare schedule cannot exceed 45 hours per week, and the au pair must receive weekend and other time off, including paid vacation. The au pair also must receive a stipend for post-secondary classwork available in the family’s locale and receive wages in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Department of Labor rules. Au pairs who participate in this program must be between 18 and 26 years old on their arrival to the United States, pass a criminal background check in their home country, pass a standardized psychological test, speak English, have childcare experience, and be willing to become part of an American host family for at least a year.
244. In 2019, EurAuPair sponsored 739 au pairs from 21 countries, who worked for and lived with families in 48 states. So far in 2020, only 150 au pairs have been able to enter the United States through EurAuPair, despite the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic, having live-in childcare would be a significant help to many families.
245. Because the June Proclamation forbids the entry of individuals on J-1 visas – the type of visa used by participants in EurAuPair’s exchange program – and because DOS has decided to implement the June Proclamation by no longer issuing J-1 visas, the June Proclamation has stopped EurAuPair from continuing to operate its exchange program.
77

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 77 of 104
246. In 2020, EurAuPair has had to provide refunds of $434,500 to host families who would have hosted au pairs.
247. EurAuPair is currently receiving no income because of the June Proclamation. 248. EurAuPair has been forced to terminate three of its eleven full-time employees. It has placed another two employees on furlough, with the furlough to begin on August 1, 2020. EurAuPair will need to eliminate one or two more positions by September 1, 2020, if the bar on the entry of J-1 visa holders continues. Should the June Proclamation’s restrictions on the entry of J-1 visa holders remain in effect for the remainder of the year, EurAuPair will forego $2.5 million in revenue. 249. Absent the June Proclamation, EurAuPair would not have had to furlough or terminate multiple employees, and would not have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in refunds. EurAuPair anticipates that if the June Proclamation’s entry restrictions do not end, it will run out of money by early 2021. 250. Plaintiff SEIU Healthcare (CIR) is the largest medical housestaff union in the country, representing approximately 17,000 intern, resident, and fellow physicians nationwide in collective bargaining. It is headquartered in Long Island City, New York, and has multiple additional offices across the country. 251. CIR represents physicians working in the United States on H-1B and J-1 visas. These physicians are in training programs that last three to seven years. 252. When physicians holding H-1B and J-1 visas join CIR, they become either duespaying members or agency fee payors, who pay a fee for the benefits and services connected to their collective bargaining agreement.
78

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 78 of 104
253. The June Proclamation has stopped physicians with H-1B and J-1 visas from traveling to the United States to start their residency programs, which typically begin in June and July.
254. The June Proclamation has harmed CIR by lowering the number of H-1B and J-1 physicians joining CIR. CIR has been denied the dues and fees that those individuals would have paid had they been able to start work in the United States. CIR has already been deprived of dues and fees from at least 60 residents, who have been barred from entering the United States because of the June Proclamation. Those residents were supposed to start work by July 1, 2020. The loss of these unpaid dues and fees cannot be recouped, and during each week when those residents are not working in the United States, CIR’s financial loss grows. This financial harm will impede CIR’s ability to provide services to its members.
255. Additionally, current CIR members are harmed by the June Proclamation because they have to work extra hours to cover for the absent residents. Current CIR members are working 80-hour work weeks because of the June Proclamation. This creates additional stress during a time when physicians are already under heavy strain due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
256. The June Proclamation has caused hospitals to work with fewer physicians, because it has forbidden the entry of qualified physicians. This loss of staff negatively affects the U.S. healthcare system’s ability to respond to the pandemic. The absence of qualified physicians, due to the June Proclamation, will only exacerbate the economic harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic – economic harms that CIR is already experiencing.53
53 See, e.g., Dara Lind, “Hospitals Are Suddenly Short of Young Doctors—Because of Trump’s Visa Ban,” ProPublica (July 17, 2020), https://www.propublica.org/article/hospitals-are-suddenlyshort-of-young-doctors-because-of-trumps-visa-ban (“some [hospitals] are acutely short-staffed because of an ill-timed change to immigration policy and its inconsistent implementation”).
79

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 79 of 104
257. Plaintiff PowerTrunk, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in New Jersey. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teltronic S.A.U., a Spain-based Professional Mobile Radio company. PowerTrunk is a pioneer in bringing TETRA technology—a type of professional land mobile radio system—to the United States. PowerTrunk has deployed TETRA technology in the New Jersey Transit Corporation, the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York City, the Los Angeles International Airport, and the John F. Kennedy International Airport.
258. PowerTrunk has 11 employees in the United States. These employees are a mix of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals. The foreign nationals are typically employees transferred from PowerTrunk’s parent company.
259. Since 2009, PowerTrunk has filed approximately 10 nonimmigrant visa petitions in the L and H-1B categories. Because TETRA technology is new to the United States— PowerTrunk has introduced it to this country—PowerTrunk relies on foreign talent to operate and expand its U.S. business. With the help of that foreign talent, PowerTrunk hopes to hire and train more and more U.S. workers to work on its TETRA systems.
260. On January 10, 2017, PowerTrunk filed an L-1B petition on behalf of Victor Manuel Hernandez, a Spanish national. PowerTrunk filed an extension petition on October 11, 2019.
261. Hernandez has worked for PowerTrunk as a Senior TETRA Systems Engineer since 2017. He was employed by PowerTrunk’s parent corporation, Teltronic, starting in 2012. Hernandez is a critical employee for PowerTrunk.
262. USCIS approved the L-1B extension petition on October 22, 2019. After Hernandez filed an application to renew his L-1B visa stamp, he was interviewed at the U.S.
80

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 80 of 104
embassy in Madrid, Spain on January 9, 2020. He returned to the United States on January 18, 2020.
263. Hernandez submitted all additional information that the embassy requested from him. The embassy then asked him, around February 24, 2020, to provide his passport so that he could receive the new L-1 visa stamp. He promptly flew back to Spain and submitted his passport to the embassy on March 10, 2020.
264. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the embassy had suspended services. Weeks passed, during which the embassy told Hernandez that he could not receive a visa stamp until the embassy had resumed services. Finally, PowerTrunk hired a law firm to request an emergency visa issuance, because it urgently needed Hernandez to return to the United States to provide essential services for New Jersey Transit.
265. In response to the attorney’s inquiry, the Madrid embassy responded that it would not issue a visa stamp to Hernandez until certain COVID-19 related restrictions had been lifted.
266. Then, the June Proclamation suspended the entry of L-1 visa holders. The Department of State decided to implement the June Proclamation by suspending the issuance of L-1 visas. Hernandez now cannot receive his L-1 visa even if the COVID-19 restrictions end.
267. To date, Hernandez has not received a new L-1 visa stamp, and he has been unable to return to the United States. This has caused extreme hardship to Hernandez, who has been living with relatives and staying in hotels for several months. He has been separated from his wife, who is in the United States, since March 2020.
268. Hernandez’s prolonged stay in Spain has also caused extreme hardship to PowerTrunk. PowerTrunk has multiple contracts with transit agencies, which require it to complete crucial tasks on strict timelines. Among those contracts is one with New Jersey Transit,
81

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 81 of 104
pursuant to which PowerTrunk is in the final stages of implementing mission-critical TETRA technology throughout New Jersey Transit operations. PowerTrunk urgently needs Hernandez to return so that this New Jersey Transit project can be completed. Hernandez is the most qualified and knowledgeable employee PowerTrunk has on certain TETRA features.
269. Another of PowerTrunk’s contracts is with the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Pursuant to this contract, PowerTrunk is implementing bus radio systems. Hernandez is the only engineer at PowerTrunk qualified to complete aspects of this project. Without Hernandez, PowerTrunk will not be able to meet its contractual deadlines and will need to seek an extension.
270. The nonimmigrant visa ban is devastating for PowerTrunk’s business and continued economic growth. PowerTrunk may be unable to meet its contractual obligations because of this ban, and may have to fire other employees if those obligations are not met. Without Hernandez present in the United States, PowerTrunk is already facing reputational damage among its U.S. customers and potential customers, which will cause additional financial hardship for the company and further hamper PowerTrunk’s ability to grow and create more job opportunities for U.S. workers.
271. Plaintiff Shipco Transport Inc. is a New Jersey corporation and one of the world’s leading non-vessel operating common carriers. It has 425 employees in the United States and more than 2,000 employees at its affiliate international branches. In 2019, Shipco earned over $55 million in gross income, and it is continuing to expand.
272. Shipco’s co-founder and current CEO credits his company’s success to the selection of key employees, who strategize, establish, and implement corporate processes and operations. He believes that the company’s continued success hinges on strategic planning and expert application of the company’s carefully developed methods, systems, and techniques. Shipco
82

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 82 of 104
operates in a competitive market, and such planning and execution helps Shipco stand out from its competitors.
273. Approximately ninety percent of Shipco’s U.S. staff are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Shipco has not furloughed or laid off any U.S. workers during the current economic downturn. In fact, Shipco continues to give back to those communities where it has a presence.
274. Shipco’s success is critical to the success of other industries. Shipco facilitates the shipment of all kinds of goods, including personal protective equipment, medical devices, cars, aircraft parts, food and beverages, household items, and retail items. Shipco’s continued efficiency (or lack thereof) has ripple effects on the industries that rely on its services.
275. On or about May 7, 2020, Shipco filed an L-1A nonimmigrant visa petition for Brian Nielsen. Shipco employs Nielsen as a chief financial officer at its sister office in Denmark. Nielsen has unique knowledge of Shipco’s global accounting and financial functions. Shipco filed the nonimmigrant petition for Nielsen because it wished to employ Nielsen in the United States as the Finance Director of its Americas Region.
276. USCIS approved Shipco’s L-1A petition for Nielsen on June 30, 2020. However, Nielsen cannot begin to work for Shipco in the United States unless he receives an L-1A visa from a U.S. consulate abroad and enters the United States with L-1A status.
277. Shipco has now learned that DOS will not issue a visa to Nielsen because of the June Proclamation unless Nielsen qualifies for an exception to the June Proclamation.
278. The inability to obtain an L-1A visa on behalf of Nielsen, Shipco’s potential Finance Director, will harm Shipco’s profitability. Nielsen is expected to increase Shipco’s efficiency and therefore allow Shipco to expand and hire even more U.S. workers. The inability
83

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 83 of 104
to bring a knowledgeable and experienced employee from an affiliate international office to the United States has hamstrung Shipco and undermined the positive economic good that it could provide to its community and to the other industries that rely on it.
279. Plaintiff Superior Scape is a landscape contractor and Michigan corporation. Superior Scape provides year-round landscaping services for commercial and residential properties. Superior Scape has enjoyed consistent growth for at least the past five years. Its gross sales have increased from $3.2 million in 2014 to $5.3 million in 2019.
280. Superior Scape currently has 19 permanent employees. Each year, from March until December – the months during which Superior Scape has the most work – Superior Scape also hires an additional 50 to 55 temporary workers.
281. Superior Scape has found it difficult to find 50 to 55 temporary workers each year without seeking additional workers through the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program. Although it pays above the prevailing wage, Superior Scape experiences a massive turnover rate: Landscaping is hard, hot work. Many of its U.S. employees are also college students who leave for school once summer ends.
282. For the past 10 years, Superior Scape has received Department of Labor certifications to bring 10 to 28 workers into the United States on H-2B visas. Many of Superior Scape’s H-2B workers return year after year.
283. Through the H-2B visa program, Superior Scape has been able to guarantee a steady supply of experienced workers. This has enabled Superior Scape to plan, budget, set sales targets, and ensure that it can fulfill its contracts.
284. Without H-2B visas, Superior Scape is unable to meet its contractual obligations or complete projects for its customers. In 2017, Superior Scape’s visa petition for H-2B workers was
84

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 84 of 104
not processed before the government ran out of H-2B visas for the year. The resulting delays prevented Superior Scape from adding H-2B workers to its staff until mid-August that year. The delay caused Superior Scape to lose $850,000.
285. Superior Scape’s owner and president, Terry Newman, credits the H-2B visa program for the company’s growth since 2014. Superior Scape has added four permanent positions to its company since it began participating in the H-2B program.
286. Superior Scape was unable to obtain H-2B temporary workers in early 2020. The government again ran out of H-2B visas before Superior Scape’s visa petition was processed.
287. Superior Scape’s projected income for 2020, with H-2B workers, was $5.9 million. Without H-2B workers, it now has a projected loss of $1.9 million.
288. After losing the chance to hire H-2B workers for the spring, Superior Scape planned to file paperwork to bring 40 H-2B temporary workers into the United States for an October 1, 2020 start date. These workers are necessary to save the company: without them, Superior Scape may be unable to complete its clients’ major projects in the fall. If Superior Scape receives all 40 temporary workers, it hopes to cut its losses for the year in half.
289. The June Proclamation has ruined these plans. Due to the June Proclamation, Superior Scape will be unable to hire the 40 H-2B workers that are desperately needed for its survival. Superior Scape’s attempts to hire U.S. workers have been unsuccessful – although it has hired some U.S. workers, it remains critically understaffed.
290. Superior Scape’s president fears that he is at risk of losing everything he worked his entire life to build. He had expected to sell Superior Scape and retire soon. However, with the company’s looming financial losses, he fears that he will need to start all over again or seek employment elsewhere and may never be able to retire.
85

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 85 of 104
291. Should Superior Scape not receive the H-2B workers it needs for the fall, its 14 permanent employees will lose their jobs. Moreover, Superior Scape will no longer contribute to the local economy by purchasing equipment, vehicles, and supplies. In short, the June Proclamation inflicts devastating financial harm on Superior Scape’s owner, his employees, their families, and the local economy.
DEFENDANTS’ AUGUST 2020 DISCLOSURES 292. As noted (supra ¶ 108 and accompanying footnotes), the State Department has published guidance (referred to herein as the “COVID-19 Guidance”54) stating that although consular posts had previously “suspended routine visa services,” they have “now enter[ed] a phased resumption of visa services.” The COVID-19 Guidance further states that consular posts “will continue to provide emergency and mission critical visa services” to the extent that they have not resumed routine services. 293. On August 4, 2020, Defendants asserted in a motion for an extension of time (ECF 55) that “in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. consular posts worldwide have suspended ‘routine visa services’” and are only “provid[ing] emergency and mission critical visa services.” Id. at 3 (quoting COVID-19 Guidance). The motion suggested, but did not directly state, that Defendants would not process diversity visa applications or issue diversity visas before September 30, 2020 even if the Proclamations were enjoined. 294. At a status conference before this Court on August 7, 2020, counsel for Defendants stated, for the first time, that qualified 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery winners are not generally considered to be “emergency” or “mission critical” cases under the COVID-19 Guidance—
54 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Suspension of Routine Visa Services, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-routine-visaservices.html (last visited August 10, 2020).
86

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 86 of 104
notwithstanding that thousands of such individuals’ visa eligibility will expire if they do not receive their visas by September 30, 2020. See supra ¶ 56.55
295. Defendants’ counsel reasserted this position during teleconferences with Plaintiffs’ counsel held August 10 and August 11, 2020, and again at the August 12, 2020 status conference before the Court.
296. During the August 11, 2020 teleconference, Defendants’ counsel stated that DOS’s policy is not to grant a blanket exemption from the COVID-19 Guidance to 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery winners.
297. The beneficiaries of the visa petitions submitted by Plaintiffs Gomez and Mirna S. received “emergency” or “mission critical” treatment in the processing and issuance of their visa applications, based on the fact that they were minor children at risk of “aging out” of their visa eligibility—even at a time when “routine visa services” had not begun any “phased resumption.” During the August 11, 2020 teleconference, Defendants’ counsel were asked why similar treatment is not being afforded to 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery winners, who are similarly situated to “age outs” in that they will lose their visa eligibility on September 30, 2020. In response, Defendants’ counsel stated: “We don’t have an answer to that.”
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 298. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and all other persons for whom Defendants’
55 Counsel did state that individual applicants may seek exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but Plaintiffs are aware of no statement regarding what constitutes an “emergency” or “mission critical” case. The impending expiration of these individuals’ visa eligibility evidently does not qualify.
87

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 87 of 104
implementation of the Proclamations interferes with family reunification or the issuance of visas in a manner consistent with federal law. Plaintiffs seek certification of five subclasses:
(a) Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect.
(b) Individual U.S. citizens with an approved immigrant visa petition for an immediate relative parent and whose sponsored relative is subject to Presidential Proclamation 10052.
(c) Individual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents with an approved immigrant visa petition for a relative in a preference immigrant category, including a spouse, parent, child, or sibling, and any qualifying derivative relatives, where the immigrant visa is “current” or will become “current,” meaning visas are authorized for issuance abroad, while Presidential Proclamation 10052 is in effect, and whose sponsored preference relative is subject to Proclamation 10052.
(d) United States employers who have an approved nonimmigrant visa petition for an employee or potential employee in the H-1B, H-2B, or L-1 nonimmigrant visa categories; where the employee or potential employee’s petition for nonimmigrant status has been approved for temporary employment in the United States, and where the employee or potential employee is subject to Proclamation 10052.
88

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 88 of 104
(e) Entities designated by the U.S. Department of State as an Exchange Visitor Program sponsor for any category of J-1 exchange visitors included in Proclamation 10052.
299. This action meets all of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for maintaining a class action. 300. The Plaintiff Subclasses are so numerous that joinder is impracticable, satisfying Rule 23(a)(1). The White House has estimated that the June Proclamation will affect approximately 525,000 individuals who would otherwise come to the United States. Estimates from the CATO Institute suggest that the Proclamations will ban at least 361,000 nonimmigrant workers and 164,000 immigrants, affecting approximately 20,000 U.S. employers. State Department reports also suggest that each proposed subclass is so numerous that joinder is impracticable: (a) The INA authorizes the State Department to issue up to 55,000 diversity visas
through the annual diversity visa lottery. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e). In 2019, the State Department issued 44,882 diversity visas at foreign service posts worldwide, and in the four years before that the number of diversity visas ranged from 45,664 to 49,067. State Department monthly reports show that, for the FY 2020 Diversity Lottery, tens of thousands of diversity visas remain to be issued before the September 30, 2020, deadline. (b) Between 2015 and 2019, the average annual number of visa petitions issued to immediate relative parents of U.S. citizens was 83,759. In 2019, the number of immigrant visas issued to parents of U.S. citizens was 63,442. The number of individuals in the proposed immediate relative parent subclass is likely more than
89

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 89 of 104
half of the number of the average annual number of immigrant visas issued to immediate relative parents. (c) The preference relative subclass includes every U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident with an approved immigrant visa petition for a preference relative that is current, or that will become current, between April 23, 2020, and December 31, 2020, and that does not fall within an exception to the April or June Proclamations. Like the immediate relative parent subclass, State Department statistics demonstrate that the number of members in the preference relative subclass is tens of thousands of individuals. (d) In 2019, the State Department issued 8,742,068 nonimmigrant visas. It issued 188,123 nonimmigrant visas in the H-1B category; 97,623 nonimmigrant visas in the H-2B category; and 76,988 nonimmigrant visas in the L-1 category. The proposed temporary worker subclass includes every employer of H-1B, H-2B, and L-1 employees or potential employees not subject to exceptions to the June Proclamation. (e) State Department online records show that the number of members of Plaintiffs’ proposed exchange visitor program subclass is 439. 301. Moreover, a class action is the only appropriate procedural avenue for the protections of the class members’ statutory and constitutional rights and rights under the APA. 302. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law and fact and will not require individualized determinations of the circumstances to any plaintiff, satisfying Rule 23(a)(2). Such common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to:
90

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 90 of 104
(a) Whether, in issuing the Proclamations, Defendants acted in a manner outside the authority delegated to them by Congress under INA;
(b) Whether the Proclamations violate the INA to the extent that they impose requirements that contravene or conflict with certain provisions of the INA, including labor market protections that the INA requires relating to the issuance of visas and the Diversity Visa Lottery program that guarantees the issuance of visas to individuals who are selected to receive a visa through that program;
(c) Whether the terms of the Proclamations are unconstitutionally vague; (d) Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamations, Defendants relied on
factors that Congress did not intend for it to consider; (e) Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamations, Defendants failed to
consider important aspects of the problem it sought to address; (f) Whether Defendants quantified or considered harms, including reliance interests of
visa applicants and their families and communities, that would result from the Proclamations and their implementation; (g) Whether the Proclamations are being or will be implemented and enforced so as to either prevent class members from reuniting with family members in the United States, or to force their separation from family members in the United States, and thereby infringe on class members protected liberty interests in family unity; (h) Whether class members have suffered harm as a result of the Proclamations, Defendants’ actions taken to implement the Proclamations, and/or Defendants’ actions to implement the COVID-1 Guidance;
91

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 91 of 104
(i) Whether Defendants should be compelled to adjudicate class members’ visa applications.
303. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the Plaintiff Class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3). Like other members of the class, Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Proclamations’ contravention of multiple provisions of the INA and separation-ofpowers principles of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Defendants’ failure to abide by statutory limitations on their actions, thereby leading to arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful agency action that fails to account for important aspects of the supposed problems the Proclamations seek to address. Plaintiffs have further been harmed by Defendants’ failure to adequately explain their decision to issue and implement the Proclamations, to account for the reliance interests at stake, or to explain why suspending visa issuance and entry for members of the Plaintiff Class serves the interests of Defendants or is otherwise a valid exercise of their respective authority. Plaintiffs have further been harmed by the arbitrary and capricious manner by which Defendants have implemented the Proclamations together with the COVID-19 Guidance. Each of these actions, independently and collectively, have caused harm to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
304. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(4). The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may become antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiff Class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiffs include experienced civil rights and immigration attorneys who are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
305. The members of the proposed class are readily ascertainable through Defendants’ records.
92

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 92 of 104
306. Counsel for Plaintiffs do not anticipate any conflicts of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the other class members nor does Counsel anticipate any reason that the other class members would dispute the adequacy of Counsel’s representation.
307. Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
308. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may therefore by properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)—Against Defendants DOS and Pompeo 309. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 310. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) by preventing issuance of visas for which Plaintiffs and class members who are otherwise eligible. 311. The INA distinguishes between entry, admission, and visa issuance. Section 1182(f) authorizes the President only to suspend the entry of certain aliens into the United States. It does not authorize the President to suspend the issuance of visas. Section 1185(a) likewise does not authorize suspension of visa issuance.
93

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 93 of 104
312. DOS has implemented the Proclamations in a manner that suspends the issuance of visas while the Proclamations are in effect.
313. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations constitutes final agency action within the meaning of the APA. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).
314. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations is in excess of authority in violation of the APA, § 706(2)(C), because, among other things, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) does not permit Defendants to suspend the issuance of visas or deprive consular officers of the authority to issue visas to individuals “who ha[ve] made proper application therefore.” 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).
315. In implementing the Proclamations, DOS also failed to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including the purposes of the visa system and the interests, including reliance interests, of Plaintiffs, other class members, and other segments of society such as employers. DOS also failed to articulate a rational connection between any relevant facts and the choice to discontinue visa issuance for those who have paid the applicable fees and submitted the necessary documentation for issuance of the visa. It has thus failed to provide a rational explanation for its action. The State Department’s implementation of the Proclamations is thus “arbitrary, capricious, [and] an abuse of discretion,” in violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
316. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations as to visas is also “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” id. § 706(2)(B), because, among other things, it denies family members their protected right to family unity without due process of law.
317. DOS’s actions are without good cause. 318. DOS’s actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs. 319. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
94

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 94 of 104
Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)—Against All Agency Defendants 320. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 321. Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamations’ “national interest” exception violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 322. The June Proclamation directs the Secretaries of State and of Homeland Security to “establish standards to define categories of aliens covered by” its “national interest” exception. 323. To the extent that Defendants have (through DOS’s July 16 website posting or otherwise) established policies, procedures, and/or standards to govern their implementation of the “national interest” exception, those policies, procedures, and/or standards constitute final agency action reviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Such final agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law in at least the following ways. (a) Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are based on legal error; failed to consider
all relevant factors; and lacked a rational explanation, particularly in light of the reliance interests at stake; and are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). (b) Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are contrary to constitutional rights, including Plaintiffs’ rights not to be deprived of their liberty interests in family reunification, without due process and as protected by the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in violation of the APA, id. § 706(2)(B). 324. Defendants’ actions are without good cause. 325. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs.
95

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 95 of 104
326. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)—Against Defendants Trump, DOS, and Pompeo
327. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 328. Congress has afforded consular officers the authority to issue visas to immigrants and nonimmigrants “who ha[ve] made proper application therefore.” 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). 329. Neither § 1182(f) nor § 1185(a) permits the President by proclamation to suspend consular officers’ discretion to issue visas in cases where proper applications have been made. 330. To the extent that the Proclamations purport to suspend not only the entry of noncitizens into the United States, but also the issuance of visas to individuals who are otherwise eligible to receive them, they are ultra vires, in excess of the President’s authority under the INA. The Proclamations therefore are accordingly invalid, null, and void.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a)—Against All
Defendants 331. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 332. Section 1182(f) requires, as a prerequisite to an entry suspension, the President to “‘fin[d]’ that the entry of the covered aliens ‘would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.’” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2408 (2018). 333. The June Proclamation does not include findings sufficient to satisfy § 1182(f)’s statutory prerequisite. The statements and/or justifications on which the June Proclamation relies to support its entry suspension are wholly unsupported by facts or evidence. The President cannot rationally have found that the entry of the immigrant and nonimmigrant classes of noncitizens that the June Proclamation suspends would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
96

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 96 of 104
334. For the same reasons, the restrictions imposed by the June Proclamation are not reasonable within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a).
335. Because the June Proclamation does not satisfy the requirements of § 1182(f) or § 1185(a), it is ultra vires and invalid.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA, 8 USC § 1154(a)—Diversity Visa Subclass Only—
Against All Defendants 336. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 337. The issuance and implementation of the June Proclamation are invalid to the extent that they halt the processing and issuance of diversity visas and the entry of immigrants pursuant to such visas. 338. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II), noncitizens “who qualify, through random selection, for [a diversity visa] shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected.” (Emphasis added.) 339. The President is not authorized “to expressly override particular provisions of the INA.” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2411. 340. The June Proclamation effectively revokes and renders void qualified applicants’ statutorily guaranteed eligibility for a diversity visa by suspending the issuance of visas beyond the Diversity Lottery Program deadline of September 30, 2020. The June Proclamation therefore violates § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II), is ultra vires, and is invalid.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Separation of Powers/Nondelegation Doctrine—Against All Defendants 341. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
97

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 97 of 104
342. It is the role of Congress, not the President, to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe terms and conditions upon which they may come into or remain in this country.” See Fok Young Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296, 302 (1902).
343. In that role, and pursuant to that power, Congress has crafted a complex and carefully balanced system of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and in doing so considered the effects that the issuance of visas and entry of foreign nationals may have on the U.S. economy and labor market. Within the system, Congress specifically provided labor-market protections designed to ensure that workers who enter the country from abroad will not displace or disadvantage U.S. workers.
344. In this context, Congress cannot be understood to have delegated to the President (through 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) or § 1185(a)) the authority to override decades of Congressional judgment regarding the interaction of immigration policy and the labor market.
345. The June Proclamation therefore exceeds the authority delegated to the President under the INA. It is invalid, null, and void.
346. To the extent that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and/or § 1185(a) could be interpreted to delegate to the President authority to engage in domestic policy-making concerning purely economic matters such as the labor market, the statutes provide no intelligible principle to guide the President’s exercise of discretion. They therefore violate constitutional nondelegation principles and are invalid. See Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 589-93 (D. Or. 2019). A Proclamation issued under such an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is invalid, null, and void.
98

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 98 of 104
347. The June Proclamation is accordingly in conflict with either the INA or the Constitution, and in either case it impermissibly violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. It is therefore invalid, null, and void
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment—Subclasses (b) and (c)
Only—Against All Defendants 348. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 349. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person will “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 350. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents have constitutionally protected liberty interests in family unity. Individuals must be given due process prior to any deprivation of these liberty interests. 351. The Proclamations, and Defendants’ implementation thereof, unconstitutionally deny Plaintiffs their constitutional rights by preventing visas from being issued and thereby foreclosing their reunification with family members without the process due under the Fifth Amendment.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)—Subclass (a) Only—Against Defendants DOS and
Pompeo 352. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 353. Defendants’ implementation of the COVID-19 Guidance in conjunction with its enforcement of the Proclamations with respect to the diversity visa Plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 354. The COVID-19 Guidance and Defendants’ implementation of that guidance with the Proclamations constitute final agency action reviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). See Bennett
99

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 99 of 104
v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). Such final agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law in at least the following ways: Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are based on legal error; failed to consider all relevant factors; failed to account for matters of importance under the relevant statutes; lacked any coherence because of the irrational and inconsistent manner in which the Guidance was applied; and lacked a rational explanation, particularly in light of the reliance interests at stake; and are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
355. Defendants’ actions are without good cause. 356. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs. 357. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Ultra Vires/Separation of Powers—Subclass (a) Only—Against Defendants DOS and
Pompeo 358. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 359. Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance in conjunction with its implementation of the Proclamations to 2020 diversity visa applicants violates the separation of powers because its effect is to unlawfully abolish the Congressionally mandated diversity visa program for more than half of fiscal year 2020. 360. Defendants have no authority to unilaterally eliminate the diversity visa program, contrary to the will of Congress.
100

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 100 of 104
361. Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance in conjunction with the enforcement of the Proclamations to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) thus violates the separation of powers and is constitutionally invalid.
362. Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance in conjunction with the enforcement of the Proclamations to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) is ultra vires and in excess of their statutory authority, and is accordingly unlawful under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
363. Defendants’ application of the COVID-19 Guidance in conjunction with the enforcement of the Proclamations causes irreparable injury to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a).
364. Defendants should be enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 Guidance in conjunction with its enforcement of the Proclamations against the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a).
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1)—Subclass (a) Only—Against Defendants
DOS and Pompeo 365. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 366. Defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to “conclude a matter presented to” them “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). 367. This Court is authorized under the APA to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 368. Defendants’ COVID-19 Guidance, their implementation of the COVID-19 Guidance as to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a), and their implementation of the Proclamations, are unlawful for the reasons set forth above.
101

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 101 of 104
369. Defendants’ actions have caused the adjudication of to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) to be unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed.
370. Defendants’ actions are without good cause. 371. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs. The harm caused to the plaintiff 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery winners, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) is time-sensitive because their collective eligibility for an immigrant visa will expire for qualified applicants unless the visas issue on or before the September 30, 2020 deadline. By delaying the adjudication and issuance of diversity visas, Defendants have unilaterally and unlawfully suspended Congress’ Diversity Visa Lottery program for 2020. 372. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361—Subclass (a) Only—Against Defendants DOS and
Pompeo 373. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 374. Defendants have a nondiscretionary, mandatory duty to adjudicate submitted visa petitions and to issue visas pursuant to those adjudications to those individuals who are statutorily entitled to receive visas. 375. Defendants have failed to adjudicate the visa petitions to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a), and have failed to issue visas to these individuals, who are statutorily entitled to receive such visas, in plain contravention of Defendants’ nondiscretionary duty. 376. Defendants’ actions are without good cause. 377. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs.
102

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 102 of 104
378. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative remedy to compel Defendants to comply with their nondiscretionary duty.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from implementing or enforcing any part of the Proclamations and/or the COVID-19 Guidance so as to delay processing visas in a timely manner, deny or refuse visas, and/or deny or refuse entry into the country to any otherwise eligible foreign national;
B. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, to process and to adjudicate on or before September 30, 2020 the visa applications of the diversity visa Plaintiffs, their derivative family members, and similarly situated class members and their derivative family members;
C. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, to reserve unused diversity visa numbers for fiscal year 2020, so that visas may be granted to the diversity visa Plaintiffs upon a determination that the Proclamations and Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamations and COVID19 Guidance are unlawful;
D. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with
103

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 103 of 104
them, to hold diversity visa numbers beyond the September 30, 2020 deadline, so that visas may be granted to the diversity visa Plaintiffs upon a determination that the Proclamations and Defendants’ implementation of the COVID-19 Guidance are unlawful; E. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, to immediately schedule consular interviews for those to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) who have submitted the required documentation and are waiting now for their interviews to be scheduled; F. An order of mandamus requiring Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, to comply with their nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate visa petitions, and to issue visas to to the diversity visa plaintiffs, their derivatives, and members of subclass (a) who are statutorily entitled to receive them; G. A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Proclamations are unlawful and are set aside; H. An order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 holding that the agency defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation and the COVID-19 Guidance are unlawful and are set aside; I. An order awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to any applicable law; J. Such other relief as this Court deems equitable, just, and proper.
104

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 111 Filed 08/23/20 Page 104 of 104

August 12, 2020
Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Stephen Manning (pro hac vice) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Andrew J. Pincus Andrew J. Pincus (D.D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 mingber@mayerbrown.com
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de México 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 laboni@hoqlaw.com

105

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 85

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ

)

ABDUL MOHAMMED, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

AFSIN AKER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-01419 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01856 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01926 (APM)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 85

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-02128 (APM)

_________________________________________

)

CHANDAN PANDA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-1907 (APM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

These five consolidated cases concern recent actions taken by the President and the State

Department to restrict the issuance of visas and entry of certain classes of foreign nationals into

the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 20, 2020, the State Department

temporarily suspended routine visa services at consular offices and embassies worldwide due to

the pandemic, allowing only “emergency and mission critical visa services.” Then, on April 20,

2020, the President issued Presential Proclamation 10014, which suspended the entry of all

immigrants into the United States for two months unless they qualified for an exception to the

Proclamation. That Proclamation was followed two months later by Presidential Proclamation

10052, which extended the entry suspension for immigrants until December 31, 2020, and also

suspended the entry of foreign nationals seeking admission on temporary nonimmigrant visas, with

limited exceptions.

2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 85
The State Department has interpreted Proclamations 10014 and 10052 to suspend not just entry, but also the review and adjudication of visas for applicants who are covered by the Proclamations and not subject to any of their exceptions. Consequently, at posts that have not resumed routine operations, visa processing and issuance have been suspended unless the applicant is both (1) eligible for an exception to the Proclamation and (2) considered “mission critical.” Though these are distinct requirements, the exceptions to the Proclamations appear to heavily inform the types of applications considered to be mission critical. The State Department has begun a phased reopening since July 15, 2020, but even at posts that have resumed routine operations, the processing and issuance of covered, non-exempt visas remains suspended pursuant to the Department’s interpretation of the Proclamations.
Plaintiffs in these five consolidated actions are approximately 1,076 visa applicants, visa sponsors, and their derivative beneficiaries who represent various immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories that are subject to the Proclamations’ suspension of entry. Plaintiffs have all filed motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, seeking to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Proclamations, and two of the actions seek to certify six putative subclasses. Plaintiffs all challenge the validity of the Proclamations on various statutory and constitutional grounds, and they assert that the State Department’s suspension of the processing and issuance of non-exempt visas pursuant to the Proclamations violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
In addition, a subset of Plaintiffs (“DV-2020 Plaintiffs”) raise several challenges that are specific to one category of immigrant visas—diversity visas. The DV-2020 Plaintiffs’ opportunity to receive diversity visas and immigrate to the United States will permanently expire on September 30, 2020, unless Defendants process and issue their visas by then. Diversity visa applications are
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 4 of 85

not currently being adjudicated, however, because they are, in general, ineligible for an exception

to the Proclamation and not considered mission critical. These Plaintiffs assert that the processing

and adjudication of their visas has been unreasonably delayed, and that the State Department’s

exclusion of this category from its guidance regarding mission critical services is arbitrary.

For the reasons discussed below, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’

motions for preliminary relief. Specifically, the court rejects Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional

challenges to the Proclamations, but holds that Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their

claims that (1) the State Department’s policy of not reviewing and adjudicating non-exempt visas

is not in accordance with law, is in excess of statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious;

(2) the State Department’s non-processing of 2020 diversity visa applications constitutes agency

action unreasonably delayed; and (3) the State Department’s exclusion of 2020 diversity visa

applications from its guidance on mission critical services is arbitrary and capricious. The court

further concludes that the DV-2020 Plaintiffs have met the additional requirements for preliminary

injunctive relief pursuant to the court’s equitable authority and 5 U.S.C. § 705, but the Non-DV

Plaintiffs in Gomez have not. In light of the foregoing, the court denies without prejudice the

pending class certification motions as they pertain to the putative diversity visa classes, and defers

ruling on the Gomez Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as it pertains to the other four putative

subclasses of Non-DV Plaintiffs.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Visa Categories

Broadly speaking, a foreign national wishing to enter the United States must first obtain a

visa from the State Department. A visa is a travel document that allows its holder to travel to a

port of entry and request permission to enter the United States, but it does not guarantee the right

4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 5 of 85
to enter the country. See Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2414 (2018) (explaining the “basic distinction” between visa issuance and entry “that runs throughout the INA”); 8 U.S.C. § 1201(h). There are two overarching categories of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Nonimmigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis for tourism, business, medical treatment, and certain types of temporary work. Immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals intending to relocate permanently to the United States. See United States v. Idowu, 105 F.3d 728, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Requirements for Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visas, U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 3, 2018).1 Six visa categories are relevant for this case.
Family-Based Immigrant Visas. Under the family-based immigrant visa program, a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident may “sponsor” a foreign-national relative (the “beneficiary”) for an immigrant visa. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153(a). The sponsor may also petition for visas for certain relatives (“derivatives”) of the principal beneficiary. Id. §§ 1153(d), 1154(a). A family member seeking to sponsor a beneficiary must file a petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Once the petition is approved, USCIS will forward the visa petition for consular processing. Most approved visa applicants must then wait in a queue, determined by the applicant’s country of origin and his or her relationship with the visa sponsor. See id. § 1153(e); 22 C.F.R. §§ 42.51(a), 42.52(a)–(c); 9 FAM 504.1-2(c)–(d). When the applicant reaches the front of the queue, he or she completes the visa application, provides supporting evidence, pays the requisite fees, and attends an in-person interview with a
1 Available at https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-andnonimmigrant-visas.
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 6 of 85
consular officer, who issues the visa upon finding that the beneficiary is eligible and merits the visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1201; 22 C.F.R. § 42.73; 9 FAM 504.1-2(d), 504.1-3.
Diversity Immigrant Visas. Congress has reserved 55,000 “diversity” immigrant visas each year to randomly selected individuals from countries with historically low levels of immigration into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e); id. § 1153(c)(1)(A). Eligible applicants enter a “lottery” held once each fiscal year. Id. § 1153(c); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33. Demand regularly outstrips supply: in Fiscal Year 2018 there were approximately 14.7 million qualified entries. See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 53-1 [hereinafter Gomez PI Mem.], at 5. A lottery winner or “selectee” must complete a visa application and schedule a consular interview, and “if he meets the criteria to obtain one, the State Department shall issue him a diversity visa.” Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 777 (cleaned up). If the selectee does not receive a visa by the end of the fiscal year, however, he is out of luck: “Because the diversity visa program restarts each fiscal year, consular officers may not issue diversity visas after midnight on September 30 of the” fiscal year in which the visa applicant was selected. Id. A diversity visa is generally valid for six months after issuance. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(c).
H-1B Nonimmigrant Visas. The H-1B category enables U.S. employers to hire qualified foreign professionals in “specialty occupation[s]” requiring “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge” and a “bachelor’s or higher degree.” Id. §§ 1184(i)(1), 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). An employer seeking to hire an H-1B worker must first file a labor condition application with the Department of Labor, identifying the specialty occupation position, the location of employment, and attesting that the employer will pay the worker prevailing wage rates. See id. § 1182(n)(1)(A)–(D); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.730(c)(4), 655.731(a). After the application is
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 7 of 85
approved, the employer may file a petition with USCIS to classify the foreign worker as an H-1B nonimmigrant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(1). Once USCIS approves the petition, the worker may apply for an H-1B visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate, which will grant the visa, provided the application is complete and the worker is not otherwise ineligible to receive a visa. 9 FAM 402.10; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1201(g); see also Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 776. Spouses and minor children of H-1B workers may obtain derivative H-4 visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H).
Immigrant Visas Based on Permanent Labor Certification. While the H-1B program only allows for temporary work in this country, an employer may also petition for the classification of a foreign national seeking admission to the United States based on an offer of permanent employment as a skilled worker or a member of a profession holding an advanced degree. See id. §§ 1153(b)(2)(A), 1153(b)(3)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(F). Before doing so, the employer must obtain a labor certification from the Department of Labor stating that there are no qualified, able, and willing United States workers available to fill the employer’s job opportunity, and the employment of the beneficiary will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the United States. See id. §§ 1153(b)(3)(C), 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)–(II); Patel v. Johnson, 2 F. Supp. 3d 108, 113–14 (D. Mass. 2014).
H-2B Nonimmigrant Visas. An H-2B petition allows an employer to hire foreign nationals “to perform . . . temporary service or labor” in non-specialized, non-agricultural sectors “if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6). To hire an H-2B worker, an employer must certify to the Department of Labor that it has attempted to recruit domestic workers for the position, that no such workers are available, and that the temporary
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 8 of 85
employment of an H-2B worker will not adversely affect the wage rates or working conditions of similarly employed domestic workers. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A)–(D), (6)(iv)(A); id. § 655.0 et seq. If the certification is approved, the employer may file a petition with USCIS. Id. § 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(E).
J Nonimmigrant Visas. The J visa category allows approved individuals to participate in work- and study-based exchange visitor programs. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J); 22 U.S.C. §§ 2451, et seq. Regulations establish 15 categories of exchange program eligibility, including trainees, teachers, au pairs, and summer work and travel for foreign students. 22 C.F.R. §§ 62.1, 62.4. J visa applicants must be sponsored by designated entities, which include government agencies, academic institutions, businesses, and non-profits. Id. §§ 62.3, 62.5–13, 62.15.
L Nonimmigrant Visas. The L visa program allows multinational corporations to sponsor visas for temporary intracompany transfers to the United States of foreign managers and executives (L-1A visas) or employees with certain “specialized knowledge” about the petitioning company (L-1B visas). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L); 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)–(D).
B. The State Department’s COVID-19 Guidance On March 20, 2020, the State Department “temporarily suspend[ed] routine visa services at all U.S. Embassies and Consulates” due to COVID-19, but continued to require posts to provide “emergency and mission critical visa services” as resources allowed. See Certified Admin. R. (“CAR”), ECF No. 103-1 [hereinafter CAR], at 12–14 [hereinafter “COVID-19 Guidance”]. The State Department included as “mission critical or emergency services”:
[t]he processing of certain non-immigrant visas such as diplomatic and official visas, H-2 visas associated with food supply, certain medical professionals, air and sea crew and medical emergencies, . . . [and] cases in which an applicant is not protected by the Child Status Protection Act and is at risk of losing eligibility for a visa in his or her current category . . . , spouses and unmarried children of
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 9 of 85
U.S. citizens, as well as visas for adopted children, Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant visas, certain medical professionals, and medical emergencies. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mots. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 94 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n], Decl. of Brianne Marwaha, ECF No. 94-1 [hereinafter Marwaha Decl.], ¶ 8. Between March 20 and July 15, 2020, “[p]osts [did] not have the authority to resume normal visa operations even if the host country ha[d] lifted most restrictions.” CAR at 23, 35. Since July 15, however, the State Department has permitted posts to “begin a phased approach to the resumption of routine visa services.” CAR 35. The phased reopening, termed “Diplomacy Strong,” is “based on local health and safety conditions,” and includes four operational tiers. CAR 36. In Phases Zero and One, posts “may continue processing only emergency and mission-critical . . . cases, as resources and local conditions allow.” CAR 36, 38. Phase Two allows for a partial resumption of routine services, and Phase Three allows for full resumption. CAR 37–39. Each phase includes detailed guidance regarding the types of visa categories posts should prioritize for processing. CAR 36–39. C. Proclamation 10014 On April 22, 2020, the President signed Presidential Proclamation 10014, which temporarily suspends the entry of immigrants into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a). 85 Fed. Reg. 23,441 (Apr. 22, 2020). The Proclamation supplies three justifications for the action. First among those is to address the damage to the economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. See id. at 23,441–42. The Proclamation states that “we must be mindful of the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in an environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor,” and highlights the need to protect in particular “workers at the margin between employment and unemployment, who are
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 10 of 85
typically ‘last in’ during an economic expansion and ‘first out’ during an economic contraction.” Id. at 23,441. Second, the Proclamation notes that “introducing additional permanent residents when our healthcare resources are limited puts strain on the finite limits of our healthcare system at a time when we need to prioritize Americans and the existing immigrant population.” Id. at 23,442. And third, the Proclamation explains that a pause on entry is required “so that consular officers may continue to provide services to United States citizens abroad.” Id. at 23,441.
Accordingly, Proclamation 10014 suspended for two months the “entry into the United States” of most immigrants abroad who did not already have a valid immigrant visa or travel document as of April 23, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,442–43 §§ 1, 2(a), 5. The Proclamation is subject to certain exceptions, including that “any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees,” is eligible to seek entry. 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,443 § 2(b)(ix). The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security are tasked with implementing the Proclamation as it applies to visas and entry, respectively, though consular officers are directed to determine, “in their discretion, whether an immigrant has established his or her eligibility for an exception” to the Proclamation. Id. at 23,443 § 3.
D. Proclamation 10052 and the National Interest Exception On June 22, 2020, the President issued Proclamation 10052, which extended Proclamation 10014 and also suspended the entry of various nonimmigrants through December 31, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 38,263, 38,263–67 (June 25, 2020). The President announced that the Secretaries of Labor and Homeland Security had reviewed nonimmigrant programs and “found that the present admission of workers within several nonimmigrant visa categories also poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery.” Id. at 38,263.
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 11 of 85
Proclamation 10052 acknowledges that “[u]nder ordinary circumstances, properly administered temporary worker programs can provide benefits to the economy,” but explains that “under the extraordinary circumstances of the economic contraction resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, certain nonimmigrant visa programs authorizing such employment pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers.” Id.
According to the Proclamation, “[t]he entry of additional workers through the H-1B, H2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa programs,” in particular, “presents a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans affected by the extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.” Id. at 38,264. The Proclamation cites various figures in support of this finding, noting that “between February and April of 2020, more than 17 million United States jobs were lost in industries in which employers are seeking to fill worker positions tied to H-2B nonimmigrant visas,” and “more than 20 million United States workers lost their jobs in key industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions.” Id. at 38,263–64. The Proclamation also highlights that “the May [2020] unemployment rate for young Americans, who compete with certain J nonimmigrant visa applicants, has been particularly high,” and that “[t]emporary workers are often accompanied by their spouses and children, many of whom also compete against American workers.” Id.
Based on these findings, the Proclamation suspends the entry of foreign nationals seeking entry pursuant to H-1B, H-2B, L, and certain J nonimmigrant visas, unless they are eligible for an exception, including a national interest exception. Id. at 38,264–65 §§ 2, 3. Proclamation 10052 also instructs the Secretaries of State, Labor, and Homeland Security to “establish standards to define categories of aliens covered by [the national interest exception] of [the] proclamation.” Id.
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 12 of 85
at 28,265 § 4(i); see also Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-CV-01419 (APM), 2020 WL 3429786, at *2 n.2 (D.D.C. June 23, 2020).
Since then, the State Department has published guidance listing various scenarios in which an applicant in a covered visa category may qualify for a national interest exception to Proclamations 10014 and 10052. CAR 167–174. Under this guidance, certain H-1B, H-2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa applicants who also meet additional criteria may qualify for a national interest exception; however, there appear to be no specific national interest exceptions available for diversity visa applicants or family-based visa applicants, except for minors who are at risk of aging out of their visa classification. CAR 173–74.
E. Defendants’ Implementation of Proclamations 10014 and 10052 and the COVID-19 Guidance
The State Department has interpreted the Proclamations to suspend not only entry but also the issuance of visas in categories covered under the Proclamations and not subject to one of the enumerated exceptions. See CAR 38 (“Presidential Proclamation 10052 suspended the issuance of nonimmigrant visas in the H-1B, H-2B, L, and J-1. . . classifications until December 31, 2020, with certain exceptions.”); CAR 28 (“This [Proclamation] effectively suspends issuance of certain H-1B, H-2B, J (for certain categories within the Exchange Visitor Program), and L” visas.); CAR 24 (“The issuance of many immigrant visas . . . was suspended by Presidential Proclamation” 10014.); CAR 36 (explaining that “Presidential Proclamation . . . 10014 suspending issuance of certain immigrant visas has been extended through at least December 31”).
Based on this interpretation, the State Department has instructed consular posts that “[o]nly [visa] applicants that [the] post believes may meet an exception to the [Proclamation], including the national interest exception, and that constitute a mission-critical category should be adjudicated at this time,” and that officers “may not issue any [visas] that are not also excepted under the
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 13 of 85
[Proclamation].” CAR 24 (emphasis added); see also CAR 32 (“Posts may continue to schedule mission critical and emergency immigrant and nonimmigrant visa interviews as resources allow . . . , but should applicants not qualify for an exception under the relevant presidential proclamation, including in the national interest, post should refuse the case . . . .”); CAR 44 (“Under P.P. 10014, consular officers may continue to process visa applications for individuals who are expressly excepted from the Proclamation . . . .”).
Thus, for consular posts that have not resumed routine visa services, the State Department has suspended processing and issuance of covered visas unless they (1) are eligible for an exception to the Proclamations, and (2) qualify for mission critical or emergency services under the State Department’s COVID-19 Guidance. Though these two requirements are distinct, see Marwaha Decl. ¶ 7, they appear to overlap, with the “exceptions to the Presidential Proclamations” being “used as a guide for additional mission-critical or emergency travelers.” CAR 38; see also CAR 189 (“Mission-critical immigrant visa categories include applicants who may be eligible for an exception under these presidential proclamations.”); CAR 70 (“[C]onsular managers may, in their discretion, determine that a specific H-1B, H-2, J, or L application that is likely to meet the . . . national interest exception to P.P. 10052 or another exception is also ‘mission critical.’”). Conversely, if a visa category “fall[s] under the proclamation” and is not eligible for an exception, then it “would not be considered mission critical,” and a visa application “would not move forward.” 8/27/2020 Oral Arg. Tr., ECF No. 122 [hereinafter 8/27/2020 Arg. Tr.], at 87.
Posts that have resumed routine visa services since July may process cases that are not designated as mission critical pursuant to a detailed prioritization scheme, see CAR 36–41, but those posts are still forbidden from “resum[ing] routine processing of [covered] visa classifications, unless the applicant qualifies for an exception under [Proclamations 10014 and
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 14 of 85
10052], until given a specific instruction to do so.” CAR 38; see also CAR 36. This policy of suspending all processing and issuance of visas in categories covered by the Proclamation and not subject to an exception is referred to as the “No-Visa Policy.”2
F. The Application of Defendants’ COVID-19 Guidance and No-Visa Policy to Diversity Visa Applicants
The State Department has issued only approximately 12,000 Fiscal Year 2020 diversity visas, meaning that approximately 43,000 visas are still available to DV-2020 selectees. See 8/27/2020 Arg. Tr. at 68. Those selectees must receive visas by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020, or their opportunity to immigrate to the United States will vanish. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). Despite this fast-approaching deadline, “[p]ursuant to guidance from the [State] Department on the suspension of routine visa services and implementation of P.P. 10014 and P.P. 10052,” no “additional diversity visa case appointments with [consular] posts” have been scheduled since March 20, 2020. Defs.’ Opp’n, Decl. of Aaron Luster, ECF No. 94-3 [hereinafter Luster Decl.], ¶ 5. “[O]nly when a consular post reaches Phase Three of the Diplomacy Strong Framework may the post resume diversity visa case processing, and only for cases that appear to be eligible for an exception to P.P. 10014.” Id.
Thus, DV-2020 selectees are doubly doomed. Pursuant to the COVID-19 Guidance, diversity visa selects who are imminently going to lose their eligibility to receive a visa are not being treated as mission critical at those posts that have not resumed routine visa processing. See 8/7/2020 Status Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 78 [hereinafter 8/7/2020 Status Hr’g Tr.], at 19. And pursuant
2 Communications from consular offices, embassies, and the Kentucky Consular Center to visa applicants and DV2020 selectees reflect the execution of the State Department’s No-Visa Policy. See, e.g., Second Am. Compl., Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419, (APM), ECF No. 46, Ex. H, ECF No. 46-8 (“While the proclamation is in place, the issuance of diversity visas is not permitted.”); id., Ex. O, ECF No. 46-15 (“We will not be issuing H-1B, H-2B, L, or certain J visas . . . through December 31, 2020, unless an exception applies.”); Gomez PI Mot., ECF No. 53-11 ¶ 21 (“We contacted the Kentucky Consular Center, which reported that no interviews would be scheduled due to the travel ban.”); id., ECF No. 53-24 ¶ 14 (“Please be informed that L visas issuance is suspended due to Presidential Proclamation 10052 until, at least, December 31st, 2020.”).
14

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 15 of 85
to the State Department’s “No-Visa Policy,” the Department is not currently processing any diversity visas, unless an applicant qualifies for an exception to the Proclamations, even at posts that have resumed routine processing. See 8/27/2020 Arg. Tr. at 79–80; Luster Decl. ¶ 5. However, the average DV-2020 selectee who did not receive her visa before April 23, 2020, does not appear to be eligible for an exception: under the State Department’s latest national interest exception guidance, diversity visas are not listed as among the categories of visas eligible for the exception. See CAR 167–174 (listing the categories of visas eligible for national interest exceptions); see also 8/7/2020 Status Hr’g Tr. at 18 (“[W]e are aware of . . . isolated cases of . . . Diversity Visa selectees being granted the national interest exception, but those are -- those would appear to be isolated cases.”).
Thus, it appears that, as things currently stand, the substantial majority of the remaining 43,000 diversity visas for this fiscal year will go unissued, and most of this year’s diversity visa selectees will permanently lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States through the diversity visa program.3
G. Procedural Background This matter involves four fully consolidated cases (Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419; Mohammed v. Pompeo, No. 20-cv-1856; Fonjong v. Pompeo, No. 20-cv-2128; and Aker v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1926) and one partially consolidated case (only the merits of the first two arguments raised in Panda v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1907). See Am. Order, Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 79.
3 Selectees can always enter the diversity lottery again in future years, but with millions of applications submitted each year for 55,000 slots, the chances they will hit the lottery twice are vanishingly slim. See Diversity Visa Program, DV 2016-2018: Number of Entries Received During Each Online Registration Period by Country of Chargeability, FY16– FY18, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/DiversityVisa/DVStatistics/DV%20AES%20statistics%20by%20FSC%202016-2018.pdf.
15

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 16 of 85
1. Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 In their Second Amended Complaint, the Gomez Plaintiffs challenge Proclamations 10014 and 10052 and their implementation in a putative class action consisting of 23 named plaintiffs across five subclasses representing the following five visa categories: family-based immigrant visas, diversity immigrant visas, H-1B nonimmigrant visas, H-2B nonimmigrant visas, J nonimmigrant visas, and L nonimmigrant visas. See Second Am. Compl., Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 111 [hereinafter Gomez SAC]. The named plaintiffs are nine familybased immigrant visa sponsors, consisting of citizens and lawful permanent residents, who are petitioning on behalf of foreign family members; seven diversity visa selectees for Fiscal Year 2020; and seven employers or organizations who either sponsor individuals for nonimmigrant visas, sponsor nonimmigrant visa programs, or represent nonimmigrant workers. Id. ¶¶ 15–36. The Defendants are President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, the Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, the Department of Homeland Security, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf. Id. ¶¶ 37–42. The Gomez Plaintiffs have two pending motions for preliminary injunctive relief. In the first, they argue that Proclamation 10052 is ultra vires, violates the separation of powers between Congress and the Executive Branch, and, in the alternative, that the statutory authority for the Proclamation, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), violates the nondelegation doctrine. See Gomez PI Mem. at 22– 32. They also argue that the State Department’s No-Visa Policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because, among other things, it unlawfully and arbitrarily engrafts the Proclamations’ restrictions on entry onto the requirements for visa eligibility, thereby causing the cessation of processing and issuance of visa applications for otherwise qualified visa applicants now deemed ineligible for an exception. Id. at 33–38. Plaintiffs ask the court to preliminarily
16

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 17 of 85
enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Proclamation 10014 and 10052 against Plaintiffs and the proposed classes pursuant to 5 U.S.C § 705 and the court’s traditional equitable powers. See Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 53 [hereinafter Gomez PI Mot.]; Gomez PI Mem. at 33, 45. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request an order requiring the State Department to reserve unused diversity visa numbers for fiscal year 2020. Gomez PI Mem. at 45.
In their supplemental preliminary injunction, the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs argue that the State Department’s COVID-19 Guidance also violates the APA insofar as it does not adequately explain its exclusion of 2020 diversity visas from the categories of visas eligible for mission critical and emergency processing. See Pls.’ Suppl. Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 66 [hereinafter Gomez Suppl. PI Mem.]. These plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the State Department’s application of the COVID-19 Guidance to diversity visa applicants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 and the court’s equitable authority. Id. at 7. They also incorporate by reference the claims asserted in Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong, and seek classwide relief directing Defendants to adjudicate their visa applications notwithstanding the suspension of routine visa services at certain consular posts. Id. at 1, 8–9.
In addition, the Gomez Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the matter as a class action with the following subclasses:
a) Immediate Relative Parent Subclass—Individual U.S. citizens with an approved immigrant visa petition for an immediate relative parent and whose sponsored relative is subject to Presidential Proclamation 10052.
b) Preference Relative Subclass—Individual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents with an approved immigrant visa petition for a relative in a preference immigrant category, including a spouse, parent, child, or sibling, and any qualifying derivative relatives, where the immigrant visa is “current” or will become “current,” meaning visas are authorized for issuance abroad, while
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 18 of 85
Presidential Proclamation 10052 is in effect, and whose sponsored preference relative is subject to Proclamation 10052.
c) Diversity Visa Subclass—Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect.
d) Temporary Worker Subclass—United States employers who have an approved nonimmigrant visa petition for an employee or potential employee in the H-1B, H-2B, or L-1 nonimmigrant visa categories; where the employee or potential employee’s petition for nonimmigrant status has been approved for temporary employment in the United States, and where the employee or potential employee is subject to Proclamation 10052.
e) Exchange Visitor Program Subclass—Entities designated by the U.S. Department of State as an Exchange Visitor Program sponsor for any category of J-1 exchange visitors included in Proclamation 10052.
See Pls.’ Mot. for Class Cert., Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 52 [hereinafter
Gomez Class Cert. Mot.], at 1.
2. Mohammed v. Pompeo, No. 20-cv-1856
The Mohammed Plaintiffs include 493 DV-2020 selectees and their derivative
beneficiaries, and the Defendants are President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo.
Am. Compl., Mohammed v. Pompeo, No. 20-cv-1856 (APM), ECF No. 5, ¶¶ 1, 2114–15. In their
pending motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ policies, procedures,
and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visa applications for Fiscal
Year 2020 diversity visa selectees and their derivative beneficiaries violate the APA, and warrant
mandamus relief. See Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Mohammed v. Pompeo, No.
20-cv-1856 (APM), ECF No. 8-1 [hereinafter Mohammed PI Mem.], at 15–23. Plaintiffs seek an
order: (1) requiring Defendants to reserve visa numbers for the Plaintiffs through the pendency of
litigation; (2) declaring Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspending the
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 19 of 85
adjudication of immigrant visa applications for the fiscal year 2020 Diversity Visa Program unlawful; (3) setting aside Defendants’ implementation of policies, procedures, and practices precluding issuance of visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries based on the entry suspension promulgated in Proclamations 10014 and 10052; and (4) mandating Defendants process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, schedule Plaintiffs for immigrant visa interviews, and issue visas to eligible Plaintiffs. Id. at 26.
3. Fonjong v. Trump, No. 20-cv-2128 Plaintiffs in this case include 243 DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. See Compl., Fonjong v. Trump, No. 20-cv-2128 (APM), ECF No. 1, ¶ 1. They are suing President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo. Id. ¶¶ 1091–93. The Fonjong Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, which raises identical arguments and seeks the same relief as the Mohammed Plaintiffs’ motion. See Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for TRO & Prelim. Inj., Fonjong v. Trump, No. 20-cv-2128 (APM), ECF No. 70-1 [hereinafter Fonjong TRO/PI Mem.].
4. Aker v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1926 The Aker Plaintiffs are 149 DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries, and the Defendants in this case are President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo, and the State Department. See Am. Compl., Aker v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1926 (APM), ECF No. 3 [hereinafter Aker Compl.], ¶¶ 4, 672–74. These Plaintiffs are situated in the following four circumstances:
(1) Those with issued, but expired immigrant visas; (2) [t]hose with completed immigrant visa interviews, but who[se] immigrant visa stamps were never issued; (3) [t]hose who completed all immigrant visa processing at the [Kentucky Consular Center] and were scheduled for or who were awaiting interviews; and (4) [t]hose who were in the process of completing their immigrant visa packages with the [Center], but who were then told all processing on their cases had ceased.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 20 of 85
Pls.’ Mot. for TRO & Prelim. Inj. & Mem. of P. & A. in Supp., Aker v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1926 (APM), ECF No. 4 [hereinafter Aker TRO/PI Mem.], at 15–16. In their motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the Aker Plaintiffs assert that the Proclamations are ultra vires, the State Department’s implementation of the Proclamations violates the APA, and the Proclamations and their implementations violate the Take Care Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Id. at 38–55. They ask the court to: (1) postpone the end-date of visa issuance for DV-2020 selectees to September 30, 2021; (2) enjoin the State Department from suspending the issuance and reissuance of visas for the diversity visa program; (3) enjoin the State Department from suspending visa adjudication for DV-2020 selectees; (4) order the State Department and the Kentucky Consular Center to complete processing visas for DV-2020 selectees; (5) order the State Department to issue visas for individuals who completed the interview process prior to the Proclamations; and (6) order the State Department to reissue expired visas for Fiscal Year 2020 diversity visa selectees whose visas expired before they could complete travel to the United States. Id. at 1–2.
In addition, the Aker Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All individual diversity visa immigrant applicants and their derivative beneficiaries whose diversity visas were issued prior to Presidential Proclamations 10052 and/or 10014 taking effect, but who were unable to enter the United States due to travel restrictions and who have subsequently been unable to obtain reissuance of their visas through the individual consulates of the Department of State pursuant to the Presidential Proclamations.
See Mot. for Class Cert. & Supporting Mem., Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 84 [hereinafter Aker Class Cert. Mot.], at 2.
20

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 21 of 85
5. Panda v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1907 Plaintiffs in this case are 169 Indian nationals with approved H-1B petitions and their derivative beneficiaries. See Compl., Panda v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Panda Compl.], at 21; see also 8/27/2020 Arg. Tr. at 54 (updating the court on the number of Plaintiffs in this action). These Plaintiffs all were residing and working in the United States under H-1B or H-4 status. See Pls.’ Am. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Their Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 8 [hereinafter Panda PI Mem.], at 1. For various reasons they traveled to India, and now must receive visas to return to the United States. Id. However, they allege that Defendants, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Wolf, Secretary of State Pompeo, and Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, have been withholding the adjudication of their DS-160 nonimmigrant visa applications, which if approved would allow them to re-enter the country. Id. The court has bifurcated briefing on the Panda Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, with the merits of their two overlapping claims being heard in this consolidated action, and the merits of the non-overlapping claim and other non-merits defenses being considered separately. See Am. Order, Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 79; Order, Panda v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 23. As relevant here, the Panda Plaintiffs argue that Proclamation 10052 and its implementation are ultra vires, and that Defendants’ withholding adjudication of Plaintiffs’ visa applications violates the APA. See Panda PI Mem. at 25–35. They seek an order (1) enjoining Defendants from applying Proclamation 10052 in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ visa applications and determining whether they are admissible to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status, and (2) directing the Secretary of State and the United States consulates to process, adjudicate, and render final decisions on Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications within fourteen days. Id. at 40.
21

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 22 of 85
II. LEGAL STANDARD Motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are analyzed using
the same standards. See Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 319 F. Supp. 3d 70, 81 (D.D.C. 2018); Sterling Commercial Credit–Mich., LLC v. Phx. Indus. I, LLC, 762 F. Supp. 2d 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2011). Requests for preliminary relief under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 705, are also governed by the same standards. See Sierra Club v. Jackson, 833 F. Supp. 2d 11, 30 (D.D.C. 2012) (collecting cases).
These “extraordinary” remedies “should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a motion, the movant bears the burden of showing that: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Where, as here, the federal government is the opposing party, the balance of equities and public interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).
Courts in this jurisdiction evaluate the four preliminary injunction factors on a “sliding scale”—if a “movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291–92 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-01002 (APM), 2020 WL 1984297, at *6–7 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2020) (explaining that, though the sliding scale framework has been called into question, in the absence of a D.C. Circuit decision overruling it, the approach “remains binding precedent that this
22

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 23 of 85
court must follow”). The weighing of the four factors is within the district court’s discretion. See Davis, 571 F.3d at 1291. III. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
A. Threshold Justiciability Questions “[T]he ‘merits’ on which [a] plaintiff must show a likelihood of success encompass not only substantive theories but also establishment” that the action is justiciable. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Williams, J.)); Brown v. FEC, 386 F. Supp. 3d 16, 25–26 (D.D.C. 2019). Defendants argue that there are three threshold impediments to this court’s review of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims: Plaintiffs lack standing, consular non-reviewability bars review of their claims, and they lack a cause of action.
1. Standing “To establish standing, the plaintiff must show (1) [she] has suffered a concrete and particularized injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 878 F.3d 371, 376–77 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). The plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing all three elements of standing,” and “[i]n the context of a preliminary injunction” the court “require[s] the plaintiff to show a substantial likelihood of standing under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 377 (cleaned up). As a result, a plaintiff seeking such extraordinary relief “cannot rest on mere allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts that, if taken to be true, demonstrate a substantial likelihood of standing.” Id. (cleaned up). To establish jurisdiction over
23

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 24 of 85
a claim, “the court need only find one plaintiff who has standing.” Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
At the threshold of the threshold issue of standing, Defendants challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of all Plaintiffs’ standing. Citing this court’s decision in Nguyen v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, they argue that “all of the named plaintiffs in Gomez, Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker . . . fail to provide the record evidence necessary to establish standing.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 19 (citing Nguyen v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2020 WL 2527210, at *4 (D.D.C. May 18, 2020)). Defendants note that many of the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs and others “refer to emails to and from the State Department or various consular posts, but none of the purported messages are included among the voluminous filings in these cases.” Id.
The Gomez Plaintiffs counter—correctly—that Defendants misunderstand the court’s holding in Nguyen. Pls.’ Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 108 [hereinafter Gomez Reply Mem.], at 2. The plaintiffs in that case “d[id] not even discuss standing, much less supply ‘specific facts’ that establish a substantial likelihood thereof.” Nguyen, 2020 WL 2527210, at *4. Here, by contrast, as will be seen below, Plaintiffs’ various declarants have supplied “specific facts” to establish a substantial likelihood of standing.4
a. Gomez Plaintiffs As discussed, the preliminary injunction motion in Gomez requests relief for 23 plaintiffs, including six DV-2020 selectees (“DV-2020 Plaintiffs”), nonimmigrant visa plaintiffs, and familybased immigrant visa plaintiffs, and five putative subclasses. Gomez PI Mem. at 12–18; Gomez Class Cert Mot. Additionally, on behalf of themselves, their beneficiaries, and the proposed subclass of diversity visa lottery winners, the DV-2020 Plaintiffs filed a separate supplemental
4 Because the court will address standing and other justiciability issues for Plaintiffs in Panda separately, this opinion only addresses standing for the claims in Gomez, Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker.
24

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 25 of 85
motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to adjudicate their visa applications despite the suspension of routine visa services at particular consular posts. Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 1. Because each DV-2020 Plaintiff asserts every claim in the case (i.e., those common to all Gomez Plaintiffs as well as those specific to DV-2020 Plaintiffs), only one DV-2020 Plaintiff need demonstrate a substantial likelihood of standing for the court to maintain jurisdiction. See Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1010. At least one does.
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Plaintiff Aya Nakamura, a diversity visa lottery winner and citizen of Japan. Gomez PI Mot., Decl. of Aya Nakamura, ECF No. 53-25 [hereinafter Nakamura Decl.], ¶¶ 1, 4. Nakamura had entered the diversity visa lottery for the past four years while pursuing her college education in the United States. Id. ¶ 2. After winning the lottery on May 7, 2019, she “decided to submit all the paperwork for the diversity visa as quickly as [she] could” and to return to Japan to complete “the necessary consular processing for [her] immigrant visa.” Id. ¶ 5. She left for Japan on January 1, 2020. Id. ¶ 8. By then, Nakamura had completed her Associate in Applied Science Degree in Business Administration from ASA College in New York City and had begun a one-year post-completion Optional Practical Training (“OPT”) period. Id. ¶ 3. She states that by leaving for Japan, she “forfeited nearly eight months remaining in [her] OPT period.” Id. ¶ 8. Nakamura had to “buy a plane ticket, give up the lease on [her] apartment, and give away belongings [she] wouldn’t be able to bring back with [her] on the plane.” Id. ¶ 9. She also hired and paid a New York immigration attorney to “help advise [her] in pursuing [her] diversity visa.” Id.
On June 19, 2020, Nakamura “received confirmation . . . that [she] had completed every step necessary for an interview to be scheduled.” Id. ¶ 10. But on June 22, 2020, she “received the news that the President had extended the proclamation to restrict immigration through
25

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 26 of 85
December 31, 2020.” Id. ¶ 13. Nakamura states that unless she could “show that [she] was eligible for a national interest exception, the president’s proclamation would end [her] one chance at immigrating to the United States.” Id. On July 13, 2020, Nakamura’s attorney, Michael Dunn, contacted the U.S. Consulate in Tokyo to request an emergency interview before the end of the fiscal year, but the Consulate responded that “[a]ll diversity (DV) immigrant visa appointments have been cancelled at this time.” Id. ¶ 15. Nakamura states that after Dunn reached out to the Kentucky Consular Center, he was told that “[d]ue to the novel COVID-19 outbreak[,] all interviews for the DV program have been suspended, [and] it is undetermined when scheduling will resume.” Id. ¶ 16.
On July 16, 2020, Dunn contacted the Consulate on Nakamura’s behalf once more to request an emergency interview “in order to specifically seek an exception to the proclamation.” Id. ¶ 17. As of July 31, 2020, Nakamura states that Dunn has not received a response. Id. On July 28, 2020, Dunn contacted the Consulate a third time to request an emergency interview “in order to specifically seek a national interest exception to the proclamation.” Id. ¶ 18. Again, Nakamura states that Dunn has not received a response. Id. She further states that if she had not pursued a diversity visa, she “would still be in the United States preparing to enter a university to complete a four-year degree in accounting.” Id. ¶ 21. She worries that if she does “not get a visa on or before September 30, [she] will have wasted so much time and money [she] spent on [her] U.S. education,” and she “will never be able to reach [her] dream of becoming a CPA . . . in the United States.” Id. ¶ 21.
Injury. Defendants do not contest that Nakamura (or any of the other Gomez Plaintiffs, for that matter) fails to establish a cognizable injury in fact. And for good reason: she easily establishes the requisites for an imminent injury in fact. Nakamura, like all Plaintiffs in these
26

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 27 of 85
consolidated cases, asserts a procedural injury—the withholding of statutorily mandated, nondiscretionary review and adjudication of her visa applications.5 This procedural deprivation is paired with a concrete interest—Nakamura’s interest in obtaining a diversity lottery visa before September 30, 2020, which would allow her to enter the country as a lawful permanent resident— thereby rendering the procedural injury sufficient to establish standing. See Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 921 (stating that “[d]eprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation—a procedural right in vacuo—is insufficient to create Article III standing” (quoting Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 496 (2009))); see also E.B. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d 81, 86–87 (D.D.C. 2019); Smirnov v. Clinton, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding standing “based upon the plaintiffs’ lost opportunity to have their visa applications—some of which have already been submitted—fully processed and considered”), aff’d, 487 F. App’x 582 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded in part on other grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1154.
Causation. To establish causation, a plaintiff must show “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Id. (cleaned up). The Nakamura Declaration contains specific facts demonstrating that the State Department’s implementation of the Proclamations and the COVID-19 Guidance is substantially likely preventing the adjudication of Nakamura’s diversity visa application and thus her potential entry into the United States.
5 For purposes of the standing inquiry, the court must assume Plaintiffs possess a mandatory, non-discretionary right of review and adjudication of their visa applications. See Estate of Boyland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 913 F.3d 117, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (stating that, when considering a plaintiff’s standing, a federal court must assume the merits of his or her legal claim).
27

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 28 of 85
Nakamura Decl. ¶ 13 (addressing the impact of the Proclamations), id. ¶ 16 (noting the State Department’s correspondence linking the cancellation of Nakamura’s interview to COVID-19).6 For their part, Defendants do not challenge the Gomez Plaintiffs on this prong of the standing analysis, choosing instead to focus on redressability. Defs.’ Opp’n at 20–25.
Redressability. To establish redressability, a plaintiff must show that it is “‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 425 U.S. 26, 38 (1976)). Causation and redressability are “closely related” concepts, which typically “overlap as two sides of a . . . coin.” Dynalantic Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 115 F.3d 1012, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The redressability requirement is “relaxed” when a plaintiff has alleged a procedural injury. WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298, 305–06 (D.C. Cir. 2013). That more relaxed redressability inquiry means that “instead of needing to establish that compelling the agency to follow the correct procedure would lead to a substantive result that favors the [plaintiff’s] concrete interests, the [plaintiff] need only show that its concrete interests could be better protected.” Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Pres. Office v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 949 F.3d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “In other words, the relaxed redressability requirement is met when correcting the alleged
6 Other Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs have also received communications tying the suspension of processing of their applications to Proclamations 10014 and 10052. See, e.g., Gomez PI Mem., Decl. of Fatma Bushati, ECF No. 53-11 ¶ 21 (“We contacted the Kentucky Consular Center, which reported that no interviews would be scheduled due to the travel ban.”); id., Decl. of Iwundu Epouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, 53-16 ¶ 10 (Embassy email stating: “It will not be possible to schedule your DV interview before September 30, 2020 due to the restrictions in the Presidential Proclamation . . . . On June 22, the President extended these restrictions through December 30, 2020. At this time, applicants for the Diversity Visa do not meet the criteria provided for a national interest exception. We understand your request and desire for an interview, but unfortunately will not be able to facilitate this under the current immigration laws.”); id., Decl. of Jodi Lynn Karpes, ECF No. 53-19 ¶ 12 (“My attorney contacted the U.S. Consulate in Johannesburg, South Africa on July 13, 2020 to request an emergency appointment. The Consulate stated in an automatic email response to my attorney on July 13, 2020 that ‘All routine visa processing has been suspended until 30 December 2020 due to the Presidential Proclamation for Coronavirus’. On July 28, my attorney again requested an interview be scheduled in the National Interest but to date has not received a response.”).
28

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 29 of 85
procedural violation could still change the substantive outcome in the [plaintiff’s] favor; the [plaintiff] need not go further and show that it would effect such a change.” Id.
Defendants assert that even if the court were to enjoin the Proclamations, “the State Department’s suspension of routine visa services due to COVID-19, as well as processing backlogs” would “render it unlikely that the diversity visas at issue could be processed or adjudicated by September 30, 2020.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 20. But that argument is unpersuasive with respect to Nakamura. Having established a procedural injury, Nakamura need only demonstrate that the relief she requests could better protect her concrete interest in the adjudication of her diversity visa application. She has done so. As Defendants acknowledge, the consular post in Tokyo is now processing immigrant visa applications. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 21; see also Pls.’ Notice Regarding Number of Diversity Visas Issued in July 2020 and Bulletin Showing Number of Selected Entrants in DV-2020 by Country, ECF No. 115 [hereinafter Notice Regarding July 2020 Processing], at 16 (showing 84 immigrant visa issued from the Tokyo consulate in July 2020).7 The relief she seeks would restart the processing of her application, and Defendants have offered no reason to believe that the Tokyo consulate could not complete processing and issuance of her diversity lottery visa by September 30, 2020. Nakamura therefore has satisfied the redressability requirement.
Defendants’ additional contention that Nakamura cannot show redressability because she has not met her “burden of establishing eligibility for a visa ‘to the satisfaction of the consular officer’” likewise fails. Defs.’ Opp’n at 20 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1361). Even assuming Nakamura must make such a showing to redress her procedural injury, she attests that she has “met all the
7 The government stresses that these diversity visas were replacement visas issued to applicants who previously had valid immigrant visas, see Defs.’ Suppl. Notice, ECF No. 120, at 6, but that does not undermine the fact that the Tokyo post is currently capable of processing and issuing visas.
29

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 30 of 85
requirements for a diversity visa” and is “not aware of any reason why a consular officer might decide that [she is] inadmissible and refuse to issue [her] a visa.” Nakamura Decl. ¶ 11. Defendants offer no evidence to the contrary. Nakamura therefore has established a substantial likelihood of redressability at the preliminary injunction stage.
*** In summary, because one Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiff has established a substantial likelihood of standing, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over all claims asserted by the Gomez Plaintiffs.
b. Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker Plaintiffs The court likewise holds that there is at least one plaintiff in each of the Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker cases who has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of standing. The Mohammed Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara, a citizen of Egypt who currently resides in the United Arab Emirates. Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. Relief, Mohammed v. Pompeo, ECF No. 20-cv-1856 (APM), ECF No. 8 [hereinafter Mohammed Pls.’ Mot.], Ex. 19, Decl. of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara, ECF No. 8-20 at 1. After Nawara was selected for the DV-2020 lottery, she traveled to Egypt to obtain the needed documents. See id. ¶ 15. She sent them all to the Kentucky Consular Center and was informed that she had submitted the required documents and was ready to be scheduled for an interview when her case number became current. Id. Believing that her children would be attending school in the United States, Nawara did not enroll them in school in the UAE. Id. ¶ 14. But her interview was scheduled for May 2020, just a few weeks after Proclamation 10014 was issued, and it was cancelled. Id. ¶¶ 11, 16. She states that “this Proclamation [has] made it so that we cannot get the immigrant visas which we should be granted,” and that this has been “terrible” news. Id. ¶ 6.
30

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 31 of 85
Nawara describes the chance to move to the United States with her spouse and two children as a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to provide “a better life for [her] family,” and she discusses her extreme disappointment at having potentially lost out on this opportunity. Id. ¶¶ 16, 19. In particular, she emphasizes that “[she] cannot stress enough how important it [is] to be able to give [her children] the chance to live, grow, and get an education in America.” Id. ¶ 9.
The Fonjong Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Marina Filippova, a resident and citizen of Russia. Pls.’ Mot. for T.R.O. and Prelim. Inj., Fonjong v. Trump, No. 20-cv-2128 (APM), ECF No. 7 [hereinafter Fonjong Pls.’ Mot.], Ex. 13, Decl. of Marina Filippova, ECF No. 7-14 at 1. Filippova states that she was “extremely excited” when she learned that her spouse was selected for the DV-2020 lottery. Id. ¶ 7. Her and her husband’s interview was scheduled to be held in June 2020, but was cancelled. Id. ¶ 9. She notes that the Proclamation has “made it impossible for [them] to get the immigrant visa.” Id. ¶ 10. Believing they would obtain the visas, Filippova and her husband put their “entire life . . . on hold while [they] were waiting for the interview.” Id. ¶ 7. The couple spent thousands of dollars on a trip to the United States last December to choose where to live, and her husband passed on a promotion. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. The couple hoped to “build [a] family and raise [their] future children” in the United States, but their “hopes and desires were crashed because of the Presidential Proclamation.” Id. ¶¶ 10, 12.
The Aker Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam, who is from Egypt and is a resident of Saudi Arabia. Decl. of Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam, Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 93. She won the diversity visa lottery for 2020, and her husband and three children are derivative beneficiaries. Id. ¶ 1. After winning, she traveled to Egypt on multiple occasions to obtain the necessary documents for her application. Id. ¶ 3. In order to travel to the United States once their visas were issued, her husband “refused many job
31

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 32 of 85
offers in Saudi Arabia,” which led to the “expiration [of] his Saudi medical practice license [in] May 2020.” Id. Abdelsalam states that after she and her husband finished their interview at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia on March 16, 2020, they were “placed in Administrative Processing” as the Embassy had “suspended routine visa processing due to COVID-19.” Id. ¶ 4. She further declares that the Embassy “refus[ed] to issue [their] visas because of [the] presidential proclamation” and told her that “while [she is] documentar[il]y qualified, [her] case is subjected to the Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants who present risk to the U.S. labor market.” Id. Abdelsalam’s husband “is now preparing to leave and travel to Egypt to renew [his] medical practice license” and she states that “[her] family will be separated.” Id. ¶ 5.
These Plaintiffs, like Nakamura, have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that they have been procedurally injured and that those injuries are traceable to Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamations. Defendants do not contend otherwise. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 22–23. Nawara’s, Filippova’s, and Abdelsalam’s injuries are also redressable. Though the consular offices in Russia and Egypt do not appear to have fully resumed routine operations, they are continuing to process visas. See Notice Regarding July 2020 Processing at 8 (listing immigrant visas issued in Egypt in July); COVID-19 Information, U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Russia (Aug. 31, 2020)8 (confirming that the consulate is still providing limited visa services). Defendants point to a worldwide backlog of immigrant visa applications, but they do not suggest that this backlog, or any in-country restrictions in Egypt or Russia, would make it impossible for these three Plaintiffs’ applications to be processed. To the contrary, Defendants have demonstrated in an earlier stage of this litigation that the State Department is more than capable of issuing visas within an extremely tight timeframe, notwithstanding difficult in-country conditions. See generally Mem. Op. & Order,
8 Available at https://ru.usembassy.gov/covid-19-information/.
32

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 33 of 85
ECF No. 41. Furthermore, the Aker, Fonjong, and Mohammed Plaintiffs request that the court postpone the end-date of visa issuance for DV-2020 selectees to September 30, 2021, or, at a minimum, reserve visa numbers for the Plaintiffs through the pendency of litigation. See Mohammed PI Mem. at 26; Fonjong TRO/PI Mem. at 28; Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 1. Assuming such relief is legally available—which the court must do for purposes of its standing analysis, see Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 779–80—it would provide a remedy to overcome any inability of Russia and Egypt consular offices to process these Plaintiffs’ visa applications by the September 30 deadline.9
Defendants additionally assert that Plaintiffs in all three cases, “do not and cannot pinpoint any specific agency action,” an argument that appears to be directed at the element of causation. Defs.’ Opp’n at 24. The court disagrees, as Plaintiffs in each case point to the State Department’s implementation of the Presidential Proclamations against diversity visa applicants as the cause of their injury. Mohammed PI Mem. at 10 (identifying “policies, procedures, and practices suspend[ing] all stages of the processing of immigrant visa applications for selectees and their beneficiaries, including . . . (3) mandatory scheduling of immigrant visa interviews, and (4) decision-making on already interviewed applications”); Fonjong TRO/PI Mem. at 11 (same); Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 42–43 (identifying “[t]he agency actions of suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for the Diversity Visa Program” and “[t]he agency actions of suspending issuance
9 Likewise, insofar as these posts are only processing visa applications deemed “mission critical” under the State Department’s COVID-19 Guidance, the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the applications of that Guidance to DV-2020 selectees’ visa applications. See Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 7. That remedy would equally redress any COVID-19 Guidance-related impediment to processing Plaintiffs’ DV-2020 applications at the Russia and Egypt consular offices. See Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency [actions] are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the [actions] are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” (cleaned up)).
33

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 34 of 85
of immigrant visas or reissuance of the same for the Diversity Visa Program”). Accordingly, these Plaintiffs’ showing of causation and redressability is satisfied.
Nawara, Filippova, and Abdelsalam have established a substantial likelihood of standing as to each claim asserted in Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker, respectively. The court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over each action. See Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1010.10
2. Consular Non-Reviewability Defendants challenge Plaintiffs’ suits at the starting gate on another ground: the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. They assert that, under that doctrine, “Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the [Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)] or the APA to challenge consular officers’ visa determinations.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 28. Defendants are wrong. The doctrine of consular nonreviewability “holds that a consular official’s decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to judicial review, at least unless Congress says otherwise.” Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The doctrine is rooted in the ancient principle of international law that nation states have the inherent right to exclude or admit aliens, and that such matters are “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Id. (quoting Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952)). But not every legal challenge that touches on the admission or exclusion of foreign nationals is foreclosed by consular nonreviewability. District courts in this jurisdiction consistently have held that “when the suit challenges inaction, ‘as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion,’ there is jurisdiction.” Moghaddam v.
10 Defendants fault the Aker Plaintiffs for not discussing standing in their brief. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 18, 24. But the Aker Plaintiffs’ brief provides an extensive, individualized discussion of numerous Plaintiffs’ irreparable injury as a result of the Proclamations and Defendants’ implementation thereof. See Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 16–26. While not specifically couched in standing terms, this discussion and the accompanying affidavits attesting to the harms these Plaintiffs have and will experience is sufficient to meet Plaintiffs’ burden of showing a substantial likelihood of standing.
34

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 35 of 85
Pompeo, 424 F. Supp. 3d 104, 114 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931–32 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Serv. to the United States v. Kerry (“Nine Iraqi Allies”), 168 F. Supp. 3d 268, 290 (D.D.C. 2016) (“[T]he doctrine of consular nonreviewability is not triggered until a consular officer has a made a decision with respect to a particular visa application.”). That distinction makes sense, as the doctrine of consular nonreviewability exists to insulate from review the political branches’ prerogative to regulate the entry of foreign nationals. But “[w]hen the Government simply declines to provide a decision in the manner provided by Congress, it is not exercising its prerogative to grant or deny applications but failing to act at all.” Nine Iraqi Allies, 168 F. Supp. 3d at 290–91.
The leading D.C. Circuit case on the doctrine, Saavedra Bruno, is illustrative. There, the plaintiff advanced three challenges under the APA: one directed to the revocation of his B-1/B-2 visa, a second to the refusal to renew his L-1 visa, and a third to the State Department’s failure to act on a waiver application under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3). See 197 F.3d at 1156. After an extended discussion, the Circuit declined to review the first two claims due to consular nonreviewability, but not the third. See id. at 1162, 1164–65. As to the third claim—the State Department’s refusal to act—the court held that claim to be moot because the agency had since denied the waiver request. See id. 1164–65. Had the doctrine of consular nonreviewability applied to the refusal-toact claim, presumably the court would have said so.
Here, all Plaintiffs challenge the State Department’s refusal to review and adjudicate their pending visa applications or issue or reissue a visa due to the Proclamations. None challenge an affirmative visa “determination.” The doctrine of consular nonreviewability therefore does not foreclose review of their claims. See Patel, 134 F.3d at 931–32; Moghaddam, 424 F. Supp. 3d at 114–15.
35

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 36 of 85
3. Cause of Action Defendants deliver a third and final broadside attack. Insisting that “[n]o matter how they frame their causes of action, the plaintiffs’ TRO and PI motions all boil down to arguments resting entirely on claims against the proclamations under the APA,” and because the President is not subject to the APA, Defendants say that “the Court cannot review” claims contesting the Proclamations. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 25 (citing Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800–01 (1992) (holding that the President is not subject to the requirements of the APA because his office is not an “agency” under the statute)). Nor can the court review agency implementation of the Proclamations under the APA, Defendants continue, when as here, the “President relies on agencies, such as the State Department, to carry out his decision.” Id. at 27. The court rejects these arguments. They suffer from a fundamental misreading of Plaintiffs’ complaints and a misunderstanding of the law. All of Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under the APA. The Gomez, Aker, and Panda Plaintiffs all advance causes of action against the President and Executive Branch officials asserting that the Proclamations exceed the scope of the President’s congressionally granted authority under Section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). See Gomez SAC ¶¶ 332–35 (Fourth Cause of Action); Aker Compl. ¶¶ 687–96 (First Cause of Action); Panda Compl. ¶¶ 1963–68 (First Cause of Action). These claims can be construed as either a non-statutory ultra vires cause of action or a statutory cause of action under the INA. The D.C. Circuit has long recognized the availability of “non-statutory review action” aimed at the legality of presidential executive orders. See Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1327–28 (D.C. Cir. 1996). And, the Supreme Court recently characterized a challenge to presidential action taken pursuant to § 1182(f) as a “statutory claim[]” under the INA. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2407. Thus, no matter in
36

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 37 of 85
which box one places Plaintiffs’ direct challenges to the Proclamations, they are cognizable outside of the APA.11
To the extent Defendants contend that the court is foreclosed from reviewing agency actions taken to implement the Proclamations, they are wrong. The D.C. Circuit rejected a similar argument in Chamber of Commerce, a case in which the Secretary of Labor issued regulations following an executive order. There, the government argued that “a cause of action under the APA is not available, even were appellants to rely on it, because a challenge to the regulation should be regarded as nothing more than a challenge to the legality of the President’s Executive Order and therefore not reviewable.” 74 F.2d at 1326–27. The court soundly rejected that contention: “that the Secretary’s regulations are based on the President’s Executive Order hardly seems to insulate them from judicial review under the APA, even if the validity of the Order were thereby drawn into question.” Id. at 1327. APA review of an Executive Branch official’s actions is thus not precluded merely because the official is carrying out an executive order. The court in Chamber of Commerce went on to hold that a non-statutory ultra vires cause of action is likewise available against Executive Branch officials. See id. at 1328. “That the ‘executive’s’ action here is essentially that of the President does not insulate the entire executive branch from judicial review. We think it is now well established that ‘[r]eview of the legality of Presidential action can ordinarily be obtained in a suit seeking to enjoin the officers who attempt to enforce the President’s directive.’” Id. (quoting Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 815 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). Plaintiffs assert such ultra vires causes of action against Executive Branch officials here. See Gomez SAC ¶¶ 332–336 (Fourth Cause of
11 The APA waives sovereign immunity for these non-monetary claims, see 5 U.S.C. § 702, but that does not mean that they arise under the APA. See Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at 1328 (“The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applies to any suit whether under the APA or not.”).
37

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 38 of 85
Action); Aker Compl. ¶¶ 687–96 (First Cause of Action); Panda Compl. ¶¶ 1963–68 (First Cause of Action).
Defendants make no mention of Chamber of Commerce in their opposition brief. Instead, their entire argument rests on the district court’s decision in Detroit International Bridge Co. v. Government of Canada, 189 F. Supp. 3d 85 (D.D.C. 2016), see Defs.’ Opp’n at 25–27, but that case is easily distinguishable. There, Congress had delegated to the President the power to issue final approvals to build bridges across international boundaries. See id. at 100. The court held that the Department of State’s action in issuing a permit for a bridge approved by the President was not subject to review under the APA, because such issuance implemented in a ministerial sense “an exercise of discretionary authority committed to the President by law.” Id. at 102. In this case, by contrast, the Secretary of State’s alleged actions are in no sense a ministerial implementation of presidential action. See Public Citizen v. U.S. Trade Rep., 5 F.3d 549, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Franklin[’s denial of judicial review of presidential action] is limited to those cases in which the President has final constitutional or statutory responsibility for the final step necessary for the agency action directly to affect the parties.”) (emphasis added). Instead, the Secretary of State is alleged to have expanded the scope of the Proclamations by grafting their restrictions on entry onto the requirements for visa eligibility, thereby precipitating the cessation of review and adjudication of visa applications for foreign nationals now deemed inadmissible. That is a far greater step than the type of ministerial agency action that was deemed indistinguishable from presidential action, and thus unreviewable, in Detroit International Bridge. None of Plaintiffs’ claims are foreclosed from judicial review merely because they challenge agency action implementing the Proclamations.
38

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 39 of 85
B. Challenges to Proclamations 10014 and 10052 Having determined that each of the consolidated cases presents justiciable and reviewable claims, the court turns to the merits, starting with those causes of action directly challenging the validity of Proclamations. The Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs assert the following: (1) the Proclamations are ultra vires because they do not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for suspension of entry under § 1182(f); and (2) the President’s issuance of the Proclamations (and the State Department’s implementation of them) violate (a) the Take Care Clause and (b) the Due Process Clause, and (c) deny equal protection under the law. Separately, the Gomez Plaintiffs contend that (3) the Proclamations violate the separation of powers, and (4) Congress impermissibly delegated legislative power to the President under § 1182(f). The court first addresses the ultra vires claim, then turns to the separation of powers and nondelegation claims, and concludes with the remaining three constitutional challenges.
1. Ultra Vires Presidential Action The text of § 1182(f) provides as follows:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The natural starting point of any dispute involving the President’s exercise of authority under § 1182(f) is the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. That case involved a challenge to Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, better known as the “travel ban,” which placed “entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate.” 138 S. Ct. at 2404. Following a “worldwide, multi-agency review,” the President found that the entry of covered foreign
39

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 40 of 85
nationals from those eight countries would be detrimental to the national interest and excluded them from entry. Id. at 2408. The plaintiffs in that case argued, among other things, that § 1182(f) “confers only residual power to temporarily halt the entry of a discrete group of aliens engaged in harmful conduct.” Id. The Court concluded otherwise.
It first observed that, “[b]y its plain language, § 1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States.” Id. The statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Id.
It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry (“[w]henever [he] finds that the entry” of aliens “would be detrimental” to the national interest); whose entry to suspend (“all aliens or any class of aliens”); for how long (“for such period as he shall deem necessary”); and on what conditions (“any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”). Id. Thus, the Court concluded, § 1182(f) grants “‘ample power’ to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.” Id. (quoting Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 187 (1993)) (emphasis added). The Court further explained that § 1182(f)’s “sole prerequisite” is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Id. The “finding” requirement is not particularly stringent. The Court characterized the plaintiffs’ assertion that the President must “explain that finding with sufficient detail to enable judicial review” to be “questionable,” and in any event found the Proclamation at issue to be “more detailed than any prior order a President has issued under § 1182(f).” Id. at 2409. Plaintiffs in this matter acknowledge the President’s broad scope of authority under § 1182(f), but argue that the Proclamations nevertheless are unlawful. Primarily, they challenge the sufficiency of the “finding” made by the President, and attack that “finding” from multiple angles. See Gomez PI Mem. at 22–23. First, they contend that the “finding” requirement places
40

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 41 of 85
on the President the duties to “supply a rational justification” and to conduct “some rational
investigation,” neither of which are reflected in the Proclamations. Id. Second, Plaintiffs dispute
the logic underlying the “finding.” They contend that, contrary to the justifications put forward in
the Proclamation, immigrants like diversity lottery winners do not compete against American
workers for scarce jobs; they also insist that nonimmigrants like H-1B and H-2B visa applicants
work in sectors where “unemployment is low, rather than in the high-unemployment areas that the
entry suspension is supposedly meant to target.” Id. at 25. Finally, they maintain that the exclusion
of immigrant and nonimmigrant labor actually is counterproductive to the President’s stated goal
of improving the economic prospects of American workers. See id. at 26. They cite declarations
from experts, economic studies, and even statements from federal agencies to make the point that
the entry of aliens in fact creates jobs for American workers, and the idea that new arrivals take
jobs from Americans is a fallacy. See id. at 26–29. None of these arguments is ultimately persuasive.12
a. Plaintiffs’ demand for a “rational justification” and a “rational
investigation” far exceeds what the Court in Trump v. Hawaii required for a valid presidential
“finding.” As noted, the Court found it “questionable” that § 1182(f) required the President to
“explain [the] finding with sufficient detail to enable judicial review.” 138 S. Ct. at 2409. “[A]
12 The Gomez Plaintiffs advance claims titled “Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA” as their Third and Fifth Causes of Action. See Gomez SAC ¶¶ 328–31, 337–40. Each of those causes of action asserts that the Proclamations are unlawful because they suspend not only entry to the United States, but also the issuance of various categories of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. See id. ¶¶ 328–30; see also Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2414 (observing that the “basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance [ ] runs throughout the INA”). The Gomez Plaintiffs did not, however, advance either of these claims in their motion for injunctive relief, which repeatedly stresses that “the Proclamations address only entry into the United States. They do not say anything about suspending the issuance of visas.” Gomez PI Mem. at 2. Rather, Plaintiffs asserted only the legal theory contained in their Fourth Cause of Action, which challenges the sufficiency and accuracy of the findings the President made to justify the suspension of entry. Compare id. ¶¶ 332–35, with Gomez PI Mem. at 22–29. Defendants must have read the Gomez Plaintiffs’ motion the same way, as they do not address whether the Proclamations are directed to conditions of entry only, or also establish new conditions of visa eligibility. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 31–42. Accordingly, consistent with the parties’ briefing, the court does not opine on the question whether the Proclamations exceed the President’s authority under § 1182(f) by impermissibly adding conditions of visa eligibility.
41

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 42 of 85
searching inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s justifications is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the President this sphere.” Id. Although Plaintiffs recognize the restrictive nature of judicial review explained in Trump v. Hawaii, they say it is inapplicable because the President here acted not in the context of international affairs and national security, as in Trump v. Hawaii, but in the area of domestic affairs, in which he is not owed the same level of deference. See Gomez Reply Mem. at 8. But this argument suffers from several problems.
To start, the foreign/domestic distinction advocated by Plaintiffs finds no support in the statutory text. Section 1182(f) simply speaks in terms of restricting entry of aliens “detrimental to the United States”; it does not limit such detriment to any particular sphere, foreign or domestic. The distinction also finds no support in Supreme Court case law. The Court has long recognized that “[t]he exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” that “is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Court also has said that “any policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations.” Harisiades, 342 U.S. 588–89 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ effort to characterize the Proclamations’ exclusion of aliens in purely or predominately domestic terms therefore runs headlong into Supreme Court precedent. Finally, even if Plaintiffs’ foreign/domestic dichotomy is a practically feasible one, it does not follow that judicial deference is any less when the overarching purpose for the exclusion of aliens is domestic in nature. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court stated that, because decisions involving “the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals” may “implicate ‘relations with foreign powers,’ or involve ‘classifications defined in the light of changing political and economic circumstances,’ such judgments ‘are frequently of a character
42

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 43 of 85
more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive.’” 138 S. Ct. at 2418–19 (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976)) (emphasis added). No one could reasonably dispute that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused “chang[ed]” “economic circumstances.” The wisdom of the President’s decision to address those changed circumstances by restricting the entry of certain classes of aliens is a policy decision the judiciary is not well equipped to evaluate.
The court is aware that recently the Ninth Circuit, in declining to stay a district court’s injunction of a different Presidential Proclamation, expressed the view that the President’s powers under § 1182(f) are diminished when he acts to “deny visas to immigrants based on purely longterm economic concerns.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020). The Presidential Proclamation at issue in Doe #1 excluded foreign nationals unless they could demonstrate coverage by specified types of health care insurance within 30 days of entry or that they had the resources to cover foreseeable healthcare costs. Id. at 1057. The court determined that the Proclamation dealt “with a purely domestic economic problem” and, for that reason, accorded it less deferential review than that proscribed in Trump v. Hawaii. Id. at 1067. For the reasons already stated, this court respectfully declines to adopt this approach and finds the dissenting opinion in Doe #1 to be more persuasive. See id. at 1078–79 (Bress, J., dissenting).
The other cases that Plaintiffs cite to support a more searching, “rational” findings requirement are inapplicable. None involve an interpretation of § 1182(f). Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 167–68 (1962), involved the classic formulation of the need for a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” in the context of the APA. See Gomez Reply Mem. at 5. Temple University v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 208–09 (3d Cir. 1991), involved a “find[ing]” requirement under the Medicaid law, specifically Title XIX of the Social Security Act. See Gomez PI Mem. at 23 n.19. And, oddly, Plaintiffs cite two cases, United States
43

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 44 of 85
v. Bikundi, 926 F.3d 761, 776–77 (D.C. Cir. 2019), and United States v. Sanders, 485 F.3d 654, 659 (D.C. Cir. 2007), which articulate the standard for granting an ends-of-justice continuance under the Speedy Trial Act. See Gomez PI Mem. at 23. Suffice it to say none of these cases supply a more controlling or persuasive interpretation of the “finding” requirement under § 1182(f) than Trump v. Hawaii.
b. Plaintiffs’ attack on the sufficiency of the President’s findings also fails. In Proclamation 10014, the President identified the massive displacement of American workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for executive action: “[W]e must be mindful of the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in an environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,441. The President continued that excess labor supply affects all workers and potential workers, particularly those who are “last in” during an economic expansion and “last out” during an economic contraction, including most significantly “historically disadvantaged groups,” such as AfricanAmericans and other minorities, those without college degrees, and the disabled. Id. An influx of new lawful permanent residents would exacerbate the strain on the labor market. The President noted that new lawful permanent residents are granted “open-market” employment authorization allowing them to compete in almost any sector of the economy, and that “[e]xisting immigrant visa processing protections are inadequate for recovery from the COVID-19 outbreak.” Id. Most immigrant visa categories, the President stated, “do not require employers to account for displacement of Untied States workers” and, though some employment-based visas require a labor certification, “because visa issuance happens substantially after the certification is completed, the labor certification process cannot adequately capture the status of the labor market today.” Id. at 23,441–42. Proclamation 10052, issued nearly 60 days later, amplified the President’s rationale
44

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 45 of 85
for the initial exclusion and explained its expansion. He found that the “considerations present in Proclamation 10014 remain,” and added that “the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security reviewed nonimmigrant programs and found that the present admission of workers within several nonimmigrant visa categories also poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 38,263. The President noted, for example, that between February and April 2020, more than 17 million United States jobs were lost in industries in which employers seek to fill positions with “worker positions tied to H-2B immigrant visas.” Id. at 38,263–64. During that same period, 20 million United States workers “lost their jobs in key industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions.” Id. at 38,264. And, finally, the President explained that certain J nonimmigrant visa applicants compete for jobs with young Americans, whose job prospects have been hit particularly hard during the pandemic. Id.
These findings are more than adequate. They are in fact far more detailed than those contained in past § 1182(f) proclamations identified by the Court in Trump v. Hawaii. See 138 S. Ct. at 2409 (observing that previous proclamations had contained as little as one and five sentences of justification for entry restrictions). And although the findings here may not be as robust as those in Trump v. Hawaii or supported by any evident “worldwide, multi-agency review,” the Court surely did not mean for the findings and administrative efforts in that case to set a floor for future presidential actions under § 1182(f).
Plaintiffs take issue with the underlying premise of the Proclamations—that the U.S. jobs market is a zero-sum game in which foreign workers displace U.S. workers upon arrival—and marshal an array of evidence showing, to the contrary, that new entrants to this country actually create jobs and provide overall benefits to the U.S. economy. Plaintiffs go so far as to say that “it
45

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 46 of 85
is undisputed that the President’s purported ‘findings’ are false.” Gomez Reply Mem. at 9. These arguments, however persuasive they might be in a policy forum or even in a contest under the APA, do not win the day in a legal challenge to presidential action under § 1182(f). “‘Whether the President’s chosen method’ of addressing perceived risk is justified from a policy perspective is ‘irrelevant to the scope of his [§ 1182(f)] authority.” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2409 (quoting Sale, 509 U.S. at 187–188) (emphasis added). The plaintiffs in Trump v. Hawaii mounted a similar attack on the travel ban “based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom.” Id. at 2421 (“They suggest that the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security interests.”). The Court held that “we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which ‘are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.’” Id. (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948)). The same holds true here.
Plaintiffs respond that this hands-off approach to presidential action “amounts to a claim that the President is free under § 1182(f) to suspend immigration under plainly false pretenses, and in any manner he chooses. That alarming proposition is not the law.” Gomez Reply Mem. at 11. As “alarming” as that proposition may be to Plaintiffs, the judicial role in evaluating presidential action pursuant to § 1182(f) is decidedly constrained. In this sphere, Congress provides the stronger counterweight to Executive Branch excess. If the President were to act on “plainly false pretenses,” as Plaintiffs fear, Congress possesses ample powers to right that wrong. The scope of judicial review is circumscribed.
c. The Aker Plaintiffs advance one more contention in support of their claim that the Proclamations exceed the President’s authority under § 1182(f). In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court recognized that § 1182(f) contains a temporal limitation because Congress’s inclusion of the
46

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 47 of 85
word “suspend” connotes a “deferral until later.” See 138 S. Ct. at 2409–10 (cleaned up). To satisfy that limitation, the Court stated, the President need not “prescribe in advance a fixed end date for the entry restriction,” but may “link the duration of those restrictions, implicitly or explicitly, to the resolution of the triggering condition.” Id. The Aker Plaintiffs assert not that the Proclamations fail to include a “triggering condition”; rather, citing the President’s own tweets and words, they argue that the “triggering condition”—recovery of the economy—has been satisfied, thereby “the basis of the Proclamation has been overcome.” Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 39– 42. This argument has no merit. Section 1182(f) “exudes deference” to the President as to “how long” and on “what conditions” restrictions on entry shall remain. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2408. The economic conditions triggering the Proclamations have not by any stretch returned to normal, and Plaintiffs cannot seriously contend otherwise. Thus, to the extent the judicial branch has any role in assessing whether such a “triggering condition” has been resolved, it plainly has not in this case.
2. Separation of Powers The Gomez Plaintiffs contend that, even if the President made the requisite statutory findings, the Proclamations are “independently invalid because [they] . . . violate[] foundational separation-of-powers principles.” Gomez PI Mem. at 29. They maintain that Congress already has “carefully prescribed” the requirements for foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States as skilled and unskilled workers, and the Proclamations nullify those requirements. See id. at 30–31. For immigrant visa categories, like diversity visas, Congress elected not to place restrictions on their labor market participation. See id. at 31. The Proclamations, they say,
47

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 48 of 85
overturn the balance carefully struck by Congress between admitting foreign nationals and protecting American workers.13
The Panda Plaintiffs put forth a similar contention particular to H-1B visa applicants: “Proclamation 10052 subverts Congress’s detailed regulatory scheme that intertwines the H-1B and permanent labor certification programs to ensure the retention of skilled foreign labor to benefit the national economy and induce job growth while protecting domestic workers.” Panda PI Mem. at 26–27. Proclamation 10052, they maintain, “specifically overrides” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A) (which governs permanent immigrant visas based on labor certifications) and § 1182(n) (which governs labor condition applications for H-1B nonimmigrant visas). Id. at 27. To be eligible for a permanent immigrant visa based on employment, for instance, the sponsoring employer must obtain a certification from the Department of Labor confirming that there are no qualified, able, and willing United States workers available to fill the employer’s job opportunity, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(3)(C), 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I), and that the hire will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similar employed workers in the United States, id. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(II). A similar labor certification is mandated for temporary H-1B nonimmigrant workers. See id. § 1182(n). “The Proclamation’s broad programmatic objective of purporting to help the domestic labor market,” the Panda Plaintiffs assert, “cannot trump the statute’s specific instructions to allow for the importation of skilled foreign labor under the statutory conditions that have already been satisfied.” Panda PI Mem. at 27.
Faced with similar arguments, the Court in Trump v. Hawaii stated that “[w]e may assume that § 1182(f) does not allow the President to expressly override particular provisions of the INA.”
13 The Gomez Plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers arguments appears to be a variant of their ultra vires claim—that the President has acted in excess of his congressionally granted authority under § 1182(f). The Panda Plaintiffs advance a similar argument, but couch it in statutory, not constitutional, terms. Whether framed as a statutory or constitutional claim, the arguments fail.
48

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 49 of 85
138 S. Ct. at 2411 (emphasis added). The Proclamations at issue in this case do not “expressly override” any “particular provision” of the INA. On their face, the Proclamations make no mention of any provision of the INA other than § 1182(f) and § 1185(a) (making it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe”), 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)(1). The Proclamations do, of course, restrict from entry various immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications, but they do not expressly override any of them. Those classifications are not abolished. Presumably, their full admission will resume once the labor market recovers and the surplus labor concerns identified in the Proclamations are ameliorated.
But even now, certain categories of immigrants and nonimmigrants are eligible for admission if they can satisfy an exception set forth in the Proclamations. Cf. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2422 (explaining that “significant exceptions” for various categories of foreign nationals from the designated countries supported the government’s claim of a legitimate national security interest). For instance, under Proclamation 10014, foreign nationals may enter the United States on an immigrant visa as a physician, nurse, or other healthcare professional (§ 2(b)(ii)); to perform medical research or other research to combat the spread of COVID-19 (§ 2(b)(ii)); or to perform other work essential to combating, recovering from, or otherwise alleviating the effects of the outbreak (§ 2(b)(iii)). So, too, may any foreign national enter who is a spouse or minor child of a United States citizen (§§ 2(b)(iv), (v)), or who is a member of the armed forces or any spouse or child of such member (§ 2(b)(vii)). Proclamation 10052 likewise includes exceptions for nonimmigrant visa categories. It permits entry of a foreign national who is a spouse or child of a United States citizen (§ 3(b)(ii)) and any foreign national seeking to enter to provide temporary
49

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 50 of 85
labor or services essential to the food supply chain (§ 3(b)(iii)). Finally, and critically, both Proclamations contain a “national interest” exception, whereby a foreign national may enter under criteria determined by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,443 § 2(b)(ix); 85 Fed. Reg. at 38,265 § 3(b)(iv). The State Department on August 12, 2020, issued guidance on the “national interest” exception. CAR 167–74. By way of illustration, H-1B visa holders qualify for the exception if, among other things, they are “seeking to resume ongoing employment in the United States in the same position with the same employer and visa classification” or are “technical specialists, senior level managers, and other workers whose travel is necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States.” CAR 169. Consular officers are to consider five criteria in assessing this latter category approved for travel. CAR 169–70. H-2B temporary workers, as another example, may enter the country “to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States (e.g. those working in forestry and conservation, nonfarm animal caretakers, etc.),” with consular officers instructed to consider three criteria under this class accepted for travel. CAR 170–71. The guidance also sets forth various exceptions for the J-1 and L visa categories. CAR 171–73.
It may be a fair criticism that these exceptions are overly narrow and indiscriminately exclude large numbers of aliens seeking to enter the United States. But these exceptions demonstrate that the Proclamations do not “expressly override” any “particular” provision of the INA. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2411. Aliens still may travel to the United States under the visa categories established by Congress. That the Proclamations add burdensome conditions to entry is not a valid objection. The Court in Hawaii made clear that § 1182(f) grants the President “‘ample power’ to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.” Id. at 2408 (quoting Sale, 509 U.S. at 187) (emphasis added); see also id. at 2412 (stating that
50

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 51 of 85
§ 1182(f) “vests authority in the President to impose additional limitations on entry beyond the grounds for exclusion set forth in the INA”). Placing sweeping limitations on entry is within the broad presidential powers conferred under § 1182(f).
Plaintiffs rely primarily on the district court’s decision in Doe #1, which enjoined a presidential proclamation in part on separation-of-powers grounds. See Doe #1 v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 593–98 (D. Or. 2019). There, the court held that a presidential proclamation requiring aliens to demonstrate proof of health insurance as a condition of entry was unlawful because it conflicted with the INA’s “public charge” provision, which excludes aliens from admission who would create a financial burden on the United States. See id. at 594 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)). The key deficiencies that the court in Doe #1 identified are not present here. First, the reason for the entry suspension in that case was the widespread problem of “uncompensated costs” in the national healthcare system. See id. at 596. This “triggering condition,” the court found, was apt to lead to an unauthorized “indefinite” suspension, because “[t]here is no reasonable interpretation of the Proclamation showing that this intractable problem is going to end any time soon” and the Proclamation provides no guidance “for determining under what circumstances the necessity for the Proclamation would be over.” Id. The same concerns are not present here. Though the job displacement in the U.S. labor market caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been immense and swift, even Plaintiffs do not suggest that its lasting effects will be indefinite. Second, the court in Doe #1 found that the entry restriction in that case reinstated a “bar that Congress expressly eliminated from the INA—the bar to ‘paupers.’” Id. Plaintiffs here have identified no similar conflict. In the end, the constitutional concerns that led to the court’s decision in Doe #1 are not present in this case. The Proclamations here do not run afoul of separation of powers.
51

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 52 of 85
3. Unconstitutional Delegation of Legislative Authority The Gomez Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of § 1182(f) itself. They contend that, by granting the President the power to exclude aliens under § 1182(f), Congress impermissibly delegated its exclusive legislative authority to the Executive Branch. See Gomez PI Mem. at 32– 33. This nondelegation problem did not arise in Trump v. Hawaii, the Gomez Plaintiffs argue, because that case involved the President’s exercise of § 1182(f) authority in the sphere of international affairs and national security, where nondelegation concerns are “diminished.” Id. at 32. But here, they say, the President’s exercise of § 1182(f) power exceeds constitutional limits because he was operating in the realm of “domestic policymaking”—a power that rests within Congress’s exclusive legislative authority. See id. Article I of the Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. 1 § 1. “Accompanying that assignment of power to Congress,” the Supreme Court has explained, “is a bar on its further delegation.” Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2123 (2019). Congress may not convey to another branch “powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative.” Id. (quoting Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 42–43 (1825)). That restriction does not mean that Congress is forbidden from relying on coordinate Branches to assist in its legislative function. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has recognized that “Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989). “[I]n particular,” Congress “may confer substantial discretion on executive agencies to implement and enforce the laws.” Gundy, 139 S. Ct. at 2123. In light of the practical need for flexibility in carrying out its legislative functions, “a statutory delegation is constitutional so long as Congress ‘lay[s] down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body
52

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 53 of 85
authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.’” Id. (quoting Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 372).
The “intelligible principle” standard is “not demanding.” Id. at 2129. As the Supreme Court recently observed in Gundy, “[o]nly twice in this county’s history (and that in a single year) have we found a delegation excessive—in each case because ‘Congress had failed to articulate any policy or standard’ to confine discretion.” Id. (quoting Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 373 n.7). On the other hand, the Court has upheld “over and over” “even very broad delegations.” Id. In Gundy, the Court cited its past approval of delegations as including statutes authorizing agencies to act in “the public interest,” id. (citing Nat’l Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 216 (1943); New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States, 287 U.S. 12, 24 (1932); to set “fair and equitable prices” and “just and reasonable rates,” id. (citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 422, 427 (1944) ; FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 603 (1944)); and to issue air quality standards “requisite to protect the public health,” id. (citing Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 472 (2001)). In view of these approved broad delegations, the D.C. Circuit has remarked that “the basic doctrine of unconstitutional delegation, while by no means repudiated, remains only a shadowy limitation on congressional power.” Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at 1327.
That “shadowy limitation” presents no constitutional constraint on the presidential action challenged here. The language of § 1182(f), according to the Supreme Court, provides a “comprehensive delegation” of authority to the President, and its text is “clear.” 138 S. Ct. at 2408, 2410. The statute, the Court observed, contains “textual limits.” Id. at 2409. Those include the requirement that the President make a “find[ing]”; identify a “class of aliens” whose entry is restricted; and “suspend” such entry for a fixed period of time or until resolution of a triggering condition. See id. at 2409–10. To be sure, standards such as “detrimental to the interests of the
53

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 54 of 85
United States” and as “he may deem to be appropriate” convey an expansive grant of power, but they are no more capacious than the broad standards deemed sufficiently intelligible by the Supreme Court in all but two of its cases. See Gundy, 139 S. Ct. at 2129. Section 1182(f) thus “does not suffer from a mortal constitutional defect hiding in plain sight.” Doe #1, 957 F.3d at 1079 (Bress, J., dissenting).
The Gomez Plaintiffs suggest that a nondelegation problem arises here because the President acted in the sphere of domestic policymaking, as opposed to international affairs or national security. That argument misses the mark. As already discussed, that less deference is warranted here because the Proclamations targeted “domestic” matters, as distinct from foreign affairs or national security matters, is a dubious proposition. See pp. 40–41, supra. But the distinction also misapprehends the nondelegation inquiry. Whether Congress exceeded its broad authority to delegate depends not on the setting in which that authority is exercised, but on the text of the statute. Otherwise, “[t]he very choice of which portion of the power to exercise”—domestic or foreign power—“would itself be an exercise of the forbidden legislative authority.” Whitman, 531 U.S. at 473. “[A] nondelegation inquiry always begins (and often almost ends) with statutory interpretation.” Gundy, 139 S. Ct. at 2123. “The constitutional question is whether Congress has supplied an intelligible principle to guide the delegee’s use of discretion.” Id. The context in which the delegee exercises that discretion is not the proper lens through which to make the nondelegation inquiry.14 The Gomez Plaintiffs thus have failed to establish a likelihood of success on their nondelegation claim.
14 The court recognizes that the district court in Doe #1 v. Trump held that when the President uses his authority under § 1182(f) “to engage in domestic policymaking, without addressing any foreign relations or national security issue or emergency . . . . the delegation by Congress is without any intelligible principle and thus fails under the nondelegation doctrine.” 418 F. Supp. 3d at 592. For the reasons discussed, this court respectfully disagrees with that conclusion.
54

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 55 of 85
4. Remaining Constitutional Claims The Aker Plaintiffs, joined by the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs, advance three other constitutional arguments to nullify the Proclamations and their implementation specific to diversity visa applicants. See Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 53–56; Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 8. The court easily disposes of these claims. First, Plaintiffs assert that the President has violated the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, see U.S. Const. Art. II § 3, Cl. 5, because “the INA holds diversity visa eligibility and the ability to apply for these visas as mandatory” and “the State Department’s unlawful and ultra vires suspension of and untimely adjudication of cases and issuance or reissuance of visas is ‘unfaithful’ to the INA.” Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 53–54. As framed, Plaintiffs’ Take Care Clause claim is duplicative of that aspect of their APA arbitrary-and-capricious claim asserting that the State Department has unlawfully withheld nondiscretionary review and adjudication of diversity visa applications and renewals. Because, as discussed below, the court finds in favor of Plaintiffs on their APA claim, the court need not reach their claim under the Take Care Clause. See Qassim v. Trump, 927 F.3d 522, 530 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (stating that “courts must ‘avoid the premature adjudication of constitutional questions’ and ‘not . . . pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable’” (quoting Matal v. Tam,137 S. Ct. 1744, 1755 (2017)). Second, Plaintiffs contend that the President’s and the State Department’s suspension of diversity visa application processing violates the Due Process Clause. Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 54– 55. Plaintiffs do not, however, invoke a constitutional framework to support this claim. Instead, they argue that “[b]y failing to comply with the APA,” “the procedural due process rights of the Plaintiffs have been violated,” citing in particular the State Department’s failure to provide “any notice or meaningful opportunity to comment on its application of the Presidential Proclamations.”
55

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 56 of 85
Id. Plaintiffs, however, cite no case to support the notion that the Due Process Clause’s protections are co-extensive with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, and this court is aware of none. Cf. Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915) (holding that rulemaking activities that affect a large number of people without regard to the facts of individual cases do not implicate due process protections). In their reply brief, the Aker Plaintiffs recast their due process claim in more traditional constitutional terms, asserting that certain plaintiffs who are legal permanent residents “have a protected liberty interest in the marital relationship and to establish a home and bring up children” that was denied without adequate process. See Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong Pls.’ Reply in Support of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. & TRO, ECF No. 110 [hereinafter Mohammed Reply], at 26–28. But that argument comes too late, so the court declines to consider it. See Rollins Envtl. Servs. Inc. v. EPA, 937 F.2d 649, 652 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Issues may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).
Third, Plaintiffs challenge the Proclamations on equal protection grounds. They contend that, on their face, the Proclamations draw an irrational distinction between diversity visa applicants who were inside the United States versus those who were outside of the country on the Proclamations’ effective dates. See Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 55. The Proclamations apply to the latter group but not the former. See 85 Fed. Reg. 23,442 § 2(i) (stating that Proclamation applies only to aliens “outside the United States on the effective date of this proclamation”); 85 Fed. Reg. 38,265 § 3(i) (same). But this argument fails for two reasons. At the threshold, the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause does not protect any Plaintiff outside the United States, so they have no constitutional claim. See Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 104 F.3d 1349, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (stating that “migrants, as aliens, may not assert a Fifth Amendment right in challenging the procedures for granting
56

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 57 of 85
immigrant visas”) (citing United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990)). There are three Aker diversity visa lottery winners who have entered the United States and whose families, as derivative beneficiaries, remain outside the country, see Aker Compl. ¶¶ 75–82 (Utkirbek Abdumominov), ¶¶ 101–110 (Laila Faizi Sohail), ¶¶ 111–121 (Oleg Kamanev), who arguably may challenge the Proclamations on equal protection grounds, see Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, 104 F.3d at 1354 (“The equal protection claim must be asserted, if at all, by the citizen sponsors of the migrants.”); see also Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2419 (stating that the Court has “engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen”).15 But their claims fail on the merits. Because the Proclamations create a classification based on the foreign national’s location, the classification “must be upheld against [an] equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). Where there is a “plausible reason” for the challenged classification, the “[judicial] inquiry is at an end.” Id. (quoting United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174–179 (1980)); see also Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2420 (observing that the Court “hardly ever strikes down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny”). Here, the “plausible reason” for treating foreign nationals in the United States differently from those outside of it is plain on the face of the Proclamations. The Proclamations exclude categories of foreign nationals from entry into the United States to protect U.S. workers. Entry cannot logically be denied to those persons
15 The court recognizes that it is not free from doubt whether a diversity lottery winner who becomes a lawful permanent resident and resides in the United States has a Fifth Amendment right to challenge the exclusion of a spouse or child as a derivative beneficiary. See Singh v. Tillerson, 271 F. Supp. 3d 64, 71 (D.D.C. 2017) (observing that, “while the Constitution protects an individual’s right to marry and the marital relationship, these constitutional rights are not implicated when a spouse is removed or denied entry to the United States” (citing Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1958))); Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 656 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that “a parent does not have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in the companionship of a child who is past minority and independent”). Nevertheless, for present purposes, the court assumes that such a right exists.
57

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 58 of 85
already in the United States. Indeed, any effort by the President to exercise his authority under § 1182(f) to oust foreign nationals already in the country would present its own problems, as the statute says nothing about the power of removal. The Proclamations’ different treatment based on a foreign national’s location presents no equal protection problem.16
Plaintiffs advance one other challenge under the equal protection rubric: the Proclamations are unconstitutional because they are the product of “the President’s preexisting animus toward the Diversity Visa program.” Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 56. To support their position, Plaintiffs cite various tweets and statements from the President denouncing the diversity visa lottery program. See id. at 32–36. The President’s hostility towards the diversity visa lottery program is well documented. The President has questioned its value, mischaracterized its requirements, and disparaged its recipients. He has referred to diversity lottery visa winners as “dangerous,” “not [the] country’s finest,” “the worst of the worst,” bank robbers, and “murderers.” Id. at 33–36. They are nothing of the sort. Diversity visa lottery winners are people who have come to this nation, like millions before, to seek a better life for themselves and their families, and to pursue the American Dream. They do not deserve to be caricatured as common criminals, or to be used as a political wedge issue. But for the same reasons that the Court in Trump v. Hawaii rejected a similar challenge based on purported religious animus, see 136 S. Ct. at 2421–23, the court does so here, too.
C. Challenges to the Implementation of Proclamations 10014 and 10052 Plaintiffs raise a host of APA and Mandamus Act challenges to how federal agencies have implemented the Proclamations. First, all Plaintiffs except the Panda Plaintiffs assert that
16 The Aker Plaintiffs for the first time in their reply brief attempt to recharacterize the Proclamations as containing suspect classifications based on “alienage and/or national origin.” Mohammed Reply at 30. The court declines to consider this belatedly raised argument. See Rollins Envtl. Servs., 937 F.2d at 652 n.2.
58

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 59 of 85
Defendants’17 suspension of adjudication and issuance of covered, non-exempt visas—i.e., the “No-Visa Policy”—is contrary to law, in excess of Defendants’ statutory authority, and usurps the role of consular officers. Second, the Gomez, Panda, and Aker Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ No-Visa Policy is arbitrary and capricious because it lacks any reasoned explanation, fails to consider reliance interests, and fails to consider important aspects of the problem. Third, the Aker Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking before issuing their No-Visa Policy. Fourth, the Gomez, Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker DV-2020 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating DV-2020 visa applications. The Mohammed and Fonjong Plaintiffs also argue that this delay entitles them to relief under the Mandamus Act. And fifth, the Gomez diversity visa Plaintiffs contend that the State Department’s decision not to treat 2020 diversity visa selectees as “mission critical” or “emergency” cases in its COVID-19 Guidance also violates the APA. The court considers each argument in turn.
1. No-Visa Policy – Not in Accordance with Law The Gomez, Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong Plaintiffs each assert that Defendants’ NoVisa Policy is “‘not in accordance with law’ and ‘in excess of statutory authority.” See Gomez PI Mem. at 35; Mohammed PI Mem. at 21–23; Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 42–43, 52–53; Fonjong TRO/PI Mem. at 20–23. Broadly speaking, these Plaintiffs contend that (1) neither Proclamation directs the State Department to suspend the processing and issuance of visas and nothing in the INA or the State Department’s implementing regulations give Defendants such power; and so (2) Defendants’ No-Visa Policy unlawfully usurps consular officers’ sole and express statutory authority to issue visas to qualifying applicants. See, e.g., Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 42–43; Gomez PI Mem. at 35. Defendants retort that Plaintiffs have not alleged final agency action, see Defs.’
17 The court’s use of the term “Defendants” for the purpose of discussing Plaintiffs’ APA claims excludes the President.
59

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 60 of 85
Opp’n at 29, and that the State Department’s refusal to process non-exempt covered visas is lawful because 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) prohibits consular officers from issuing visas to persons declared ineligible for entry under § 1182(f), see id. at 42–44. Neither defense is persuasive.
First, Defendants incorrectly assert that Plaintiffs have not alleged final agency action because the “legal consequences that Plaintiffs challenge flow from the Proclamations, not action by the State Department.” Id. at 31. The Proclamations solely address the entry of immigrants and certain nonimmigrants into the country; they say nothing about the issuance and adjudication of visas. And the statutory authorities cited in the Proclamations also address only entry, not visa issuance. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (empowering the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”); 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) (“[I]t shall be unlawful . . . for any alien to depart from or enter . . . the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”). The Proclamations themselves do not dictate Defendants’ No-Visa Policy.
Defendants’ primary argument is that the No-Visa Policy is an automatic consequence of another statutory provision of the INA—8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)—and therefore does not violate the APA. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 42–44; see also CAR 156 (“All [covered, non-exempt] cases must be refused under INA [§ 1201(g)] until further guidance is received from the Department.”). Subsection 1201(g) provides that “[n]o visa . . . shall be issued to an alien if . . . it appears to the consular officer . . . that such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or other such documentation under section 1182.” A person declared inadmissible to enter the United States under § 1182(f), the theory goes, is therefore ineligible to receive a visa under § 1201(g). Defs.’ Opp’n at 42–44. But that argument ignores “the basic distinction between admissibility determinations,” i.e., entry
60

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 61 of 85
determinations,18 and “visa issuance that runs throughout the INA.” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2414 & n.3 (collecting statutory examples). Subsection 1201(g) precludes the issuance of visas only as to persons who are “ineligible to receive a visa” under Section 1182, not to persons who are only ineligible to enter under that provision. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) (emphasis added).
The categories of persons deemed ineligible to receive a visa pursuant to § 1201(g) appear in § 1182(a), not § 1182(f).19 See Castaneda-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 564 F.2d 417, 426 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (explaining that § 1201(g) “directs [consular officers] not to issue visas to any alien who falls within one of the excludable classes described in [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)]”). Subsection 1182(a) provides that “aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States.” Thus, a person who falls into one of the categories of inadmissible persons outlined in § 1182(a) is both ineligible to enter the country and ineligible to receive a visa pursuant to § 1201(g). “For example, an alien cannot receive a visa if she has ‘a communicable disease of public health significance,’ and if she contracts such a disease after receiving her visa, she will be denied entry.” Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 776 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1)(A)). Subsection 1182(a) does not provide the President or the State Department any authority to supplement the listed categories of dual ineligibility and inadmissibility.
The reference to “the following paragraphs” in § 1182(a) does not “includ[e] § 1182(f),” as Defendants suggest. Defs.’ Opp’n at 43. Section 1182 of the INA carefully distinguishes between subsections, which include §§ 1182(a) and 1182(f), and paragraphs, which are subunits
18 “The concepts of entry and admission—but not issuance of a visa—are used interchangeably in the INA.” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2414 n.4; see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (defining “admission” as the “lawful entry of the alien into the United States”). 19 Other subsections of § 1182, including § 1182(e), provide additional limitations on eligibility for visas, but Defendants do not contend that these subsections have any bearing on the question of whether a person suspended from entering under § 1182(f) is ineligible for a visa under § 1201(g).
61

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 62 of 85
of those subsections. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1182. Thus, “the following paragraphs” in § 1182(a) include only the ten paragraphs of § 1182(a); they do not also include § 1182(f), a distinct subsection of § 1182. A suspension of entry under § 1182(f) therefore has no bearing on whether the person is “inadmissible” under § 1182(a) or ineligible to receive a visa under § 1201(g). See Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 776 (explaining that “[f]ailure to satisfy” the requirements of § 1182(a) “will render an alien ineligible for a visa and ineligible for entry,” while “[o]ther parts of the INA apply to only visas or entry” (emphasis in original)).
Losing the textual battle, Defendants invoke the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which held that “any alien who is inadmissible under § 1182 (based on, for example, health risks, criminal history, or foreign policy consequences) is screened out as ‘ineligible to receive a visa.’” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2414 (quoting § 1201(g)); Defs.’ Opp’n at 43. But the Court never held that the President’s suspension of entry under § 1182(f) renders a person ineligible to receive a visa. To the contrary, all the examples Hawaii cites all come from § 1182(a), see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1) (health risks); id. § 1182(a)(2) (criminal history); id. § 1182(a)(3)(C) (foreign policy). And the Court specifically cited § 1182(f) as a screen on entry into the United States. See 138 S. Ct. at 2414. Subsection 1182(a), unlike § 1182(f), does establish categories of applicants that are ineligible to receive visas under § 1201(g). And, as discussed, the Court repeatedly stressed the distinction between entry and visa issuance, see Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2414, a distinction which Defendants’ position elides.20
20 Defendants also argue that the “State Department’s practice, consistent with section 1201(g), has thus been to treat aliens covered by Presidential orders under section 1182(f) as ineligible for visas,” Defs’ Opp’n at 43, but the provision of the Foreign Affairs Manual they cite for that proposition, 9 FAM 302.14-3(B), does not mention visas at all—it simply describes the President’s authority “to suspend entry into the United States.” The court notes that another provision of the Manual, 9 FAM 301.4-1, does suggest that aliens excluded under § 1182(f) may be ineligible to receive visas. That section has not been briefed, however, and so the court does not opine on its validity or persuasive force.
62

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 63 of 85
Nor is the court persuaded by Defendants’ argument that interpreting the INA to allow the issuance of visas to persons who might be ineligible to enter the country under a § 1182(f) proclamation “would only result in administrative confusion.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 44. The court acknowledges that such a system could create the odd result of persons receiving visas only to be turned away at ports of entry. However, “[a] visa does not guarantee entry into the United States; it only confers the right to travel to a port of entry and apply for admission to enter the country.” Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 776. In any event, there may be sound reasons for Congress’s distinction. For instance, most immigrant visas are valid for six months, and some are valid for three years. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1). Congress may not have wished to halt visa processing and issuance for categories of persons who are only temporarily “suspend[ed]” from entering the country under § 1182(f), particularly where, as here, the visa applicant’s opportunity to receive a visa is time delimited. For example, if a DV-2020 selectee receives her visa by the end of this month, it will be valid for another three months after the Proclamations are set to expire, giving her three months to enter the country.
Because neither the Proclamation nor § 1201(g) of the INA compel or empower the State Department to suspend the processing and issuance of visas, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs have alleged no final agency action collapses. The term “agency action” “cover[s] comprehensively every manner in which an agency may exercise its power.” Whitman, 531 U.S. at 478. To be “final,” that action need only “mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and “be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (cleaned up). Defendants, through a cluster of guidance documents, cables, and directives, have ordered consular offices and embassies to cease processing and issuing visas for otherwise
63

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 64 of 85
qualified applicants not exempt or excepted from the Proclamation, under the mistaken belief that they are legally required to do so. See e.g., CAR 24 (instructing that “[o]nly [visa] applicants that post believes may meet an exception to the [Proclamation], including the national interest exception, and that constitute a mission-critical category should be adjudicated at this time,” and clarifying that officers “may not issue any [visas] that are not also excepted under [Proclamation]”); CAR 38 (“Presidential Proclamation 10052 suspended the issuance of nonimmigrant visas in the H-1B, H-2B, L, and J-1 . . . classifications until December 31, 2020, with certain exceptions . . . . Posts should NOT resume routine processing of these visa classifications, unless the applicant qualifies for an exception under this or any subsequent Proclamation, until given a specific instruction to do so.”); CAR 36 (providing similar instructions for immigrant visas); Luster Decl. ¶ 5 (explaining that “[p]ursuant to guidance from the Department on . . . the implementation of P.P. 10014 and P.P. 10052,” no “additional diversity visa case appointments with [consular] posts” have been scheduled,” and “only when a consular post reaches Phase Three of the Diplomacy Strong Framework may the post resume diversity visa case processing, and only for cases that appear to be eligible for an exception to P.P. 10014”).
Both of the Bennett factors are met here. Defendants’ decisionmaking process is not in flux; they believe the policy is statutorily required. As a consequence, it appears that thousands of otherwise qualified visa applications are not being processed or issued. And even those applicants who may be able to meet an exception to the Proclamations are, as the Mohammed Plaintiffs note, subject to additional “eligibility requirements for decisions on diversity visa applications that cannot be . . . found in the statutes, regulations, or executive orders governing their adjudications.” See Mohammed PI Mem. at 21; see CAR 167–74 (detailing various extrastatutory requirements for applicants to qualify for the national interest exception). That is
64

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 65 of 85
paradigmatic final agency action. See Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA, 934 F.3d 627, 637 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (Finality is determined “based on the concrete consequences an agency action has or does not have as a result of the specific statutes and regulations that govern it.”); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding final agency action where “the entire Guidance, from beginning to end . . . reads like a ukase. It commands, it requires, it orders, it dictates”); Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 430, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“[A]n agency’s interpretation of its governing statute, with the expectation that regulated parties will conform to and rely on this interpretation, is final agency action fit for judicial review.” (cleaned up)).
Likewise, Defendants’ argument that their No-Visa Policy is consistent with the INA and does not “usurp[] consular officers’ sole and express statutory authority to issue visas” rises and falls on their incorrect assumption that “Plaintiffs are inadmissible” under § 1182(f) “and, in turn, ‘ineligible to receive a visa’ for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)(1).” Defs.’ Opp’n at 43–44. Apart from § 1201(g), which does not apply here, Defendants identify no statutory authority that would authorize Defendants to order consular officers to cease processing and issuing qualifying visas. Under the INA, “[a]ll immigrant visa applications,” and “[a]ll nonimmigrant visa applications” “shall be reviewed and adjudicated by a consular officer.” 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b), (d). “[A] consular officer may issue” visas to individuals who have “made proper application therefor,” id. § 1201(a)(1), and the INA expressly deprives the Secretary of State of “those powers, duties, and functions conferred upon the consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas,” id. § 1104(a). Because Defendants have not identified any statutory authority that would permit the suspension of this ordinary process, the court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Defendants’ No-Visa Policy is “not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory . . . authority.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
65

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 66 of 85
2. No-Visa Policy – Arbitrary and Capricious Next, the Gomez, Panda, and Aker Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ No-Visa Policy is arbitrary and capricious because it lacks any reasoned explanation, fails to consider reliance interests, and fails to consider important aspects of the problem. See Gomez PI Mem. at 35–38; Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 43; Panda PI Mem. 32–35. The court need not linger on these arguments long. The Administrative Record reveals no justification for Defendants’ No-Visa Policy except the incorrect assumption that it is compelled by the Proclamations and § 1201(g). See, e.g., CAR 24, 26, 28, 36, 38. In promulgating the No-Visa Policy, Defendants offered no rational explanation for the policy, nor did they account for the serious consequences the policy would impose on DV2020 selectees, whose opportunity to receive visas will expire by the end of this fiscal year. The court assumes that Defendants may in some circumstances permissibly prioritize the processing of visas for applicants who are actually eligible to enter the United States, particularly given the operational difficulties posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but no such rationale was given. Agency action that “stands on a faulty legal premise and [lacks] adequate rationale” is arbitrary and capricious. Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943) (“[A]n order may not stand if the agency has misconceived the law.”). Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on their argument that Defendants’ No-Visa Policy is arbitrary and capricious.
3. No-Visa Policy – Notice and Comment Rulemaking The Aker Plaintiffs additionally argue that Defendants’ No-Visa Policy violates the APA because it was issued without giving notice and an opportunity to comment. See Aker TRO/PI Mem. at 44–49. Defendants retort that the policy is at most an interpretive rule, and is not subject to the same notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements as legislative rules. See Defs.’ Opp’n
66

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 67 of 85
at 56–58. But a rule is legislative, not interpretive, “when it ‘change[s] the law.’” Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, 435 F. Supp. 3d 30, 66 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311, 320 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). As discussed, Defendants’ No-Visa Policy is not an automatic consequence of the Proclamations or 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and so it changes the law by suspending processing and issuance of covered, non-exempt visa applicants and subjecting potentially exempt applicants to additional eligibility requirements. Defendants’ policy therefore bears the hallmarks of a legislative rule.
However, the court declines to rule on whether notice-and-comment rulemaking was required for Defendants’ policy for three reasons. First, it is unnecessary. A ruling on this issue would provide Plaintiffs no additional relief than they will otherwise receive. Second, Defendants have not identified any authority granted to the Secretary of State to suspend the processing and issuance of visas in the first place. The court cannot assess whether notice-and-comment rulemaking is required absent this information. And finally, insofar as Defendants do have authority to issue such a legislative rule, certain exceptions to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements might apply, see 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1), 553(b)(3)(B), but Defendants have not briefed any of those exceptions. Therefore, the court declines to rule on the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ success on this issue.
4. Unreasonable Delay of Processing DV-2020 Visa Applications The Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs and the Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld adjudicating their DV-2020 visa applications, and the Mohammed and Fonjong Plaintiffs also argue that this delay entitles them to relief under the Mandamus Act. See Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 8; Mohammed PI Mem. at 16–20, 23; Aker TRO/Mot. at 49–50; Fonjong TRO/PI Mem. at 16–22, 25–26.
67

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 68 of 85
The court agrees that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing Plaintiffs’ DV-
2020 selectees’ visa applications. Courts in this Circuit analyze a claim of unreasonable delay
under the six-part standard outlined in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC,
750 F.2d 70, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC”):
(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a rule of reason; (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is ‘unreasonably delayed.’
In re United Mine Workers of Am. Int’l Union, 190 F.3d 545, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting TRAC,
750 F.2d at 80) (quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have established each of the required TRAC
elements.
First and Second TRAC Factors. First, the INA provides a clear “indication of the speed
with which it expects the agency to proceed in” processing diversity lottery selectees’ visa
applications, which supplies content for the TRAC rule of reason. TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80. Section
1154 sets an absolute, unyielding deadline by which selectees must receive their visas: “Aliens
who qualify, through random selection, for a visa under section 1153(c) of this title shall remain
eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were
selected.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). While Defendants correctly note that that provision
does not expressly require the State Department to conclude processing diversity visas by that date,
Defs.’ Opp’n at 53, they ignore that the second TRAC factor may be satisfied by an express
timetable or any “other indication of [] speed,” 750 F.2d at 80. Here, “[t]he specificity and relative
68

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 69 of 85
brevity” of the September 30 deadline manifests Congress’s intent that the State Department undertake good-faith efforts to ensure that diversity visas are processed and issued before the deadline. In re People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran, 680 F.3d 832, 837 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “[A] reasonable time for agency action is typically counted in weeks or months, not years”; surely a delay that results in the permanent loss of a statutory benefit is not reasonable. In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
To be clear, there is no statutory requirement that every available diversity visa be issued each year. But that does not mean that the State Department could effectively extinguish the diversity program for a given year by simply sitting on its hands and letting all pending diversity visa applications time out. Doing so would “plainly frustrate[] the congressional intent” to make available 55,000 diversity immigrant visas each year. See In re People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran, 680 F.3d at 837; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e) (“The worldwide level of diversity immigrants is equal to 55,000 for each fiscal year.”); id. § 1153(c)(1)(A) (providing that persons “subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151(e) of this title for diversity immigrants shall be allotted visas each fiscal year” pursuant to a detailed statutory scheme); H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990) (finding that it is important “to promote diversity in [the] immigration system”).21 These factors favor Plaintiffs.
Third and Fifth TRAC Factors. Defendants do not dispute that the third and fifth TRAC factors favor a finding of unreasonable delay, see Defs.’ Opp’n at 53, and for good reason. The prejudice from delay is dire—DV-2020 applicants might permanently lose their opportunity to
21 The only case Defendants cite in support of their position, Ghadami v. Department of Homeland Security, 19-cv00397 (ABJ), 2020 WL 1308376 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2020), involved a request for a waiver to an entry ban, for which there was no expiration date or “any particular time frame” associated with processing the request. See id. at *2, *8. That case is therefore inapposite.
69

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 70 of 85
immigrate to the United States—and such delay is “less tolerable” in cases like this one, where “human . . . welfare” is “at stake.” TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80.
Fourth Factor. The fourth TRAC factor—“the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority,” see TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80—is a closer call, but ultimately does not militate against a finding of unreasonable delay. Defendants argue that “given that diversity visa selectees are ineligible to receive visas for the remainder of the fiscal year, the agency understandably has not prioritized the scheduling of consular interviews for diversity visa selectees.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 54. But, as discussed, that premise is plainly incorrect: qualified DV-2020 selectees have no legal impediment to receiving visas.
Defendants argue more persuasively that “[t]he COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the State Department’s operations and strained its resources to an unprecedented degree[,]” and that “[m]any embassies and consulates continue to suspend routine operations.” Id. The court is not insensitive to these concerns, but they do not render reasonable the agency’s complete refusal to process diversity visa applications for two reasons. For one, the agency’s declarant, Brianne Marwaha, has informed the court that despite in-country “restrictions, the Department is committed to processing visa services that are deemed ‘mission critical.’” See Marwaha Decl. ¶ 8. As discussed below, the agency has not provided an adequate explanation for why it does not consider DV-2020 applications mission critical. And two, posts have been resuming visa processing to various degrees since July 15 of this year but are directed to treat DV-2020 applications as low priority. See CAR 35. There may well be certain consular offices that are simply incapable of processing additional visa applications at this time, but that does not justify a blanket withholding of processing worldwide.
70

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 71 of 85
Finally, Defendants argue that the INA “sets forth a policy of a 30-day timeframe for the processing of K-1 visa applications[22] and a 60-day timeframe for the processing of all other family-preference cases,” and suggest that Plaintiffs are impermissibly attempting to “be prioritized at the expense of other prospective visa applicants.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 53–54. But Defendants cite no evidence suggesting that they would be unable to process these other visa applications if ordered to expeditiously process DV-2020 visa applications. Nor do they identify any statutory authority that sets the processing of these other visa categories as a more important priority than diversity visa applications that will expire in less than thirty days. In the end, Defendants’ argument boils down to the notion that it “has acted reasonably in prioritizing familypreference cases and other visa categories in which prospective applicants are not ineligible to receive visas.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 54. For the reasons already discussed, that premise is incorrect. Accordingly, the fourth factor does not favor Defendants.
Sixth TRAC Factor. Plaintiffs argue that “impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude” further favors a finding that processing of DV-2020 visa applications has been unreasonably delayed. TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80. The court “need not” make any such finding to find unreasonable delay, however, and so it declines to do so here. Id.
Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing their DV-2020 visa applications. In view of this conclusion, the court does not separately address the merits of Plaintiffs’ overlapping claim that Defendants have unlawfully withheld processing DV-2020 selectees’ applications, as that additional claim
22 A K-1 visa is a nonimmigrant visa for the foreign-citizen fiancé of a United States citizen. See Nonimmigrant Visa for a Fianc(é)e (K-1), U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/usvisas/immigrate/family-immigration/nonimmigrant-visa-for-a-fiance-k-1.html.
71

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 72 of 85
seeks identical relief.23 Likewise, any separate mandamus relief is unwarranted. “[T]he standards for obtaining relief” under § 706(1) of the APA and the Mandamus Act are “essentially the same,” Viet. Veterans of Am. v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654, 659 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2010), and relief under the Mandamus Act is only warranted when “there is no other adequate remedy available to the plaintiff,” In re Medicare Reimbursement Litig., 414 F.3d 7, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
5. Exclusion of DV-2020 Visa Applications from Mission Critical Processing
Defendants’ interpretation of the Proclamations and 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) as suspending the processing and issuance of covered, non-exempt visa applications is not the only impediment the diversity visa Plaintiffs must overcome. Since March 20, 2020, the State Department has also suspended the routine processing of visas worldwide due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has only recently begun to resume routine services at some posts. See CAR 12–14, 35. The State Department has continued to process “mission critical” applications, id., see also Marwaha Decl. ¶ 8, but DV-2020 applications are not being treated as mission critical, see 8/7/2020 Status Hr’g Tr. at 19; see also CAR 26 (listing “examples of categories of visa services that should be considered mission-critical,” but not including DV-2020 applications). Even as consular offices resume routine visa operations, diversity visa applications eligible for an exception to the
23 Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that any agency action has been unlawfully withheld because they owe Plaintiffs no non-discretionary duty, and that fact “dooms Plaintiffs’ unreasonable-delay claim.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 51. But the APA provides for judicial review of agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) (emphasis added). Defendants identify no authority for the notion that a plaintiff must prove the former to obtain relief on the latter. Moreover, agencies are separately required to “proceed to conclude a matter presented to it” “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Given this obligation under the APA, any absence of an additional statutory mandate is “beside the point.” In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In any event, Defendants’ argument that they have no “nondiscretionary duty to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to apply for immigrant visas at consular interviews,” Defs.’ Opp’n at 51, is flatly contradicted by § 1202(b) and 1202(d) of the INA, which require that all immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications “shall be reviewed and adjudicated by a consular officer,” 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b), (d).
72

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 73 of 85
Proclamations are still given the lowest priority for processing under the State Department’s guidance. See CAR 38. Pursuant to this guidance, and the State Department’s additional guidance implementing the Proclamations, the State Department “has not scheduled additional diversity visa case appointments with posts since March 20, 2020.” Luster Decl. ¶ 5.
The Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ COVID-19 Guidance excluding DV-2020 diversity visa applications from the categories of “mission critical” visa services is arbitrary and capricious because, among other reasons, it does not reflect any “meaningful consideration to the exceptionally harsh result of failing to issue visas to diversity visa lottery winners.” Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 5. The court agrees. The record reveals no explanation whatsoever for the exclusion of DV-2020 selectees from mission critical services, nor does it reflect any reasoned consideration of the detrimental effects that will be wrought on diversity visa selectees if they do not receive visas. The agency thus “failed to consider [an] important aspect of the problem.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020).
Defendants do not attempt to defend the rationality of their COVID-19 Guidance. Nor do they dispute that the Guidance constitutes final agency action. Instead, they argue that Plaintiff’s claim is untimely because it was after the court issued a scheduling order for consolidated, omnibus briefing in these consolidated cases and the information was allegedly available to Plaintiffs since June. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 29–30 n.6. However, Defendants’ policy of excluding DV applications from mission critical services was only revealed at the status conference on August 7, 2020. See 8/7/2020 Status Hr’g Tr. at 19. Plaintiffs acted promptly after that, filing a supplemental preliminary injunction motion on August 10, 2020, ECF No. 66, and a motion to file a second amended complaint two days later, ECF No. 76. Defendants could have asked the court for an
73

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 74 of 85
expansion of pages in their omnibus opposition brief or filed a separate opposition to Plaintiffs’ supplemental motion, but they did neither. Plaintiffs’ additional argument is therefore neither untimely nor prejudicial.
Defendants’ final argument—that Plaintiffs do not state a claim under § 706(1) of the APA because “there is no non-discretionary duty to consider [DV-2020 selectees] as emergency/mission critical under the State Department’s COVID-19 guidance,” Defs.’ Opp’n at 29 n.6—misconstrues the nature of Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ COVID-19 Guidance “is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful,” under § 706(2) of the APA, not that Defendants have unlawfully withheld a non-discretionary duty under § 706(1). See Gomez. Suppl. PI Mem. at 3; see also Gomez SAC ¶ 353–54.24 The COVID-19 Guidance is final agency action (it marks the consummation of Defendants’ decisionmaking and imposes significant legal consequences on DV2020 selectees applying for visas at posts that have not resumed routine visa services), and, in issuing and implementing the Guidance, Defendants failed to consider an important aspect of the problem in violation of § 706(2) of the APA. Defendants’ insistence that the State Department “was not required” to include DV-2020 applicants in its COVID-19 Guidance simply “misses the point.” Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1913.
Therefore, the Gomez diversity visa plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.
24 Likewise, in the context of this claim, the Gomez Plaintiffs seek only an order “holding that the agency defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation and the COVID-19 Guidance are unlawful and are set aside,” see Gomez SAC at 104; Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 7. Their requests for an order compelling the State Department to adjudicate their claims is tied to their adoption of the Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker Plaintiffs’ § 706(1) claims. See Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 1, 8.
74

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 75 of 85
IV. REMAINING FACTORS GOVERNING PRELIMINARY RELIEF Having found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA claims regarding
Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamations 10014 and 10052 and the COVID-19 Guidance, the court now turns to the remaining factors governing preliminary injunctive relief. The court first discusses those factors as they pertain to the DV-2020 Plaintiffs, and then considers the nondiversity visa Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief in Gomez. 25
A. DV-2020 Plaintiffs The DV-2020 Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to experience irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest tip in their favor.
1. Irreparable Harm A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief bears the burden of showing that she imminently will be irreparably harmed by the challenged action or inaction. The “injury must be both certain and great, actual and not theoretical, beyond remediation, and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. EPA, 787 F.3d 544, 555 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Defendants do not contest that the DV-2020 Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing irreparable harm. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 68–72. That was a smart choice. Plaintiffs in each case have provided a mountain of affidavits attesting to the severe emotional, economic, educational, and personal harms that they and their families will imminently experience if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined by September 30, 2020, and they permanently lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States through the diversity visa program. See, e.g., Gomez PI Mem. ECF No. 5311, 53-16, 53-19, 53-20, 53-21, 53-25; Mohammed PI Mem., ECF Nos. 8-5–8-41; Fonjong
25 The equitable factors governing whether the Panda plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief are being briefed separately in that case.
75

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 76 of 85
TRO/PI Mem., ECF Nos. 7-5–7-24; Aker, TRO/PI Mem., Ex. A–0, at PDF pp. 70–104. They have met their burden of showing imminent, irreparable harm. See P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2017) (granting a preliminary injunction based on DV selectees’ imminent loss of opportunity to receive diversity visas); see also Mohamed v. Pompeo, No. 1:19-cv-01345-LJOSKO, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2019) (finding that if diversity visa selectees’ applications were not adjudicated by the end of the fiscal year, the plaintiffs would “be harmed irreparably, pursuant to the mandates of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II)”).
2. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The DV-2020 Plaintiffs have also established the final two Winter factors for injunctive relief—that the “balance of equities tips in [their] favor and that an injunction is in the public interest.” See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Where, as here, the federal government is the opposing party, these two factors merge. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. Defendants’ No-Visa Policy, unreasonable delay in processing DV-2020 selectees’ applications, and COVID-19 Guidance will imminently cause severe harms to the DV-2020 Plaintiffs and thousands of other similarly situated DV-2020 applicants. If the court does not grant preliminary relief now, there is a strong likelihood that these Plaintiffs will lose any opportunity for permanent relief later. These drastic harms heavily favor preliminary relief. On the public interest side of the ledger, “[t]here is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “To the contrary, there is a substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.” Id. (cleaned up); see also E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242, 1280 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he public interest is served by compliance with the APA.” (cleaned up)). Plaintiffs are highly likely to succeed on
76

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 77 of 85
the merits of their challenges to these agency actions and inactions. Accordingly, the public interest also favors preliminary relief.
Defendants focus on the public interest harms that would purportedly stem from enjoining the Proclamations. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 71–72. However, Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on their challenges to the Proclamations, and so the associated public interests undergirding them are irrelevant to the court’s balancing. Defendants also fret that if the court were to grant an order enjoining “the State Department’s suspension of routine visa services due to COVID-19,” it could threaten the health of “foreign-service employees and their families located all over the world.” Id. at 72 n.15. But the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs only ask the court to enjoin “the State Department’s application of the COVID-19 Guidance to diversity visa applicants,” not to vacate the agency’s entire guidance to embassies and consular offices concerning the resumption of visa processing services in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Gomez Suppl. PI Mem. at 7. The court’s relief, described below, does not place foreign-service employees at any greater risk than they already are experiencing under the agency’s current “Diplomacy Strong” operating procedures.
The court is cognizant of the extreme exigencies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and acknowledges that certain consular offices may, for reasons outside Defendants’ control, find it impossible to process all pending diversity visa applications by September 30. But this does not tip the scale against a remedy for Defendants’ unlawful conduct, because the court is capable of fashioning a tailored remedy that accounts for these extrinsic limitations.
B. Gomez Non-DV Plaintiffs The court reaches a different conclusion with respect to the Gomez Non-DV Plaintiffs. A “plaintiff must establish a causal link between the injunction sought and the alleged injury,”
77

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 78 of 85
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 301 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (cleaned up), and she must “demonstrate[] that the Court’s injunction” is likely to “eliminate the harm that already exists,” Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 91, 102 (D.D.C. 2005) (cleaned up). Unfortunately for these Plaintiffs, their asserted irreparable harms cannot be remedied by granting relief on their APA claims. For instance, the family-visa Plaintiffs identify vast harms stemming from being separated from their family members. See Gomez Pls.’ Mem. at 39–40. The court has no doubt that this separation has been devastating for these Plaintiffs and their families, but this harm would continue to flow from the Proclamations’ ban on entry, even if the court were to grant relief on these Plaintiffs’ challenges to Defendants’ No-Visa Policy. Likewise, the companies sponsoring nonimmigrant visa applicants assert that their businesses will likely cease if they cannot continue to recruit nonimmigrant workers to fill positions. Id. at 41–42. Once again, these workers will continue to be unable to enter the country even if the court were to grant their claims for APA relief.
The court acknowledges that the Gomez Non-DV Plaintiffs have also experienced a procedural injury from Defendants’ No-Visa Policy, but “courts generally will not base a finding of irreparable injury on a procedural violation standing alone.” Elk Assocs. Funding Corp. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1, 31 (D.D.C. 2012) (cleaned up). Likewise, these Plaintiffs’ assertion that granting relief on their APA claims will give them an opportunity to enter the country more quickly after the Proclamations expire, see Gomez Pls.’ Mem. at 3, might be sufficient to support standing, but it does not constitute “a clear and present need for equitable relief” and, in any event, is too speculative a reed on which to stand. Mexichem, 787 F.3d at 555.
The public interest factor also does not support these Plaintiffs. Issuing injunctive relief that could be construed to mean that the State Department must issue visas to people who have no
78

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 79 of 85
immediate prospect for entering the country could create substantial havoc and confusion. While such risk is warranted in the context of DV-2020 applicants who have a swiftly expiring window of time to receive their visas, it counsels in favor of staying the court’s hand as to the Gomez NonDV Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted for the Gomez Non-DV Plaintiffs, even though they are substantially likely to succeed on their challenges to Defendants’ No-Visa Policy. Because preliminary relief is unwarranted for these Plaintiffs at this time, the court defers ruling on the Gomez Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to the four Non-DV putative subclasses. V. REMEDY AND CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR THE DV-2020 PLAINTIFFS
Finally, the court considers the scope of relief due to the DV-2020 Plaintiffs, along with the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification.
A. Scope of Relief Defendants assert that any injunctive relief must be “sharply limited,” and “tailored to the injury asserted by the plaintiffs.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 4. In support of their argument against a universal injunction, Defendants invoke Califano v. Yamasaki for the proposition that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 75 (emphasis in original) (quoting 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)). The court agrees that “[a]n injunction must be narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm shown,” Neb. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 435 F.3d 326, 330 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (cleaned up), and so it will tailor its relief under the APA to apply only to DV2020 applicants, as the DV-2020 Plaintiffs are the only plaintiffs in these consolidated cases who have met the equitable requirements for injunctive relief. In the context of granting relief under
79

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 80 of 85
the APA to the DV-2020 Plaintiffs, however, this court is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent, which holds that “when a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated — not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 145 F.3d at 1409 (cleaned up and emphasis added); see also, e.g., Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 614 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“A common remedy when we find a rule is invalid is to vacate.”). The APA provision underlying that principle, 5 U.S.C. § 706, applies not just to agency regulations but any “agency action,” which includes a “failure to act,” 5 U.S.C. § 704. As Justice Blackmun observed “in dissent but apparently expressing the view of all nine justices,” Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 145 F.3d at 1409, “when a plaintiff ‘prevails’ on a challenge under the APA to ‘a rule of broad applicability,’ ‘the result is that the rule is invalidated, not simply that the court forbids its application to a particular individual,’” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 913 (1990) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Justice Blackmun contrasted “these circumstances,” with a case where “a generally lawful policy is applied in an illegal manner on a particular occasion,” and “one who is injured is not thereby entitled to challenge other applications of the rule.” Id. This case falls into the former category: the State Department adopted a blanket policy of suspending adjudication and issuance of diversity visa applications and visas pursuant to Proclamations 10014 and 10052—an action that the court now finds unlawful. Accordingly, the DV-2020 Plaintiffs in this case, having established that they were injured by the policy, may obtain “relief that affects the rights of parties not before the court.” Id.
Defendants suggest that the holding in National Mining does not control because that case involved a final decision on the merits, whereas this case is in a preliminary posture. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 74. But the section of the APA governing preliminary relief, 5 U.S.C. § 705, also “authorize[s] relief from agency action for any person otherwise subject to the action, not just as
80

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 81 of 85
to plaintiffs,” District of Columbia v. USDA, 444 F. Supp. 3d 1, 48 (D.D.C. 2020). That provision allows “the reviewing court” to “issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings” to “the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. It therefore “authorizes courts to stay agency [action] pending judicial review,” not just to enjoin their application to the injured parties before the court. See Mexichem, 787 F.3d at 562 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting in part); see also In re GTE Service Corp., 762 F.2d 1024, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (recognizing that § 705 supplies “statutory authority to stay agency orders pending review in this court”); Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405, 435 (5th Cir. 2016) (staying a final rule “in its entirety” across the country in a case brought by Texas, other state regulators, and private parties). By the same token, § 705’s grant of power to “issue all necessary and appropriate process” includes the power to compel agency inaction when necessary “to preserve status or rights pending conclusion” of the action. 5 U.S.C. § 705.
Even if Defendants’ citationless assertion that “the APA does not authorize relief beyond the parties before the Court,” Defs.’ Opp’n at 74, were correct, more expansive relief for the DV2020 Plaintiffs and those similarly situated is merited under the court’s equitable authority. “Crafting a preliminary injunction,” indeed any equitable relief, “is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents.” Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017); see also Winter, 555 U.S. at 20, 24; 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948 (3d ed. 2013). An important equity here, as recognized by at least two other circuits, is “our country’s strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy.” See Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Because this case implicates
81

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 82 of 85
immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give Plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.”), rev’d on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2392; Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding that limiting the geographic scope of an injunction on an immigration enforcement policy “would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirements for uniform immigration law and policy”); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that uniform application of the immigration laws justified a nationwide injunction). Were the court to limit relief to the DV-2020 Plaintiffs only, and not the thousands of other DV-2020 applicants whose applications have also been suspended by Defendants’ policies, thousands of individual lawsuits would likely follow, and the potentially disparate outcomes of those cases would result in widespread administrative confusion. That cannot be the outcome that Defendants desire.
B. Class Certification In light of the foregoing, the court also finds that it need not rule on the DV-2020 Plaintiffs’ pending motions to certify classes of DV-2020 applicants, see Aker Mot. for Class Cert.; Gomez Mot. for Class Cert, because all proposed class members will benefit from the preliminary relief granted by this Order. “The question of whether to allow a suit to proceed as a class action is one primarily for the determination of the trial judge,” Bermudez v. U.S. Dep’t of Agr., 490 F.2d 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 1973), who has “broad discretion in deciding whether to permit a case to proceed as a class action,” Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 1459, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1994). It is not uncommon for courts to deny class certification on the basis that certification is not needed “when the particular facts and circumstances of the case warrant doing so.” Mills v. District of Columbia, 266 F.R.D 20, 22 (D.D.C. 2010). A particularly common reason for declining to certify a class is where, as here, plaintiffs contend that their proposed class qualifies under Rule 23(b)(1) or
82

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 83 of 85
23(b)(2), and “all [putative] class members [would] benefit from an injunction issued on behalf of the named plaintiffs.” Kan. Health Care Ass’n v. Kan. Dep’t of Soc. and Rehab. Servs., 31 F.3d 1536, 1548 (10th Cir. 1994); see also, e.g., Davis v. Smith, 607 F.2d 535, 540 (2d Cir. 1978) (“Where . . . the prospective benefits of declaratory and injunctive relief will benefit all members of a proposed class to such an extent that the certification of a class would not further the implementation of the judgment, a district court may decline certification.”); Sargent v. Block, 576 F. Supp. 882, 888 (D.D.C. 1983) (“[T]he Court finds that class certification is unnecessary in this action since the defendants are government officials and the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the named plaintiffs would benefit all proposed class members.”). The relief issued by the court’s ruling will benefit all putative class members. Thus, because there is nothing left to achieve by certifying the class and doing so would only “needlessly burden this litigation,” Mills, 266 F.R.D. at 23, the court denies without prejudice the DV-2020 Plaintiffs’ requests for class certification, pending a final resolution of the merits of their claims. VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that the Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their challenges to the Proclamations. Plaintiffs, however, are likely to succeed on their claims that (1) Defendants’ No-Visa Policy is not in accordance with law, is in excess of statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious; (2) Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing DV-2020 Plaintiffs’ visa applications; and (3) Defendants’ COVID-19 Guidance arbitrarily excludes DV-2020 visa applications from the categories of applications eligible for mission critical and emergency services. The court additionally finds that the DV-2020 Plaintiffs have met the equitable requirements for injunctive relief, but the Non-DV Plaintiffs have not. The
83

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 84 of 85
court therefore orders the following pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 and the court’s traditional equitable
powers:
1. The court preliminarily stays the No-Visa Policy as applied to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. Defendants26 may not interpret or apply the Proclamations in any way that forecloses or prohibits embassy personnel, consular officers, or any administrative processing center (such as the Kentucky Consular Center) from processing, reviewing, or adjudicating a 2020 diversity visa or derivative beneficiary application or issuing or reissuing a 2020 diversity or derivative beneficiary visa based on the entry restrictions contained in the Proclamations. Except as provided in paragraphs 2 and 3 below, this order does not prevent any embassy personnel, consular officer, or administrative processing center from prioritizing the processing, adjudication, or issuance of visas based on resource constraints, limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or country conditions;
2. Defendants shall undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through their designees, to expeditiously process and adjudicate DV-2020 diversity visa and derivative beneficiary applications and issue or reissue diversity and derivative beneficiary visas to eligible applicants by September 30, 2020, giving priority to the named diversity visa Plaintiffs in Gomez, Aker, Mohammed, and Fonjong and their derivative beneficiaries;
3. The court preliminarily enjoins Defendants from interpreting and applying the COVID Guidance to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries in any way that requires embassy personnel, consular officers, or administrative processing centers (such as the Kentucky Consular Center) to refuse processing, reviewing, adjudicating 2020 diversity visa applications or issuing or reissuing diversity visas on the ground that the DV-2020 selectee or derivative beneficiary does not qualify under the “emergency” or “mission critical” exceptions to the COVID Guidance;
4. At this time, the court declines Plaintiffs’ request to order Defendants to reserve unprocessed DV-2020 visas past the September 30 deadline or until a final adjudication on the merits, but will revisit the issue closer to the deadline. Accordingly, the court orders the State Department to report, by not later than September 25, 2020, which of the named DV-2020 Plaintiffs in this action have received diversity visas, the status of processing of the named DV-2020 Plaintiffs’ applications who have not yet received visas, and the number of unprocessed DV-2020 visa applications and unused diversity visas remaining for Fiscal Year 2020.
5. The Aker and Gomez Plaintiffs’ motions for class certifications as to DV-2020 selectees are denied without prejudice, subject to final resolution on the merits of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Proclamations.
6. The court defers ruling on the Gomez Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to the four putative subclasses representing Non-DV Plaintiffs, as the named
26 The court’s reference to “Defendants” in its Order excludes the President.
84

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 123 Filed 09/04/20 Page 85 of 85
Plaintiffs representing these putative subclasses have not demonstrated entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief. 7. Plaintiffs’ requests for the court to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Proclamations 10014 and 10052 against Plaintiffs are denied. The Parties shall meet and confer and, by September 25, 2020, file a Joint Status Report proposing a briefing schedule for the court’s resolution of the merits.

Dated: September 4, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge

85

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 132 Filed 09/14/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ

)

ABDUL MOHAMMED, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

AFSIN AKER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-01419 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01856 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01926 (APM)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 132 Filed 09/14/20 Page 2 of 6

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-02128 (APM)

_________________________________________

)

CHANDAN PANDA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-1907 (APM)

AMENDED ORDER

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on September 4, 2020, the court held that the

U.S. Department of State had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to review and adjudicate

the applications of fiscal year 2020 diversity visa lottery winners (“DV-2020”) pursuant to the

Department’s implementation of Presidential Proclamations 11014 and 10052, and had

unreasonably delayed in processing those DV-2020 visa applications. See Mem. Op & Order,

ECF No. 123 [hereinafter Mem. Op.], at 59–65, 67–72. The court ordered Defendants to

“undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through their designees, to expeditiously process and

adjudicate DV-2020 diversity visa and derivative beneficiary applications and issue or reissue

diversity and derivative beneficiary visas to eligible applicants by September 30, 2020, giving

priority to the named diversity visa Plaintiffs in Gomez, Aker, Mohammed, and Fonjong and their

derivative beneficiaries.” Id. at 84 ¶ 2.

2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 132 Filed 09/14/20 Page 3 of 6
On September 9, 2020, the State Department published guidance explaining the steps it
would take to comply with the court’s Order.1 Among the steps taken by the Department is the
following, which is now the subject of dispute:
The five Regional COVID Proclamations that suspend entry of immigrants who were physically present in China, Iran, the Schengen Area, the UK, Ireland, or Brazil within 14 days of entry into the United States are still in effect and not the subject of the Court’s order. Thus, while DV applicants subject to a regional COVID Proclamation (China, Iran, the Schengen Area, the UK, Ireland, or Brazil) may be interviewed and processed, applicants who have been physically present in the affected region during the preceding 14-day period will not be issued an immigrant visa, unless excepted under the relevant proclamation or until they have been outside the affected region for 14 days.
Id. (emphasis added). The referenced five Regional Proclamations restrict entry of persons who,
within 14 days of seeking entry to the United States, were physically present within various
COVID-19 global “hotspots.” See Presidential Proclamation 9984, 85 Fed. Reg. 6,709 (Republic
of China); Presidential Proclamation 9992, 85 Fed. Reg. 12,855 (Iran); Presidential Proclamation
9993, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,045 (Schengen Area); Presidential Proclamation 9996, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,341
(United Kingdom and Ireland); and Presidential Proclamation 10041, 85 Fed. Reg. 31,933 (Brazil).
The italicized text above requires DV-2020 selectees subject to the five Regional Proclamations
to quarantine for a 14-day period outside the subject regions before becoming eligible to receive a
DV-2020 visa, unless an exception applies.2 The court refers to this policy as the “Quarantine
Requirement.” According to the State Department, the five Regional Proclamations legally
compel the Department to impose and enforce the Quarantine Requirement before it can issue a
1 U.S. Dep’t of State, “Diversity Visa DV-2020 Update,” https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visasnews/diversity-visa-DV-2020-update html (last updated September 14, 2020). 2 The guidance is confusing, to say the least. It states that DV-2020 winners “may be interviewed and processed,” but does not explain whether such processing can occur in the applicant’s home country, in which case the applicant would have to leave for 14 days and could obtain the visa upon return, or whether such processing can occur only outside the places subject to the Regional Proclamations and only after a 14-day quarantine in such location.
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 132 Filed 09/14/20 Page 4 of 6
visa to any DV-2020 applicant to whom the Regional Proclamations apply. See Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Emergency Mot. for Telephone Conference, ECF No. 131, at 6–7. Defendants assert that the Quarantine Requirement “is in full compliance with the PI Order.” Id. at 6.
No, it is not. The Quarantine Requirement is premised on a faulty legal position, and it is irrational, too. First, the legal flaw. The State Department says that its position is consistent with its “decades-long interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f),” and that the court’s injunction does not reach the States Department’s implementation of other Presidential Proclamations. Id. at 5. But the Department here is not advancing its purported “decades-long interpretation” of how an entry restriction under § 1182(f) affects visa eligibility. That position, as articulated in this case, was that another statutory provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), renders anyone who is deemed inadmissible by presidential action under § 1182(f) also ineligible to receive a visa. See Mem. Op. at 60–62. But the Department does not advance that position here. It is not saying that the Regional Proclamations foreclose it from issuing DV-2020 visas altogether; rather, the agency has engrafted the Regional Proclamations’ 14-day-presence entry disqualifier onto the statutory requirements for visa issuance. The Department cites no legal authority that would permit it to take such action. The Department cannot look to the Regional Proclamations themselves for such power, because those presidential orders only place restrictions on entry. And, as the court already has held, the Department cannot rely on § 1201(g) to suspend visa processing or to modify visa requirements, as that statutory provision only concerns factors for visa ineligibility under § 1182(a), and not conditions of inadmissibility under § 1182(f). See id. The State Department thus identifies no valid legal basis for imposing the Quarantine Requirement.
The Quarantine Requirement is also illogical. It serves no obvious purpose except to delay the issuance of DV-2020 visas. Under Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, no DV-2020
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 132 Filed 09/14/20 Page 5 of 6
applicant will be able to enter the United States before December 31, 2020. Thus, forcing a DV2020 winner to quarantine now outside a covered region, months before she will enter the United States, can serve no immediate domestic public heath purpose. Nor is there any apparent health and safety benefit to consular officers. DV-2020 applicants are simply being channeled to appear before a different consular officer outside of the covered regions (after traveling to do so). Further, whatever benefit the Department claims might be gained from a 14-day quarantine is suspect, as the State Department has identified no similar policy that is applicable to any other category of visa applicant in a covered region. The Quarantine Requirement seems designed to frustrate DV2020 applicants who might benefit from this court’s order. In both form and spirit, the policy is at odds with this court’s injunction.
“Crafting a preliminary injunction is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents.” Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017). The court may “mold its decree to meet the exigencies of the particular case,” id. (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, at 115 (3d ed. 2013)), and may “go beyond earlier orders . . . to address each element contributing to the violation,” and “insure against the risk of inadequate compliance,” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 (1978). Here, the State Department’s legally dubious and illogical foisting of a 14-day quarantine requirement upon those DV-2020 selectees affected by the Regional Proclamations is an “exigency” that warrants “molding” the court’s preliminary injunction order to ensure it remains effective. Failure to act would result in irreparable harm to hundreds (if not thousands) of DV-2020 selectees who risk losing their opportunity to secure a DV-2020 visa. The Department has no interest continuing a policy that
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 132 Filed 09/14/20 Page 6 of 6
has no evident legal basis, and nor does the public. Accordingly, the court amends its Order, ECF No. 123 at 85, to add the following paragraph:
8. The court enjoins the State Department from applying or enforcing the Quarantine Requirement for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.

Dated: September 14, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge

6

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 139 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that plaintiffs Nazif Alam, Carmen Ligia Vidal Pimentel, Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron, Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo, Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jiménez, Angela Sinon, Loida Phelps, Nancy Abarca, 3Q Digital, ASSE International, Inc., EurAuPair International, Inc., SEIU Committee of Interns and Residents, Shipco Transport, Inc., and Superior Scape, Inc. (together, the “Non-DV Plaintiffs”), and Fatma Bushati, Jodi Lynn Karpes, Shyam Sundar Koirala, Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, Iwundu Épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, and Aya Nakamura hereby appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from the order entered in this action on September 4, 2020 (ECF 123), to the extent that the order (i) denied Plaintiffs’ request to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, and (ii) denied Plaintiffs’ request to preliminarily enjoin the State Department’s No-Visa Policy (as defined in the order, ECF 123, at 14) as applied to the Non-DV Plaintiffs and the beneficiaries of their visa petitions. Plaintiffs respectfully request expedited consideration of their appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) because it relates to the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

1
738272036.1

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 139 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 2

Dated: September 24, 2020
Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Stephen Manning (pro hac vice) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice) Jordan Cunnings (pro hac vice) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org jordan@innovationlawlab.org

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Andrew J. Pincus
Andrew J. Pincus (D.D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 mingber@mayerbrown.com
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de Mexico 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 laboni@hoqlaw.com

2
738272036.1

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01856

AFSIN AKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01926

CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, et al., Plaintiffs,

v. DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02128

PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING FURTHER RELIEF

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 3 I. THIS COURT HAS INHERENT AND EQUITABLE POWER TO GRANT
FURTHER RELIEF........................................................................................................... 3 A. Case Law Supports This Court’s Inherent And Equitable Authority To
Protect Diversity Visa Selectees From Defendants’ Unlawful Actions ................ 3 B. Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct Necessitates Equitable Relief Here..................... 9 II. SCOPE OF RELIEF ........................................................................................................ 14 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 18

-i-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................8
Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
Almaqrami v. Tillerson, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018) ...............................................................................................6
American Hosp. Ass’n v. Price, 867 F.3d 160 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................7
Coraggioso v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 730 (3d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................8
Iddir v. I.N.S., 301 F.3d 492 (2002)...............................................................................................................7, 8
I.N.S v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988)...................................................................................................................7
Keli v. Rice, 571 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2008) ...........................................................................................8
Paunescu v. I.N.S, 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999) .................................................................4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996)...................................................................................................................4
P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d. 1 (D.D.C. 2017) ..................................................................4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 18
Przhebelskaya v. U.S.C.I.S., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .....................................................................5, 6, 7, 9, 11
Smirnov v. Clinton, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) .............................................................................................15
In re Thornburgh, 869 F.2d 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................7
-ii-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 24

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)

Page(s)

Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 555(b) .............................................................................................................................3
5 U.S.C. § 706(2) .......................................................................................................................3, 10
8 U.S.C. § 1151(e) .........................................................................................................................14
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) ...........................................................................................................................3
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)..........................................................................................................................12
8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) .....................................................................................................................3, 10
8 U.S.C. § 1202(b) ...........................................................................................................................3
8 U.S.C. § 1255................................................................................................................................4
Other Authorities
136 Cong. Rec. H-8629-02 (1990) ................................................................................................14
9 FAM 504.10-5(A) .......................................................................................................................18
Chloe Stepney, After ‘painful’ blunder, green card lottery results released today, Christian Science Monitor (July 15, 2011) ..............................................................................15
Report of the Visa Office 2007, Table VII, Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and Adjustments of Status in the Diversity Immigrant Category 1998-2007 ................................................................................................................................15
Report of the Visa Office 2016, Table VII, Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and Adjustments of Status in the Diversity Immigrant Category Fiscal Years 20072016..........................................................................................................................................15

-iii-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 24
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in Gomez, Mohammed, Aker, and Fonjong jointly and respectfully submit that this Court has inherent and equitable authority to grant effective relief both to the named Plaintiffs in these cases, and to the tens of thousands of other DV-2020 Selectees whom Defendants have deprived of the opportunity to obtain diversity visas through unlawful policies that this Court has already enjoined. Courts around the country recognize that federal judges have the power to give practical effect to their orders. And the courts have repeatedly and unanimously applied this straightforward principle to provide a remedy to diversity-visa applicants faced with a federal agency that is unwilling or unable to meet the statutory deadline for visa issuance. The only prerequisite that the courts have adopted is that the applicant must seek and obtain some form of judicial relief before the end-of-fiscal-year deadline. Plaintiffs have done that here. Equitable relief is accordingly available to protect Plaintiffs and class members from the undisputed and “severe emotional, economic, educational, and personal harms that they and their families will imminently experience if … they permanently lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States through the diversity visa program.” ECF 123, at 75. The Government’s enforcement of its unlawful policies for nearly six months, and its inability to make full amends for its past legal violations over the last three weeks, fully justify invocation of the Court’s inherent and equitable authority in this case. Between March 20 (when the State Department first implemented its arbitrary and capricious COVID-19 Guidance) and September 9 (when the State Department began implementing this Court’s September 4 Order), Defendants unlawfully barred adjudication of DV-2020 Selectees’ visa applications. And since the Court’s Order went into effect, Defendants have continued to impair such adjudications through a raft of new and irrational policies and practices, one of which the Court has already enjoined after an emergency hearing. Unless the Court grants relief as requested herein, many of
-1-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 24
the named Plaintiffs, and virtually all of the proposed class of worldwide DV-2020 Selectees, will be denied visas on account of policies that the Court has already enjoined—and others adopted after the fact to procure the same unlawful effect. Without relief, this Administration will succeed in illegally canceling almost three-quarters of the 2020 diversity visa program. And, perversely, the Administration would achieve that unlawful policy goal by pointing to a statutory deadline that Defendants knowingly and unreasonably disregarded for six months.
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the appropriate remedy is to direct the State Department to reserve (and to adjudicate) enough visas to make up for a reasonable estimate of the shortfall between the number of diversity visas that ought to have issued in fiscal year (“FY”) 2020 and the number of visas that actually have issued. Plaintiffs further respectfully submit that a reasonable estimate of that figure is 30,000 additional visas (beyond those issued prior to this filing), which would bring the total number of 2020 diversity visas (including the 15,401 that have issued to date) to approximately 45,401. That proposed total figure is below average, but within the range of the number of diversity visas that have been issued in past years. Plaintiffs also estimate that 30,000 additional visas could reasonably be processed within the next five months (by the end of February 2021): The State Department ordinarily can process some 8,000 diversity visas per month, so five months should be more than enough time to process 30,000 such visas. While Plaintiffs recognize that the pandemic imposes limitations on visa processing, Defendants should have excess diversity-visa processing capacity given that they are not processing many other categories of visas (due to the bans that remain in force). And Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this proposed remedy befits the harm that Defendants have inflicted on Plaintiffs, class members, and the congressionally mandated diversity visa program writ large, without unduly burdening Defendants or the visaprocessing system.
-2-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 24
ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT HAS INHERENT AND EQUITABLE POWER TO GRANT
FURTHER RELIEF A. Case Law Supports This Court’s Inherent And Equitable Authority To
Protect Diversity Visa Selectees From Defendants’ Unlawful Actions In its September 4, 2020 Order, this Court ruled that Defendants’ policy of refusing to issue diversity visas for 2020 Selectees—effectively extinguishing tens of thousands of individuals’ opportunity to immigrate—is likely arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the plain language of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a) and 1201(g). See ECF 123, at 59-66; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Court likewise ruled that Defendants had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in “excluding DV-2020 diversity visa applications from the categories of ‘mission critical’ visa services.” ECF 123, at 73. Further, the Court ruled that “Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing … DV-2020 selectees’ visa applications” (id. at 68), contravening Defendants’ statutory duties to review and to adjudicate visa applications “within a reasonable time” (id. at 72 n.23 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) and citing 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b))). Based on these rulings, and on the DV Plaintiffs’ undisputed showing of irreparable harm (id. at 75-76), the Court ordered Defendants to “undertake good-faith efforts … to expeditiously process and adjudicate DV-2020 diversity visa and derivative beneficiary applications and issue or reissue diversity and derivative beneficiary visas to eligible applicants by September 30, 2020,” and enjoined the unlawful policies that stood in the way of such adjudication (id. at 84; see ECF 132, at 6). The Court made clear that the relief that it granted is intended to “benefit all putative class members” who are seeking 2020 diversity visas. ECF 123, at 83. Having issued an order granting relief to all DV-2020 Selectees, this Court has authority to enforce that order for the benefit of those Selectees who have yet not received relief. Indeed, as the D.C. Circuit has observed, Defendants themselves have elsewhere “acknowledge[d] that courts have th[e] power” under their equitable authority “to take steps to compel the issuance of diversity
-3-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 24
visas, notwithstanding the end of [the relevant fiscal year].” Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir. 2019); accord ECF 53-1, at 14, P.K. v. Tillerson, No. 17-cv-1533 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2017) (Government acknowledging courts’ “inherent power” to grant such relief); see also Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996) (“Without jurisdiction to enforce a judgment entered by a federal court, ‘the judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate to the purposes for which it was conferred by the Constitution.’”) (citation omitted).
Defendants’ prior concessions are supported by an unbroken line of case law in this area. In Paunescu v. I.N.S., 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999), for example, the district court ordered the Government to adjudicate a 1998 diversity visa application before the September 30 deadline, but the Government failed to do so. Id. at 898.1 The court found, just as this Court has found, that the defendants “owe[d] [the diversity visa applicants] a non-discretionary duty to complete the processing of their applications,” that the applicants “had a right to have their applications adjudicated” before the end of the fiscal year, and that “defendants’ failure to timely process their applications” deprived the applicants of that right. Id. at 902-03. The court ordered the Government “to process [the] applications and to grant [the applicants] all relief to which they would have been entitled had defendants processed their applications in a timely fashion”—even though the order compelling such relief was issued more than a year after the 1998 fiscal year had closed. Id. at 903.
1 Technically the plaintiff in Paunescu sought an adjustment of status rather than a visa, because he was already present in the United States. See 76 F. Supp. 2d at 898. But the distinction makes no difference, because the adjustment of status was available only if the plaintiff was “eligible for a visa, and if a visa [was] available to him at the time his application [for adjustment of status was] filed.” Id. at 900 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1255).
-4-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 24
Likewise in Przhebelskaya v. U.S.C.I.S., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), the district court had issued an order on September 24, 2003 compelling the Government to adjudicate a diversity visa application. See id. at 402.2 When the Government failed to complete the adjudication, the court issued an order compelling adjudication of the applications after the fiscalyear deadline. See id. at 406. The court explained that “the expiration of the statutory deadline” did not “extinguish[] the [defendants’] obligation to comply with the court’s order,” and that where the court has ordered the Government to act on a diversity visa application, “the court has the power to vindicate its own order” by compelling post-deadline adjudication. Id. at 403-04.
Most recently, Judge Chutkan relied on these prior cases to grant similar relief in P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d. 1 (D.D.C. 2017). In P.K., the diversity visa selectees were subject to an executive order barring visa issuance to individuals from certain countries. See id. at 3. But the executive order’s validity was subject to challenge in a case before the Supreme Court, and by its own terms, it was set to expire just before the September 30 deadline that year. Id. at 3-5. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to compel the State Department to process their diversity visa applications because otherwise, there would be little chance the Government could process thousands of applications in the few days remaining before the deadline. Id. at 5-6. To preserve the status quo pending resolution of the case before the Supreme Court, Judge Chutkan issued an order on September 29, 2017 directing the Government to “reserve … unused visa numbers for FY 2017 for processing following the Supreme Court’s decision (should the Court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor).” Id. at 10. Relying on Paunescu and Przhebelskaya, the court ruled that it had “equitable power to order the government to process visas, even though doing so would conflict
2 As in Paunescu, the plaintiff in Przhebelskaya was present in the United States and so sought an adjustment of status rather than a visa, see 338 F. Supp. 2d at 400, but as explained that distinction makes no difference here.
-5-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 24
with the statutory limitations on visa issuance,” id. at 9, such that it could “order the State Department to process visas past the statutory deadline where Plaintiffs have sought relief prior to the end of the fiscal year, as Plaintiffs have here.” Id. at 10. Thus, “[t]he statutory temporal … limitation[] on visa issuance do[es] not bar this court from ordering the State Department to reserve unused visa numbers for FY 2017 for future processing.” Id. at 10-11.
In a later decision, Almaqrami v. Tillerson, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018), Judge Chutkan reaffirmed that “[u]nder th[e] [prior] Order, the State Department was required to not merely reserve the unused visa numbers, but to do so for a specific purpose: the future processing of Plaintiffs’ visa applications.” Id. at 6. Although she found that the expiration of the challenged executive order mooted the case, Judge Chutkan reiterated that “if [the court] were to require the State Department’s full compliance with [the] prior order, it would be within its ‘inherent power to enforce prior orders’ to do so,” by ordering adjudication of diversity visa applications after the deadline. Id. at 6, 8.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled that Judge Chutkan’s order directing reservation of visa numbers was plausibly within the district court’s equitable power. See Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 780-81. The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s order dismissing the case as moot, ruling that “[i]t is … not ‘implausible’ that the district court … could rely on equity to take steps to compel the issuance of diversity visas, notwithstanding the end of FY 2017,” including by “instructing the State Department to ‘hold’ … unused visa numbers for the purpose of enabling a later judicial judgment, which might require the government ‘to process’ plaintiffs’ applications after any salient obstacles were removed.” Id. at 781-82. The Court of Appeals ruled that the district court could plausibly issue a new judgment requiring the State Department to process the visa applications, and that “[l]ike in Paunescu and Przhebelskaya, such an order would give effect to the district court’s prior directive, entered before the end of the selection FY, to
-6-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 24
preserve an essential (and otherwise expiring) ingredient of relief.” Id. at 782. The Court observed
that where, as in this case and in Almaqrami, “the court grants some relief—but not the visa—
before October 1…, the court might lawfully take steps [after October 1] to compel the government
to process the plaintiff’s application and issue her a diversity visa anyway.” Id. at 780.3
Plaintiffs are aware of no decision holding the contrary—that a federal court, having
ordered the Government to adjudicate diversity visa applications prior to the statutory deadline,
nevertheless lacks equitable authority to order the reservation of visa numbers or to compel
adjudication of diversity visas after the end of the fiscal year. Instead, courts have denied relief in
situations where either the plaintiff or the court has not acted in time, so that no relief was granted
before the fiscal year expired. See, e.g., Iddir v. I.N.S., 301 F.3d 492, 500-01 (7th Cir. 2002). But
even those courts recognize that it is a “a different case” where, as here and as in Paunescu and
Przhebelskaya, “the district court order[s] the [Government] to adjudicate [visa applications] while
the [Government] maintained the statutory authority to issue the visas.” Id. at 501 n.2 (citing
3 Defendants may cite American Hospital Ass’n v. Price, 867 F.3d 160 (D.C. Cir. 2017), as they have elsewhere, to suggest that this Court cannot “require an agency to break the law” or to “render performance that is impossible.” Id. at 167. But it is neither unlawful nor impossible to reserve visa numbers that by statute ought to have been processed in FY 2020. Nor is it unlawful or impossible for Defendants to comply with a court order requiring them to take action that they should already have taken. Almaqrami proves as much: If American Hospital had negated the courts’ equitable authority as set forth in cases like P.K., Przhebelskaya, and Paunescu, the plaintiffs’ claim to equitable relief in Almaqrami would have been “implausible”—viz., entirely foreclosed by binding precedent. The D.C. Circuit held the opposite. 933 F.3d at 781.
Defendants may also cite I.N.S. v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988), for the proposition that lower courts cannot “disregard statutory and constitutional requirements and provisions” to “creat[e] a remedy in violation of law.” Id. at 883 (citation omitted). But as the D.C. Circuit has explained, “[t]he only form of relief specifically disapproved by the Pangilinan Court was the lower courts’ asserted ‘power to make someone a citizen of the United States.’” In re Thornburgh, 869 F.2d 1503, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court’s holding does not extend to the courts’ authority in other contexts to grant equitable relief and to give force to their own orders requiring adjudication of diversity visa applications. And again, if Pangilinan had foreclosed equitable relief of the type awarded in P.K., Przhebelskaya, and Paunescu, the D.C. Circuit would have said so in Almaqrami. The Court of Appeals did not so hold.
-7-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 24
Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902-03). In this situation, the Government is “on notice to reserve visas and must complete the task, as ordered, before time expires. Allowing the [Government] to claim inability to issue visas at that point would impinge the authority of the court.” Id.; see, e.g., Coraggioso v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 730, 734 n.8 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Iddir and Paunescu with approval; court might have afforded relief if petitioner had “sought relief prior to the expiration of the … fiscal year”); Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 387 (7th Cir. 2003) (Iddir properly “recognized that the case would have been different if it had been filed before the end of the visa year, while the [Government] still had statutory authority to issue the visa, and if the district court had acted within that time period”); Keli v. Rice, 571 F. Supp. 2d 127, 135 (D.D.C. 2008) (Walton, J.) (drawing same distinction); accord Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 780 (discussing this distinction and stating that where “[t]he plaintiff files suit and the court grants some relief—but not the visa— before … the selection FY has ended, the court might lawfully take steps to compel the government to process the plaintiff's application and issue her a diversity visa anyway”).
Unanimous authority thus establishes this Court’s power to grant equitable relief before the expiration of the fiscal-year deadline, including an order to reserve visa numbers for the named Plaintiffs and other DV-2020 Selectees, and to issue orders after the deadline to give force to that relief.4
In the event that the Court nevertheless has doubts regarding its authority to order Defendants to reserve visa numbers for processing after the end of the fiscal year, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Court should resolve those doubts in favor of granting relief. Granting relief before September 30 would preserve the status quo, and Defendants would be entitled to
4 Mohammed and Fonjong Plaintiffs do not join in any arguments contained within this submission that advocate for or advance the interests of 2020 DV selectees who are not named Plaintiffs in the Mohammed, Aker, Gomez, and Fonjong consolidated cases.
-8-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 24
appeal the decision—allowing the Court of Appeals to resolve the question on the merits. But if this Court were to refuse an order compelling reservation of visa numbers before September 30, the Court of Appeals might conclude that it lacks authority to grant such relief after the deadline. Cf. Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 780 (outlining similar distinction). The result could be to foreclose appellate review of the merits of this important issue, and to deprive tens of thousands of DV-2020 Selectees of the possibility of relief even if the D.C. Circuit concludes that Plaintiffs are correct on the merits. This Court should grant relief for this reason as well.
B. Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct Necessitates Equitable Relief Here This Court should exercise its equitable authority to order reservation of visa numbers for DV-2020 Selectees so that their applications may be adjudicated after September 30. Paunescu and Przhebelskaya establish that equitable relief is warranted where the Government has failed to complete steps necessary to fulfill its obligation to adjudicate diversity visa applications within a reasonable time. See Przhebelskaya, 338 F. Supp. 2d at 402 (failure to complete background check); Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902 (failure to process fingerprints). And P.K. establishes that this Court has “clear” authority to fashion equitable relief by directing the Government to reserve visa numbers where “the State Department’s implementation” of an executive action “violate[s] the INA,” so as to preserve DV Selectees’ “right to have their applications processed in accordance with the law,” 302 F. Supp. 3d at 9, by allowing their applications to be adjudicated “after [the] salient obstacles [a]re removed,” Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 781-82. These rationales apply fully here. As this Court has ruled, Defendants imposed multiple unlawful obstacles to visa processing, over a period of months from March 2020 through at least September 9, 2020, when they began implementing this Court’s September 4 Order. And even after the Order issued, Defendants have continued to throw up artificial barriers that impeded visa processing in contravention of the Order.
-9-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 24
First, the State Department’s COVID-19 Guidance, first issued on March 20, 2020 (CAR 12), unlawfully omitted DV-2020 Selectees from its identification of visa categories eligible for “mission critical” services. See ECF 123, at 73 (Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in “excluding DV-2020 diversity visa applications from the categories of ‘mission critical’ visa services”); id. at 8, 72-73 (identifying March 20 cable as initiation of arbitrary and capricious COVID-19 Guidance). As this Court observed, “Defendants d[id] not attempt to defend the rationality of their COVID-19 Guidance.” Id. at 73. Thus, from March 20 until September 9, Defendants were unlawfully enforcing an arbitrary and capricious bar on diversity visa processing.
Second, beginning when Proclamation 10014 went into force on April 23, Defendants began enforcing their No-Visa Policy, which (as the Court has found) was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law. ECF 123, at 65-66; see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Not only do Defendants have no rational justification for this policy, it is contrary to the INA: “neither the Proclamation[s] nor § 1201(g) of the INA compel or empower the State Department to suspend the processing and issuance of visas.” ECF 123, at 63. Section 1201(g)’s bar on visa issuance “does not apply here,” id. at 65, and it has never provided Defendants a valid basis for the unlawful No-Visa Policy.
Third, after the Court issued the September 4 Order, Defendants unlawfully enforced other Proclamations’ entry suspensions as a “Quarantine Requirement,” creating an additional barrier to visa issuance. This action caused additional delays in visa processing and necessitated an emergency hearing—after which the Court enjoined the Quarantine Requirement on grounds that it was “premised on a faulty legal position,” and was “irrational, too.” ECF 132, at 4-6.
Defendants’ serial failures to adhere to their express statutory obligations to process and adjudicate visa applications call out for equitable relief. Defendants never had a sound justification for their policies; the law required them to process diversity visa applications to the fullest extent possible between March and September, but instead they ceased diversity visa processing and
-10-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 24
failed to resume it until the Court ordered them to do so. And even then, Defendants imposed a new and unfounded Quarantine Requirement that contravened the Court’s Order and further delayed visa processing until the Court could amend its injunction.5
Defendants’ refusal to comply with the INA’s clear directives (not to mention the terms of the Court’s Order), without rational basis or statutory justification, is akin to the Government’s failure to complete the necessary background check in Przhebelskaya, 338 F. Supp. 2d at 402, and to complete processing of fingerprints in Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902. Indeed, Defendants’ intentional failures here are more troubling than the Government’s conduct in Przhebelskaya or Paunescu: Whereas the plaintiffs in those cases fell victim to “bureaucratic nightmare[s],” see id., the named Plaintiffs and other DV-2020 Selectees here have been denied the processing and adjudication to which they were entitled as a result of the Government’s baseless and irrational failure to follow clear statutory commands. If the Government’s unaccountable failures to complete ministerial processing were sufficient to warrant relief in Przhebelskaya and Paunescu, surely the Government’s unjustified, months-long disregard of its statutory obligations suffices to warrant relief here. And because the State Department is evidently incapable of rectifying its own past errors before September 30, this Court is amply justified in ordering the same equitable relief that Judge Chutkan granted in P.K.—reservation of visa numbers so that eligible individuals are not deprived of their “right to have their applications processed in accordance with the law,” 302 F. Supp. 3d at 9, now that the “salient obstacles” have been removed, see Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 781-82.
5 To be sure, Plaintiffs do not argue that Defendants were required to process diversity visas at full capacity even where consulates were closed. But it was incumbent upon Defendants to process as many applications as they could. They failed to fulfill that obligation, and instead established unlawful policies that prevented DV-2020 processing—the reverse of what was lawfully required.
-11-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 24
Relief is also necessary because Defendants’ response to the Court’s directive to
“expeditiously process” as many applications as possible (ECF 123, at 84), has been far from
sufficient. For one thing, Defendants waited five days after the order issued—nearly 20% of the
time that remained before the deadline—to issue implementing guidance to consular posts. See
ECF 127, at 2. Defendants also insisted on enforcing the Quarantine Requirement, despite the
clarity of this Court’s ruling that a § 1182(f) Proclamation may not be invoked to bar visa issuance.
See ECF 132. And Defendants have adopted a variety of other policies and practices that have
prevented interviews and precluded issuance of diversity visas that ought to have been issued by
now. For example:
 Named Plaintiffs Ramin Yousofi and Ahmed Fahim, residents of Afghanistan, were informed by the State Department on September 21, 2020 that they had an appointment the next day at 8 AM at the U.S. Embassy in Cameroon. Ex. 1, Interview Notices.
 Named Plaintiff Uman Huseynli, a resident of Azerbaijan, was scheduled for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia on the September 28, 2020. Huseynli and other DV-2020 Selectees were granted special permission by the Georgian government to enter Georgia with only an eight-day quarantine requirement or to produce a negative COVID-19 test upon arrival and leave within 72 hours. But on September 16, 2020, the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi imposed a new 14-day in-country requirement, and stated that anyone not already in the country would not be interviewed. Ex. 2, Embassy of Tbilisi Emails.
 Named Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei and Shahram Mehrafrooz, residents of Iran, received an email from the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey on September 16, 2020, informing them that they were required to arrive in Turkey on September 15, 2020 to be scheduled for an interview. Ex. 3, Embassy of Ankara Emails.
 The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) expressly told Ahmet Atasaydir that “if you[’re] not [a] plaintiff, you lost your chance,” and “[w]e will not process your documents.” ECF 137, Ex. C, at 103; see also Dahab Decl. ¶¶ 9(b), 9(c), 9(f) (similar as to Karima Jalal (Morocco), Nil Kutliuk (Turkey), and Maria Nemirovksia (Russia)).
 The consular post in Uganda similarly advised Evelyn Babirye that the post is only working on applications for the named Plaintiffs. Dahab Decl. ¶ 9(a).
-12-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 24
 State Department staff urged Sergey Stryukov (Russia) not to “g[o] forward” because Defendants “will not issue [his] visa by the 30th anyway.” Id. ¶ 9(d).
 As late as September 15, the U.K. consulate advised Gustinnawadu Silva that DV appointments simply were not being scheduled. Id. ¶ 9(e).
 KCC advised Grace Barry that the consular post in her home country of Liberia is only processing visa reissuances. See ECF 137, Ex. C, at 72.
Overall, of 1,794 individuals who have advised the Gomez Plaintiffs’ counsel that they have requested emergency appointments based on the September 4 Order, 95.5 percent have had their requests denied, have received no response, or have been told by the State Department that only named Plaintiffs will receive visa interviews pursuant to the Order. Dahab Decl. ¶ 8.
As a result of these failures to adhere to this Court’s directive, the State Department has adjudicated only 745 of the 974 named Plaintiffs’ diversity visa applications to date, and have issued only 3,208 diversity visas between September 5 and September 24—a monthly rate of about 4,800 visas. See ECF 143, at 3.6 In comparison, Defendants are capable of issuing between 7,000 and 8,000 diversity visas per month (3,500 to 4,000 cases, inclusive of derivative beneficiaries). See Paul Decl., ECF 137, Ex. A. Defendants have thus been operating at only 60% of capacity, despite this Court’s order to proceed “expeditiously” (ECF 123, at 84) and the fact that Defendants’ various other restrictive policies mean that they are not currently expending resources to process family-based or employment-based visa applications—such that Defendants should have free capacity that could be devoted to DV-2020 Selectees. In view of all the evidence, it is plain that Defendants have not done all they could to comply with this Court’s order.
6 Combined with the approximately 12,000 visas that issued in the first six months of the fiscal year (October 2019 through March 2020), that is approximately 15,401 diversity visas total—just 28 percent of the diversity visas allocated for 2020. ECF 136, at 4-5; ECF No. 143 at 3.
-13-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 24
Without additional judicial relief, many of the named Plaintiffs and tens of thousands of other DV-2020 Selectees will be deprived of benefits that Defendants ought to have granted them months ago, or at minimum during the period after the Court issued its September 4 Order. Without relief, Defendants will have largely succeeded in their unlawful effort to effectuate the President’s “well documented” “hostility towards the diversity visa lottery program” (ECF 123, at 58), by permanently “cancel[ing]” nearly 75 percent of the DV-2020 program (see ECF 109-17, Ex. A). The Court should direct Defendants to comply to the fullest possible extent with their statutory obligations to adjudicate the named Plaintiffs’ and other DV-2020 Selectees’ applications.7 II. SCOPE OF RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that in the circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate for the Court to order Defendants to reserve approximately 30,000 FY 2020 diversity visa numbers for adjudication after September 30, and to order Defendants to issue the reserved visas expeditiously through February 28, 2021. As Defendants have issued approximately 15,401 diversity visas in FY 2020 to date (see supra note 6), such an order would allow a total of approximately 45,401 diversity visas to be issued for this fiscal year.
Plaintiffs’ proposal comports with both Congress’s intent in enacting the diversity visa program to “ensure[] long-term diversity in our flow of immigrants from around the world,” 136 Cong. Rec. H-8629-02 (1990), and with the Government’s historical practice. The INA provides for a statutory maximum of 55,000 diversity visas to be issued each year, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e), and
7 To ensure that individuals not named in the complaints receive the benefit of an order reserving visas for processing after September 30, Plaintiffs in Gomez are simultaneously renewing their motion for class certification with respect to the Diversity Visa sub-class (see ECF 52).
-14-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 24
the State Department has historically striven to issue as many of those visas as possible: Between
1998 and 2016, the State Department issued an average of 47,404 diversity visas per year—
exceeding 50,000 diversity visas seven times, and issuing fewer than 40,000 diversity visas only
once.8 Even in FY 2002, which began shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and which saw the
introduction of significant and burdensome new security measures, the Government still issued
more than 43,000 diversity visas. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that their proposed target is
appropriate for this fiscal year, as it falls within the historical range of diversity visa issuance
(though below the average), while reasonably balancing the challenges presented this fiscal year
against the irreparable harms faced by the named Plaintiffs and DV-2020 Selectees who would
otherwise lose their opportunity to obtain visas on account of Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
A directive to Defendants to reserve approximately 30,000 additional diversity visas for
this fiscal year (allowing for 45,401 such visas to issue in total) is also reasonably related to the
extent of Defendants’ statutory violations, as it would be consistent with the number of visas that
ought to have been issued over the period affected by the policies invalidated by the Court’s
8 See Report of the Visa Office 2016, Table VII, Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and Adjustments of Status in the Diversity Immigrant Category Fiscal Years 2007-2016, https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2016AnnualReport/FY16 AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf; Report of the Visa Office 2007, Table VII, Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and Adjustments of Status in the Diversity Immigrant Category 1998-2007, https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY07AnnualReportTableVII.pdf.
The outlier year, 2012, was affected by a computer glitch that forced the State Department to void the initial lottery results that had been released May 1, 2011, and to conduct a new lottery that was not completed until July 15, 2011—more than two months after that first stage of the process would ordinarily have been completed. See generally Smirnov v. Clinton, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) (rejecting challenge to State Department’s decision to conduct new lottery); Chloe Stepney, After ‘painful’ blunder, green card lottery results released today, Christian Science Monitor (July 15, 2011), https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0715/After-painful-blundergreen-card-lottery-results-released-today. Even with that delay, the State Department still issued 34,463 diversity visas. And the outlier situation in 2012 is not analogous to the facts here: The State Department’s failure to issue diversity visas for nearly six months in 2020 was not driven by an innocent computer error, but by unlawful policies that Defendants intentionally adopted.
-15-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 24
September 4 Order. Although Plaintiffs appreciate that the pandemic has placed a strain on normal visa processing, Defendants are capable of processing and issuing approximately 8,000 diversity visas (including derivative beneficiaries’ visas) per month, or approximately 267 per day, worldwide. See Paul Decl. at 2, ECF 137-1. Between March 20, 2020 (when the unlawful COVID-19 Guidance went into effect) and the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 195 days will elapse— meaning that in the ordinary course, Defendants could have issued approximately 52,000 diversity visas during this period. See id. Reserving 30,000 visa numbers thus would amount to less than 58 percent of Defendants’ capacity to issue diversity visas over the period for which Plaintiffs seek a remedy. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this is a reasonable approximation of what Defendants could and should have accomplished during that period had their unlawful policies not been in force, even accounting for the consular closures and restrictions that were in place for part of that period due to COVID-19.
Plaintiffs also respectfully submit that Defendants are fully capable of processing 30,000 diversity visas within a reasonable period. At a rate of 8,000 diversity visas per month, issuing 30,000 diversity visas would amount to less than four months’ work. See Paul Decl. at 2, ECF No. 137. Although Plaintiffs acknowledge that present circumstances are far from ordinary, Defendants’ No-Visa Policy remains in force for all affected categories of visas other than DV2020 Selectees—meaning that both the KCC and the consular posts should have additional processing capacity at this time, allowing them to process FY 2020 diversity visa applications more efficiently than would otherwise be possible. It is thus reasonable to expect Defendants to complete processing of 30,000 reserved visas within four months of October 1, so that processing could be complete by the end of January 2021—just a month after the Proclamations are set to expire by their own terms. To allow Defendants additional time in the exigent circumstances, and to account for unanticipated delays, Plaintiffs respectfully propose that the Court direct Defendants
-16-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 24
to complete processing of the named Plaintiffs and additional FY 2020 diversity visas by February 28, 2020. Plaintiffs submit that this is a reasonable accommodation to all parties and affected individuals in these exigent circumstances.
Defendants filed with the Court earlier today their “Supplemental Report on Good Faith Efforts to Implement the Preliminary Injunction.” ECF 143. Plaintiffs are grateful that Defendants have interviewed or scheduled nearly all of the named Plaintiffs, and well as many non-Plaintiffs. That said, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Report is incomplete and misleading. It is incomplete in that it contains no mention at all of the work of the KCC, how many cases it documentarily cleared for consular interviews, and how many cases it normally clears during the shortened time frame that the rest of Defendants’ Report focused on. Plaintiffs and the Court simply do not know, today, how many more DV-2020 Selectees are currently documentarily qualified and ready for interviews, how many are in process of finalizing their document submissions, or KCC’s current monthly capacity to process cases. Defendants’ failure to provide this updated information (which Defendants had provided in their previous status report) suggests that Defendants could be doing more to process DV-2020 Selectees through consular adjudication.
The Report is misleading in that it only provides information over a limited time frame as to the consulates’ capacity to process immigrant visas, and does not compare “apples to apples” in doing so. The key to consular capacity to process DV-2020 Selectees is not how many diversity visa cases were adjudicated from July to September in prior years, because (as discussed) Defendants are currently processing very few other visas—which should free up processing capacity at consulates around the world. Considering total “consular capacity” year over year, it appears that consulates have the ability to process at least 30,000 immigrant visas per month, on average—a figure that is far short of the 5,093 total immigrant visas that Defendants processed in September 2020. Defendants also still have not explained why, in the first half of FY 2020, they
-17-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 24
processed only about 20% of the total number of 2020 DVs—far below the expected 50%. Finally, Plaintiffs further respectfully request that the Court direct Defendants to renew or
reissue visas that would expire after the end of the fiscal year but before the visa-holder is able to enter the United States. Nothing in the INA forecloses the Court or Defendants from granting such relief, and, in the extraordinary circumstances here, Plaintiffs submit that such relief is warranted to fully effectuate the Court’s Orders. If the Proclamation is extended beyond March 2021 (six months after the visas issued this month), and if Defendants enforce a policy of refusing to reissue diversity visas after the end of this fiscal year (see 9 FAM 504.10-5(A)), visas issued pursuant to the Court’s orders in this case will have no value: They will all expire before their holders could possibly use them to enter the country. The Court has inherent equitable authority to prevent Defendants from nullifying the September 4 Order, and it should exercise that authority here. See, e.g., P.K., 302 F. Supp. 3d at 9-10 (court may exercise “equitable power” to give relief “even though doing so would conflict with … statutory limitations on visa issuance”).
CONCLUSION Defendants should be ordered to reserve 30,000 visa numbers for DV-2020 Selectees, and to process DV-2020 Selectees’ visa applications until those visa numbers are exhausted, without regard for the statutory deadline for visa issuance. Defendants should further be directed to renew FY 2020 diversity visas after the end of the fiscal year, as necessary to permit the visa recipients a reasonable opportunity to use their visas to enter the country.
-18-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 24

September 25, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Stephen W. Manning (pro hac vice) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice) Jordan Cunnings (pro hac vice) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 nadia@innovationlawlab.org

/s/ Andrew J. Pincus Andrew J. Pincus (D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de Mexico 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 laboni@hoqlaw.com

Counsel for Gomez Plaintiffs

Abadir Barre BARRE LAW LLC 30 Broad St., 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 (646) 244-8784 abadir@barrelaw.com

/s/ Curtis Lee Morrison Curtis Lee Morrison LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS MORRISON P.O. Box 7140 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 (714) 661-3446 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com

Rafael Urena THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 (703) 929-4424 ru@urenaesq.com
Counsel for Mohammed and Fonjong Plaintiffs
-19-

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 146 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 24

Greg Siskind SISKIND SUSSER PC 1028 Oakhaven Rd. Memphis, TN 39118
Jeff D. Joseph JOSEPH & HALL P.C. 12203 East Second Avenue Aurora, CO 80011

/s/ Charles H. Kuck Charles H. Kuck Phillip C. Kuck Danielle M. Claffey KUCK BAXTER IMMIGRATION, LLC Bar No. 429940 365 Northridge Rd, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 404.816.8611 ckuck@immigration.net
Counsel for Aker Plaintiffs

-20-

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ

)

ABDUL MOHAMMED, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

AFSIN AKER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

_________________________________________

)

CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-01419 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01856 (APM) Case No. 20-cv-01926 (APM)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 26

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-02128 (APM)

_________________________________________

)

CHANDAN PANDA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-1907 (APM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on September 4, 2020, the court ordered

Defendants to “undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through their designees, to expeditiously

process and adjudicate DV-2020 diversity visa and derivative beneficiary applications and issue

or reissue diversity and derivative beneficiary visas to eligible applicants by September 30, 2020,

giving priority to the named diversity visa Plaintiffs,” in these consolidated actions. Though

Defendants have issued more than 3,000 diversity visas since the court’s order, many of the

Plaintiffs’ applications have still not been finally adjudicated, and approximately 40,000 of the

55,000 diversity visas Congress has made available for Fiscal Year 2020 remain unissued.

Plaintiffs fear that if no further relief is ordered, these unissued visas will lapse pursuant to the

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which states that diversity visa selectees “shall remain

eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were

selected.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(II). The fiscal year expires today, September 30, 2020, at

2

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 26
11:59 p.m. Plaintiffs ask the court to certify two classes of DV-2020 Selectees who have not yet received or been reissued visas, and to order Defendants to reserve 30,000 diversity visa numbers pending final resolution of this matter and to renew any FY 2020 diversity visas that expire after the end of the fiscal year. For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motions. I. BACKGROUND
In its Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on September 4, 2020, the court held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the U.S. Department of State (1) had arbitrarily and capriciously refused to review and adjudicate DV-2020 Selectees’ visa applications pursuant to the State Department’s implementation of Presidential Proclamation 10014 (the court refers to this as the “No-Visa Policy”), (2) had unreasonably delayed in processing those applications, and (3) had arbitrarily and capriciously failed to explain its exclusion of such applications from its “COVID-19 Guidance” setting forth the categories of visa applications eligible for “mission critical” and “emergency” processing. See Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-CV-01419 (APM), 2020 WL 5367010, at *26–33 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020).
As a remedy for these violations, the court ordered Defendants (other than President Trump) to “undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through their designees, to expeditiously process and adjudicate DV-2020 diversity visa and derivative beneficiary applications and issue or reissue diversity and derivative beneficiary visas to eligible applicants by September 30, 2020, giving priority to the named diversity visa Plaintiffs,” in these consolidated actions. Id. at *38 ¶ 2. The court declined to rule on Plaintiffs’ request to order Defendants to reserve unissued DV-2020 visas past the September 30 deadline or until a final adjudication on the merits, but promised to revisit the issue closer to the deadline. Id. at *38 ¶ 4. The court also denied without prejudice the
3

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 26
Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs’ motions to certify classes of DV-2020 Selectees, finding that the relief issued under the Administrative Procedure Act would benefit all putative class members. Id. at *37, *38 ¶ 5.
Between September 5, 2020 and September 24, 2020, when the court last received an update on Defendants’ efforts to comply with the court’s Order, the Department of State had adjudicated 5,093 diversity visa applications, issuing 3,208 diversity visas and refusing 1,885 applications. See Defs.’ Suppl. Report On Good Faith Efforts to Implement the Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 143 [hereinafter Defs.’ Suppl. Report], Decl. of Brenda L. Grewe, ECF No. 143-2 [hereinafter Grewe Decl.], ¶ 5. These additional visa issuances bring the total number of diversity visas issued for FY 2020 to approximately 15,4011 as of September 24, 2020, roughly 28 percent of the 55,000 visas annually afforded under the INA. Id. ¶ 6.
During the same time, and consistent with the court’s direction to prioritize them, the State Department issued 523 visas to the 974 Named Plaintiffs with DV-2020 applications in these consolidated actions. Defs.’ Suppl. Report, Decl. of Laura Chamberlin, ECF No. 143-1 [hereinafter Chamberlin Decl.], ¶¶ 3–4. Consular officers refused visas to 149 Named Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 221(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and refused 73 of their applications on other grounds. Id. ¶ 5. An additional 164 Named Plaintiffs were scheduled for interviews as of September 24, but had not yet received final decisions on their applications.
The INA provides that foreign nationals selected in the DV lottery “shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected,” in this case, September 30, 2020. 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (a)(1)(I)(II); see also 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1);
1 This figure includes diversity visa numbers issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to applicants already in the United States. See Grewe Decl. ¶ 6. Though not technically visas, diversity visa numbers issued to these applicants count against the total 55,000 diversity visas numbers available. Courts use the term “diversity visas” to describe both processes. See Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 776 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
4

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 5 of 26
31 U.S.C. § 1102. With the September 30, 11:59 p.m. deadline rapidly approaching, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ efforts to comply with the court’s September 4 Order are too little, too late. See Pls.’ Joint Submission Regarding Further Relief, ECF No. 146 [hereinafter Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief]. Plaintiffs assert that additional relief is necessary both to cure Defendants’ failure to comply in good faith with the court’s previous order, and to adequately remedy the harms experienced by DV-2020 Selectees as a result of Defendants’ months-long refusal to process DV2020 visa applications. Id. at 9–14. Plaintiffs ask the court to order Defendants to reserve approximately 30,000 FY 2020 diversity visa numbers for adjudication after September 30 pending a final decision on the merits. Id. at 14; 9/28/2020 Oral Arg. Draft Hr’g Tr. [hereinafter Draft Hr’g Tr.], at 13–15 (agreeing that if diversity visa applications are reserved after the fiscal year that it is “not paramount that they be processed immediately after September 30th”). They also ask the court to direct Defendants to renew FY 2020 diversity visas after the end of the fiscal year, as necessary to permit the visa recipients to have a reasonable opportunity to enter the country. Id. at 18. In addition, the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs renew their motions for class certification. Gomez & Aker Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Class Cert., ECF No. 144, at 1–6 [hereinafter Pls.’ Renewed Class Cert. Mot.]. Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ requests for additional relief on September 25, 2020, see Defs.’ Suppl. Br., ECF No. 145 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief], and September 30, 2020, see Defs.’ Renewed Opp’n to Pls.’ Renewed Class Cert. Mot., ECF No. 150. The court heard oral argument on the matter on September 28, 2020. See 9/28/2020 Minute Entry.
5

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 6 of 26
II. DISCUSSION The court first discusses Plaintiffs’ requests for supplemental equitable relief and then turns
to the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. A. Supplemental Equitable Relief Plaintiffs primarily ask the court to order Defendants to reserve diversity visa numbers for
adjudication after September 30 pending a final decision on the merits. Defendants assert that such relief is legally unavailable, unnecessary, and overbroad. The court discusses each contention in turn.
1. Authority to Issue Relief Defendants argue that the “INA’s plain text imposes a limitation on DV eligibility based on the close of the fiscal year,” and that “courts may not craft an equitable remedy where a legislative temporal window has already closed.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief at 2, 5. Plaintiffs retort that granting their requested relief would create no conflict with the INA where, as here, Plaintiffs have sought and received some relief before the end of the fiscal year. Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 7–8. Plaintiffs have the better argument. In the case most comparable with this one, P.K. v. Tillerson, a group of DV-2017 plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, alleging that the State Department had unlawfully failed to process their diversity visa applications pursuant to the agency’s implementation of Executive Order No. 13,780. 302 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017). The P.K. court found that it could not direct the State Department to process the plaintiffs’ visas because of ongoing litigation at the Supreme Court over the validity of E.O. 13,780, and so it directed the State Department to “reserve any unused visa numbers for FY 2017 for processing following the Supreme Court’s decision.” Id. at 9–11. After the fiscal year deadline passed and
6

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 7 of 26
Executive Order 13,780 had lapsed on its own terms, the State Department argued that the P.K. action was moot. See Almaqrami v. Tillerson, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018). The court reiterated its earlier ruling that if it “were to require the State Department’s full compliance with its prior order, it would be within its inherent power to enforce prior orders to do so,” but it nevertheless dismissed the action as moot, finding that because the Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge to Executive Order No. 13,780 as moot, there was no additional relief that the court could grant the plaintiffs. Id. at 6–8.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the district court improperly dismissed the case because it was “not implausible” that the court’s pre-September 30 Order left “open the possibility” that additional relief would be available notwithstanding the mootness of the challenge to Executive Order 13,780. Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 781–82 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Circuit also rejected the Government’s argument that the case was moot because the fiscal year deadline had passed, finding that it was “not implausible that the district court here could rely on equity to take steps to compel the issuance of diversity visas, notwithstanding the end of FY 2017.” Id. at 781 (cleaned up).
Though the D.C. Circuit never reached the merits of the district court’s authority to issue post-fiscal year relief, its reasoning is instructive. The Circuit explained that “[c]ourts are often asked to intervene in disputes over diversity visas,” and that relief is unavailable where the plaintiff fails to file her lawsuit until after the relevant fiscal year has passed, or where the court fails to issue any relief until then. Id. at 780. In contrast, where “[t]he plaintiff files suit and the court grants some relief—but not the visa—before October 1 . . . , the court might lawfully take steps to compel the government to process the plaintiff’s application and issue her a diversity visa” even “after the fiscal year has ended.” Id. In such an instance, the court observed, a post-deadline order
7

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 8 of 26
would permissibly “give effect to the district court’s prior directive, entered before the end of the selection FY, to preserve an essential (and otherwise expiring) ingredient of relief.” Id. at 782.
Courts in other circuits also recognize this temporal distinction on the availability of relief for diversity visa selectees. In Paunescu v. INS, 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999), for example, the district court ordered the Government to adjudicate DV-1998 visa applications before the September 30 deadline, and after the Government failed to do so, the court ordered it to “process [the] applications and to grant [the applicants] all relief to which they would have been entitled had defendants processed their applications in a timely fashion”—even though the order compelling such relief was issued more than a year after the 1998 fiscal year had closed. Id. at 903. Likewise in Przhebelskaya v. USCIS, 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), the district court had issued an order on September 24, 2003, compelling the Government to adjudicate diversity visa applications, and when the Government failed to do so within the fiscal year, the court issued an order compelling adjudication of the applications after the fiscal year deadline, see id. at 406. The court explained that “the expiration of the statutory deadline” did not “extinguish[] the [defendants’] obligation to comply with the court’s order,” and that where the court has ordered the Government to act on a diversity visa application, “the court has the power to vindicate its own order” by compelling post-deadline adjudication. Id. at 403–04.2
Defendants attempt to distinguish Paunescu and Przhebelskaya on the ground that they involved diversity applicants already inside the United States seeking an adjustment of status,
2 Likewise, in the cases where diversity visa plaintiffs have been unable to obtain relief because either the court or plaintiff did not act before the fiscal year, courts have recognized that it is “a different case” where “the district court order[s] the [Government] to adjudicate [visa applications] while the [Government] maintain[s] the statutory authority to issue the visas.” Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 501 n.2 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Coraggioso v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 730, 734 n.8 (3d Cir. 2004) (observing that the court might have afforded relief if petitioner had “sought relief prior to the expiration of the . . . fiscal year”); Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 387 (7th Cir. 2003) (Iddir properly “recognized that the case would have been different if it had been filed before the end of the visa year, while the [Government] still had statutory authority to issue the visa, and if the district court had acted within that time period.”); Keli v. Rice, 571 F. Supp. 2d 127, 135 (D.D.C. 2008) (drawing same distinction).
8

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 9 of 26
see Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief at 7–10, but that is a distinction without a difference in the present context. To be eligible for an adjustment of status, an “applicant must be eligible to receive an immediately available immigration visa.” Przhebelskaya, 338 F. Supp. 2d at 400; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Thus, the plaintiffs in Paunescu and Przhebelskaya were equally subject to the INA’s requirement that diversity visa selectees “shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (a)(1)(I)(II). Defendants also suggest that those cases “did not involve [ ] separation-of-powers and foreign affairs issues” because the foreign nationals in those case were already in the United States, but the Supreme Court has explained that “any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952) (emphasis added). The foreign/domestic distinction Defendants glean from Paunescu and Przhebelskaya thus cannot bear the weight they place on it.
Defendants insist that “neither Przhebelskaya nor Paunescu are applicable because in both cases the application files were already substantially complete before the court ordered the government to take action,” whereas here, Plaintiffs’ applications are in varying stages of completeness. Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief at 9–10. But Defendants overlook that the delay in processing of Plaintiffs’ applications is largely due to Defendants’ own unlawful interpretation of Presidential Proclamation 10014 and 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)—it is in no way the fault of Plaintiffs themselves. In any event, the differing levels of application completeness that Defendants’ identify is only a difference of degree, and Defendants cite no authority indicating why such differences have any bearing on the court’s authority to issue equitable relief.
9

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 10 of 26
Perhaps a more relevant distinction (though not one pressed by Defendants) is that Paunescu and Przhebelskaya both involve pre-deadline orders to process visas, whereas in this case, Plaintiffs are primarily asking the court to reserve visas past the fiscal year for future processing. But, as the D.C. Circuit noted, those cases “offer useful examples, not binding models,” and a pre-deadline order to reserve visas for future processing after the deadline “is more similar to Paunescu and Przhebelskaya than the cases dismissed as moot because the plaintiff filed too late or the court did not act in time.” Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 782 (D.C. Cir. 2019); see also Almaqrami, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 5–7 (opining that “whether a district court orders the immediate or future processing of diversity visas—as long as plaintiffs seek relief and the court issues an order granting relief prior to the September 30 deadline—the court is entitled to enforce its prior order”). Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has recognized in the analogous context of congressional appropriations that courts may suspend the operation of a statutory expiration date on an appropriation so long as the plaintiff requests relief before that date, thereby effectively reserving a congressionally afforded benefit past a statutory deadline. See, e.g., City of Houston, Tex. v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 24 F.3d 1421, 1426 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (explaining that a court acting in equity may “award funds based on an appropriation even after the date when the appropriation lapses, so long as the lawsuit was instituted on or before that date,” and that “the equity powers of the courts allow them to take action to preserve the status quo of a dispute and protect their ability to decide a case properly before them. In such situations, the courts simply suspend the operation of a lapse provision and extend the term of already existing budget authority” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)); see also State of Conn. v. Schweiker, 684 F.2d 979, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Andrulis Research Corp. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., No. CIV. A. 90-2569
10

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 11 of 26
(CRR), 1990 WL 169318, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 1990) (extending a statutory deadline and collecting cases in support of this authority).
Defendants invoke INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988), for the proposition that lower courts cannot “create a remedy in violation of law,” Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief at 4 (quoting 486 U.S. at. 883) (cleaned up), but as the D.C. Circuit has explained, “[t]he only form of relief specifically disapproved by the Pangilinan Court was the lower courts’ asserted power to make someone a citizen of the United States,” In re Thornburgh, 869 F.2d 1503, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (cleaned up). The Pangilinan Court did not “securely shut the door” on claims for relief where, as here, the “aliens in question complied with the statute by attempting to file applications in a proper and timely fashion.” Id. at 1516. Defendants also assert that “a court may not require an agency to render performance that is impossible,” see Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief at 4 (quoting Am. Hosp. Assoc. v. Price, 867 F.3d 160, 167 (D.C. Cir. 2018)), but that doctrine in inapposite here, where Defendants have not even attempted to shoulder the “heavy burden” of demonstrating that “resource constraints” or other “practical challenges” render it impossible to reserve and potentially process diversity visas after September 30. 867 F.3d at 168 (cleaned up).
In sum, because the fiscal year has not yet passed, the court plainly has the equitable authority and discretion to order Defendants to reserve visas for future processing pending a final resolution of the merits. See P.K., 302 F. Supp. 3d at 9 (holding that “[t]he court’s authority to grant such relief is clear”). Assuming Plaintiffs ultimately succeed on their claims, an order instructing the State Department to process these reserved visas would not create any conflict with the INA because “such an order would give effect to the district court’s prior directive, entered before the end of the selection FY, to preserve an essential (and otherwise expiring) ingredient of relief.” Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 782; see also Almaqrami, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 6 (D.D.C. 2018) (explaining that “the court issued an order directing the State Department to act prior to the September 30 deadline, and if it were to require
11

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 12 of 26
the State Department’s full compliance with its prior order, it would be within its ‘inherent power to enforce prior orders’ to do so”). Defendants suggest that such an order would also run afoul of Congress’s intent, see Defs.’ Opp’n to Suppl. Relief at 2–3, but the court has already found that Defendants violated Congress’s design when they nearly extinguished the FY 2020 diversity visa program through their No-Visa Policy, see Gomez, 2020 WL 5367010, at *30. Defendants cannot credibly claim that, though they have effectively abrogated Congress’s policy for months through their unlawful and arbitrary actions, it would be inconsistent with Congress’s intent to grant a remedy for their wrongs. Cf. Defy Ventures, Inc. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., No. CV CCB-20-1736, 2020 WL 3546873, at *12 (D. Md. June 29, 2020) (holding that, where the plaintiffs “risk [ ] losing a benefit for which they are eligible because of arbitrary and capricious agency action” and a rapidly approaching statutory deadline, an order extending the deadline and “giv[ing] the plaintiffs the chance to apply” for the benefit “would further, rather than contravene, Congress’s will that eligible [applicants] be able to apply”).
2. Need for Relief Plaintiffs assert that supplemental relief is needed because Defendants “spent six months violating what they were required to do under the INA,” and the relief granted to date has not been sufficient to remedy that harm. Dr. Hr’g Tr. at 12; see also Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 9–14. The court agrees. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that additional relief is necessary to “meet the exigencies of the . . . case,” Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, at 115 (3d ed. 2013)), and to adequately “address each element contributing to the violation,” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 (1978).3
3 Plaintiffs also claim that supplemental relief is necessary because Defendants “have not complied with the letter and the spirit of the” the court’s September 4 Order. See Dr. Hr’g Tr. at 12. The court need not decide this question in
12

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 13 of 26
First, the raw numbers. As of September 24, 2020, Defendants have issued only approximately 15,041 visas, or 28% of the 55,000 diversity visas Congress made available for FY 2020. For comparison, between 1998 and 2016, the State Department issued an average of 47,404 diversity visas per year, or between 86% and 95% of the total annual diversity visas allotted by Congress. See Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 15; Dr. Hr’g Tr. at 19 (explaining that the yearly allotment of visas has vacillated between 50,000 and 55,000).
As discussed in greater detail in the following section, a substantial portion of this shortfall is undoubtedly caused by COVID-19-related disruptions outside of Defendants’ control, but not all of it. Defendants’ rate of visa processing after the court’s September 4, 2020 Order illustrates this point. In the 20 days after the court’s September 4 Order, the Department of State issued 3,208 diversity visas, at a rate of 160.4 per day (3,208 / 20). See Grewe Decl. ¶ 5. By comparison, in 2019, the State Department issued 8,834 immigrant visas between July 15, 2019 and September 4, 2019, at a rate of 173 per day (8,834 / 51). See id. ¶ 8. The roughly comparable daily rate of processing between these two periods suggests that, but for their No-Visa Policy and COVID-19 Guidance excluding DV selectees from mission critical processing, Defendants could have issued many more diversity immigrant visas in the weeks and months before the court issued its September 4 Order, notwithstanding the exigencies of the global pandemic.
The State Department’s efforts to make up for this shortfall since September 4 do not obviate the need for additional relief. The court acknowledges and appreciates the hard work undertaken by many State Department employees to process the huge backlog of diversity visa applications, but the fact remains that, unless additional relief is granted, approximately 72% of the available diversity visas for FY 2020 will go unissued, and several hundred of the Named
light of its finding that additional relief is necessary to grant DV-2020 Selectees a complete remedy for Defendants’ violations of the INA and Administrative Procedure Act.
13

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 14 of 26
Plaintiffs in this case may not receive final adjudication of their applications. Moreover, the State Department waited five days (three business days) to issue guidance implementing the court’s order—nearly 20% of the time that remained before the deadline—and, during that time, unlawfully and arbitrarily imposed a “Quarantine Requirement” on DV-2020 Selectees from five separate regions, thereby further delaying many DV-2020 Selectees from receiving adjudication of their applications. See Amended Order, ECF No. 132, at 4–5; Pls.’ Request for an Emergency Status Conference, ECF No. 127, at 2 & n.2. This lost time and confusion engendered by Defendants’ implementing guidance further supports that supplemental relief is necessary to preserve a full remedy.
Additional relief is also needed to provide an adequate remedy to the DV-2020 Selectees who are not Named Plaintiffs in these actions. Defendants have, consistent with the court’s September 4 Order, prioritized the Named Plaintiffs’ applications, but the harm the court identified and the relief it ordered extended beyond just those individuals. Yet, only a tiny fraction of nonNamed Plaintiffs have received relief since the court’s September 4 Order. The court has been presented with evidence that there has been confusion regarding these individuals’ entitlement to relief under the court’s earlier order, with personnel at consular offices and the Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”) informing some applicants that “if you[’re] not [a] plaintiff, you lost your chance,” and “[w]e will not process your documents.” See Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 12–13; id., Decl. of Nadia Dahab, ECF No. 146-1 [hereinafter Dahab Decl.] ¶ 9; see also Dr. Hr’g Tr. at 47–48 (audio recording from KCC communicating a similar message). Indeed, in a survey that Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted of 1,794 non-Named Plaintiffs who requested expedited processing based on the court’s September 4 Order, 81 percent reported that the consulate had either not responded or had otherwise not processed their applications. See Dahab Decl. ¶ 8. Many of these
14

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 15 of 26
respondents indicated that they received “automatic response[s]” from consular offices “indicating that their application would not be processed.” Id. The survey and accompanying anecdotal evidence may not be fully representative or statistically unassailable, but they suffice to show that further relief is necessary for DV-2020 Selectees who are not Named Plaintiffs.
Reserving additional visas past the fiscal year also comports with the additional requirements of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Failure to issue such relief will result in irreparable harm to thousands of DV-2020 Selectees who will otherwise lose their opportunity to secure a DV-2020 visa. Such relief is also in the public interest because “there is a substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws,” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up), and an order reserving additional visas is necessary to remedy Defendants’ violations of the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. Scope of Relief What remains then is to determine the scope of relief. Plaintiffs ask the court to order Defendants to both reserve visas beyond the fiscal year and to renew FY 2020 diversity visas that lapse after the end of the fiscal year. The court considers each request in turn. Visa Reservation. Plaintiffs ask the court to order the State Department to reserve 30,000 diversity visas past September 30 pending final resolution of this matter. Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 14. Plaintiffs presumably arrive at that number by subtracting the number of diversity visas issued in FY 2020 as of September 24, 2020—15,401, see Grewe Decl. ¶ 6—from the eighteen-year average for diversity visas issued between FY 1998 and 2016—47,404, see Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 15. This means approximately 32,003 (47,404 – 15,401) fewer diversity visas have issued in FY 2020. Ordering the State Department to reserve 30,000 diversity visa
15

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 16 of 26
numbers would result in a total FY 2020 issuance that, Plaintiffs contend, “falls within the historical range of diversity visa issuance (though below the average), while reasonably balancing the challenges presented this fiscal year against the irreparable harms faced” by DV-2020 Selectees as a result of the State Department’s actions. Id. at 15.
The problem with Plaintiffs’ proposed number is that it asks the court to treat FY 2020 as if it were an “average” year. But, to state the obvious, it has been anything but average. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused worldwide operational disruptions of the State Department’s consular and visa processing operations. For example, from March 20, 2020, to July 15, 2020, the State Department’s COVID-19 Guidance was in effect, which “temporarily suspend[ed] routine visa services at all U.S. Embassies and Consulates” due to COVID-19, but continued to require posts to provide “emergency and mission critical visa services” as resources allowed. Gomez, 2020 WL 5367010, at *3. After July 15, 2020, the State Department began a phased re-opening dependent upon individual country health and safety conditions. See id. at *4.
The impact on visa processing has been substantial. Take, for example, the IR-1 and IR-2 visa categories, which are immigrant visas for spouses and children of U.S. citizens, respectively. These are not numerically capped visas, and they were not subject to the Presidential Proclamations’ restrictions on entry. Still, issuance of these visas fell dramatically in FY 2020. IR-1 visa issuance was down approximately 35% and IR-2 visa issuance was down approximately 41% from FY 2019. See Defs.’ Suppl. Report on Good Faith Efforts to Implement the Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 148 [hereinafter Defs.’ Second Suppl. Report], at 3. For those same categories, visa issuance fell by 76% and 73%, respectively, from March 21, 2020, to September 30, 2020, when compared to that same period in FY 2019. See id. There was an approximately 50% drop off in both categories from July 15, 2020, to September 30, 2020, when compared to that same period in
16

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 17 of 26
FY 2019. See id. These figures illustrate the substantial operational impact that COVID-19 has had on the State Department’s visa-processing capacity.
As a court of equity, the court cannot place Plaintiffs in a better position than they would have been in but for the State Department’s legal mistakes. At most, the court can endeavor to place Plaintiffs in the position they would have been in but for the errors. That requires the court to approximate how many DV-2020 visas the State Department likely would have issued had it continued visa adjudications under its substantially limited operations from March 20, 2020—the date of the COVID-19 Guidance—to September 9, 2020—the date embassies and consulates were advised to resume diversity visa processing as a result of this court’s order. Coming up with a reasonable estimate is hardly an exact science.
The percentage reduction in issued IR-1 and IR-2 visas during FY 2020 provides a helpful guide. Again, these are not visa categories subject to the Presidential Proclamations. So, presumably these visas were processed and adjudicated as health and safety conditions permitted in various embassies and consulates around the world. Even then, issuance of these visas fell by approximately 75% during the period of March 21, 2020, to September 30, 2020, compared to that same period in FY 2019. Defs.’ Second Suppl. Report at 3.
With respect to diversity visas, the State Department has advised that in FY 2019 it issued 44,882 diversity visas, of which 12,897 were issued between October 1, 2018, and March 20, 2019. Defs.’ Report on Good Faith Efforts to Implement the Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 136, at 6. That means the balance of 31,985 (44,882 – 12,897) FY 2019 diversity visas were issued between March 21, 2019, and September 30, 2019. The court can assume a similar increase in issuance would have unfolded in FY 2020 but for COVID-19, as the State Department had issued only 11,023 diversity visas as of March 20, 2020. See id. at 7. The court assumes that, but for the COVID-19 pandemic,
17

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 18 of 26
the State Department in FY 2020 would have issued an average number of diversity visas. The court will use the eighteen-year average figure of 47,404. That means that, but for COVID-19, the State Department would have issued an additional 36,381 (47,404 – 11,023) diversity visas between March 21, 2020, and September 30, 2020. The court further assumes that the issuance of diversity visas, if it had continued after March 20, 2020, would have been impacted by the pandemic to the same extent as the approximate 75% reduction that occurred in the IR-1 and IR-2 categories. Applying such reduction to the 36,381 projection yields a total of 9,095 visas that the State Department reasonably and realistically could have issued after March 20, 2020, through the end of the fiscal year.
The court will order the State Department to reserve 9,095 diversity visa numbers after September 30, 2020, pending final adjudication of this matter.4 Adding that number to the number of diversity visas already issued in FY 2020—15,401 through September 24, 2020, see Grewe Decl.¶ 6—could result in the issuance of a total of 24,496 DV-2020 visas, if Plaintiffs ultimately were to prevail. That is approximately 51% of the average of diversity visas issued over the last eighteen years (24,496 / 47,404). That percentage is slightly below the percentage of IR-1 (65%) and IR-2 (59%) visas issued in FY 2020 relative to FY 2019, see Defs.’ Second Suppl. Report at 3, but is nevertheless a reasonable estimate.
Visa Reissuance. Plaintiffs also ask for the court to order Defendants to renew DV-2020 visas after the end of the fiscal year, as necessary to permit the visa recipients a reasonable opportunity to use their visas to enter the country. See Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 18. The
4 The court recognizes that this final reservation figure does not credit the State Department for diversity visas issued following the agency’s implementation of the court’s September 4 Order. The court does not believe that a further reduction of this already rough approximation is warranted, however, as the equities favor reserving a greater number of DV-2020 visas to offset the State Department’s halting the processing and adjudication of visa applications for nearly six months.
18

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 19 of 26
court denies this request without prejudice. Plaintiffs have not shown how the post-deadline expiration (or the possible refusal to renew the visa) could be attributed to any action which the court has found to be unlawful. Absent this connection, equitable relief is unwarranted. Nor is it apparent that such relief is necessary at this juncture. Plaintiffs have explained that “[n]othing in the INA forecloses” the State Department from reissuing diversity visas after the fiscal year, and so the only apparent impediment is the State Department’s non-binding “policy of refusing to reissue diversity visas after the end of this fiscal year.” See Pls.’ Mot. for Suppl. Relief at 18 (citing FAM 504.10-5(A)). Should the State Department choose to enforce that policy in the future, then presumably the INA would not prevent Plaintiffs from seeking relief at that point.
B. Class Certification The court turns now to the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. See Pls.’ Renewed Class Cert. Mot. The court previously declined to certify a DV2020 subclass “because all proposed class members will benefit from the preliminary relief” afforded by the court under the Administrative Procedure Act. Gomez, 2020 WL 5367010, at *37. As discussed, the preliminary relief thus far fashioned has not been sufficient to remedy the harm caused by the State Department’s legal errors. That is particularly true for DV-2020 Selectees who are not Named Plaintiffs. Although some have benefited and received visas, thousands have not, and their lack of success at securing visa adjudication in the weeks since the court issued its order is well documented. See, e.g., Dahab Decl. ¶ 8(e) (indicating that in a survey of nearly 1,800 non-named plaintiff DV-2020 Selectees, over 1,450, or approximately 81 percent, reported that they either received no response to consular inquiries regarding expedited processing, or that they otherwise received indications that their applications would not be processed). Class certification is now required to place putative class members before the court as parties, see Molock v. Whole
19

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 20 of 26
Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 952 F.3d 293, 298 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“Putative class members become parties to an action . . . only after class certification.”), and to ensure their eligibility for the visa numbers that the court has ordered the State Department to reserve after September 30 pending final judgment, see Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 781–82. The court will grant the class certification motion in Gomez, but declines to do so for the class requested in Aker.
The Gomez Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class. The Gomez Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of DV-2020 Selectees pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(1)(A). They define the proposed class as follows:
Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect. Gomez Pls.’ Mot. for Class Certification, ECF No. 52, at 1 [hereinafter Gomez Pls.’ Class Mot.]. The Gomez Plaintiffs ask that the class representatives include Plaintiffs Fatma Bushati, Jodi Lynn Karpes, Shyam Sundar, Koirala, Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, and Aya Nakamura. See id. at 2. Rule 23, which governs class certification, permits certification only if: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”; (2) “there are questions of law or fact common to the class”; (3) “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class”; and (4) “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition to meeting these requirements, a class must satisfy at least one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs seek certification under subsections 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(1)(A). The former subsection allows certification of a class if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that
20

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 21 of 26
apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The latter subsection permits certification if “inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(1)(A).
The Gomez Plaintiffs easily satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements. The class consists of tens of thousands of DV-2020 Selectees, whose collective joinder is impracticable. There are questions of law common to the class, including but not limited to, whether the State Department’s No-Visa Policy as applied to DV-2020 Selectees is in accordance with the law or in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; whether the State Department unreasonably delayed in processing and adjudicating DV-2020 applications; and whether the treatment of DV-2020 Selectees as not “mission critical” under the agency’s COVID-19 Guidance was arbitrary and capricious. Gomez, 2020 WL 5367010, at *26–33. The class representatives’ claims are typical of the class as a whole, as the representatives and class members share the same interest and suffered the same injury— securing the otherwise stalled adjudication of their DV-2020 applications. See Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982). The representative parties will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, and class counsel are qualified to vigorously prosecute their interests. See Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The proposed class therefore satisfies the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation required under Rule 23(a).
Additionally, class certification is appropriate under both Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(1)(A). “Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class
21

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 22 of 26
member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360 (2011) (cleaned up). That criterion is satisfied here. Each class member seeks an injunction that prevents the State Department from implementing the No-Visa Policy and the COVID-19 Guidance against DV-2020 Selectees. They also seek the opportunity to have their diversity visa applications processed and adjudicated consistent with governing statutes and regulations after the end of the 2020 fiscal year. No class member asks the court to actually issue a visa. The requested injunctive relief thus applies uniformly across the class. Id. (stating that “the key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them” (cleaned up)).5
As for Rule 23(b)(1)(A), “certification is appropriate when the class seeks injunctive or declaratory relief to change an alleged ongoing course of conduct that is either legal or illegal as to all members of the class.” Adair v. England, 209 F.R.D. 5, 12 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.41[4] (3d ed. 2000)). “‘Rule 23(b)(1)(A) certification is most common’ in cases in which the class seeks declaratory or injunctive relief against the government ‘to provide unitary treatment to all members of a defined group.’” Id. (quoting 5 Moore’s § 23.41[4]). That is, of course, precisely the case here. Certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is thus appropriate for the same reasons as under Rule 23(b)(2).
5 The court recognizes that the number of class members exceeds the number of visas reserved by the court, meaning that many class members will not actually obtain a visa. That fact does not, however, defeat class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). See DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 128 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (stating that Rule 23(b)(2) “does not bar courts from granting further equitable relief that does not reach every plaintiff in the case” and “the requested relief must respond, at least in part, to a common harm suffered as a result of a policy or practice that affects each class member”).
22

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 23 of 26
Defendants advance a host of arguments in opposition to class certification, but none are persuasive. First, Defendants contend that none of the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs has standing to bring suit and therefore cannot serve as a representative of the class. Defs.’ Opp’n to Gomez Pls.’ Class Mot., ECF No. 95, at 13–15 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n to Class Mot.]. But the court already has held that Plaintiff Aya Nakamura has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of Article III standing. See Gomez, 2020 WL 5367010, at *11–12. She therefore can serve as a class representative. J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The [Article III] ‘one plaintiff’ rule presumably applies with equal force to a Rule 23(b)(2) class action advancing a uniform claim and seeking uniform injunctive and declaratory relief.”).6
Second, Defendants contend that the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the commonality requirement because the proposed class, as defined, “would sweep in a wide number of individuals who would be otherwise ineligible for an immigrant visa for any number of independent reasons, or who may not be able to receive an interview due to the suspension of consular services based on the ongoing worldwide pandemic.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Class Mot. at 16. But these differences do not defeat commonality. Plaintiffs need only show that one issue is common to all proposed class members in order to satisfy the commonality requirement. See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016). Here, there are multiple legal issues common to the class.
Third, Defendants argue that the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs have not come forward with “evidentiary proof” that the Named Plaintiffs can adequately represent the class. Defs.’ Opp’n to Class Mot. at 18. But the court has carefully analyzed the evidence concerning Plaintiff Nakamura
6 Defendants also premise their arguments regarding typicality, adequacy, Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(1)(A), in part, on the DV-2020 Plaintiffs’ purported lack of standing. See Defs.’ Opp’n to Class Mot. at 16–19. These contentions fail insofar as they rest on the standing argument already rejected by the court.
23

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 24 of 26
to establish her standing, and finds that the same proof shows her to be an adequate class representative.
Finally, Defendants contend that certification under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(1)(A) should be denied because “any single injunction or declaration of relief would not provide relief to each member of the class.” Id. at 28; id. at 29 (arguing that certification should be denied under Rule 22(b)(1)(A) because “a wide variety of factual circumstances” foreclose class-wide relief). That contention rests on the assertion that “Plaintiffs’ claims rely on too many case-specific allegations.” Id. at 28. But Defendants misconstrue what the Gomez DV-2020 Plaintiffs seek. They do not ask the court to order the State Department to issue visas to each class member. Rather, they seek the removal of unlawful State Department policies that stand in the way of their statutory right to have their DV-2020 applications adjudicated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (“All immigrant visa applications shall be reviewed and adjudicated by a consular officer.”); Almaqrami, 933 F.3d at 777 (observing that if a diversity visa selectee “meets the criteria to obtain one, the State Department ‘shall’ issue him a diversity visa”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)). Individual circumstances that might ultimately result in a visa denial or prevent a class member from completing visa processing for reasons unrelated to the challenged policies therefore do not impede certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(1)(A), the court certifies as a class, Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect.
The court also names as representatives of the class: Gomez Plaintiffs Fatma Bushati, Jodi Lynn Karpes, Koirala, Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, and Aya
24

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 25 of 26
Nakamura. Finally, under Rule 23(g), the Court appoints Karen C. Tumlin and Esther H. Sung of Justice Action Center; Stephen Manning, Nadia Dahab, Tess Hellgren, and Jordan Cunnings of Innovation Law Lab; Jesse Bless of American Immigration Lawyers Association; and Laboni Hoq of the Law Office of Laboni A. Hoq as class counsel.
The Aker Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class. The Aker Plaintiffs request certification of a class that would consist of “all individual diversity visa immigrant applicants and their derivative beneficiaries whose diversity visas were issued prior to Presidential Proclamations 10052 and/or 10014 taking effect, but who were unable to enter the United States due to travel restrictions and who have subsequently been unable to obtain reissuance of their visas through the individual consulates of the Department of State pursuant to the Presidential Proclamations.” Mot. for Class Cert. & Supporting Mem., ECF No. 84 (emphasis added). By its own terms, the requested Aker class does not include DV-2020 Selectees whose visas were not issued before the Proclamations went into effect; it includes only applicants who received diversity visas that have since expired. The court’s September 4 Order required the State Department to renew visas that had expired but were not renewed due to the Proclamations.
The court declines to certify the Aker class for two main reasons. First, it is unclear how many DV-2020 Selectees who meet the definition of the proposed Aker class continue to be without a renewed visa and thus face ongoing harm resulting from the State Department’s prior actions. Without even an approximation of how many DV-2020 Selectees are awaiting a renewed visa, the court cannot make a numerosity or typicality assessment. Second, the need for class relief is not apparent. As discussed, for DV-2020 Selectees who have yet to obtain a visa, class certification is necessary to affect their party status before the court and to ensure their eligibility for reserved visa numbers after September 30. The same cannot be said for the proposed Aker
25

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 151 Filed 09/30/20 Page 26 of 26
class. The court has received no information that a reserved visa number is necessary to renew a visa (as distinct from issuing one in the first instance). And, according to Plaintiffs, there is no legal impediment to renewing a visa after the end of the fiscal year. Thus, the relief that is driving the need for class certification for the Gomez proposed class is missing for the proposed Aker class. The Aker Plaintiffs have thus failed to carry their burden under Rule 23 to certify a class. III. CONCLUSION AND AMENDED ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ request for supplemental relief, ECF No. 146, and orders the State Department to reserve 9,095 diversity visa numbers after September 30, 2020, for the future processing of the Named Plaintiffs’ and classmembers’ diversity visa applications, pending final adjudication of this matter.
The court also grants the Gomez Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 144, and certifies the following class:
Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect. The court names as representatives of the class and appoints as class counsel those individuals identified in Section II.B. of this opinion. The Aker Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge

26

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 101

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ,
MIRNA S.,
VICENTA S.,
NAZIF ALAM c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
NANCY ABARCA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
FATMA BUSHATI c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
IWUNDU ÉPOUSE KOUADIO IJEOMA GOLDEN c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNIGUET JIMÉNEZ c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
JODI LYNN KARPES c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 101
SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
FARANGIS KURBONOVA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
AYA NAKAMURA c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
LOIDA PHELPS c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
M.S.1 c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
ANGELA SINON c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 101
3Q DIGITAL c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC. c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC. c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
POWERTRUNK, INC. c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC. c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006
SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. c/o Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
1 A motion for leave for Plaintiff M.S. to proceed pseudonymously is forthcoming.
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 101
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. On June 22, 2020, President Trump signed a proclamation (the “June Proclamation”) that, with the stroke of a pen, eliminates for the rest of the year—and for an indefinite period going forward—a vast portion of the country’s immigration system. The White House itself estimates that the President’s action will block approximately 525,000 workauthorized individuals from coming to the United States by the end of the year. Experts estimate, based on data from prior years, that the Proclamation will prevent approximately 20,000 employers from bringing needed workers into the United States. 2. The Proclamation is part of a series of measures intended to achieve the goal of substantially shutting down congressionally authorized immigration to the United States. In addition to the ban of immigrants and the ban of nonimmigrants effectuated by the Proclamation, the Administration has significantly reduced refugee and asylee admissions to the United States, taken multiple steps to remove international students from the United States, indefinitely closed U.S. consulates around the world and announced the furlough of approximately 80% of the employees of USCIS. 3. Through the latest Proclamation, the President has indefinitely separated families, thrown the business plans of U.S. companies into chaos, eliminated visa categories that allow hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals to live and work in the United States, and rejected decades of Congressional judgments on the terms and conditions upon which individuals may come to this country. 4. The Proclamation extended and expanded an earlier April 22, 2020 ban on the entry of immigrants (the “April Proclamation,” and together with the June Proclamation, “the Proclamations”). The President seeks to justify this action by pointing to the “extraordinary
1
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 101
economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak” and by professing a need to “protect unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents” and foreign-born workers. Based on the assertion that the nation’s immigration system “lack[s] sufficient alternative means” to address this problem, the June Proclamation effectively eliminates most of the family- and employment-based immigrant visa categories, the diversity visa program, and the H-1B, H-2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa programs. The June Proclamation will remain in effect for the rest of the year and enables the President to continue these entry bans thereafter as long as he deems them “necessary.”
5. The June Proclamation’s entry bans, however, rest on a fatal, flawed assumption: that there is a fixed number of jobs in this country for which competition is a zero-sum game, such that the admission of immigrants and foreign-born workers necessarily “poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery.” But Congress has already rejected that premise, and so has the overwhelming weight of economic research. There is no evidence showing that immigrants and foreign-born workers “displace” U.S. workers, while there is overwhelming evidence that immigrants and foreign-born workers create additional jobs in the United States by consuming goods and services, innovating, and contributing to human and physical capital formation, all of which are essential to long-term and sustained economic growth.
6. The June Proclamation’s entry restrictions are irrational, undermining its asserted goals of protecting U.S. workers and aiding the country’s economic recovery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The ban affects foreign-born workers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers upon whom the economy relies on for stability and continued growth, and hamstrings U.S. companies around the country from effectively managing their labor needs. For example, it prevents frontline physicians who would be represented by Plaintiff SEIU Healthcare (CIR) from
2
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 101
entering the country in the midst of a pandemic. It also prevents Plaintiff PowerTrunk, Inc.—a communications technology innovator that sells novel and exclusive technology to entities such as New Jersey Transit and Los Angeles International Airport—from bringing to the United States its most qualified and knowledgeable employee.
7. The June Proclamation’s entry suspensions also ban thousands of individuals who are not authorized (or who do not intend) to work in the United States, and who therefore cannot contribute to the purported labor-market problem that the Proclamation is supposedly meant to address. Banning entry of such individuals only prevents them from contributing their purchasing power to the U.S. economy. Instead of protecting the U.S. labor force, the June Proclamation endangers the country’s economy—to the ultimate detriment of U.S. workers.
8. Even apart from harming the economy and reducing U.S. companies’ global competitiveness, the June Proclamation inflicts an intolerable human cost by separating thousands of families, in defiance of one of the bedrock principles of our country’s immigration system— family unification. For many families who were on the cusp of reuniting, the June Proclamation prolongs their separation, preventing husbands and wives, parents and children, and grandparents and grandchildren from starting their lives together in the United States. For example, Plaintiff Nazif Alam has been separated from his wife for two years already—and if she is not admitted into the country soon, she will lose her opportunity to pursue a Master’s degree at Cornell University. Plaintiff Carmen Ligia Pimentel is due to have her first child in a matter of weeks, even as her husband has been stranded in the Dominican Republic.
9. The effects on winners of the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery program are even more extreme. By virtue of winning the lottery, these individuals secured a statutorily guaranteed, oncein-a-lifetime opportunity to immigrate to the United States. But in order for these individuals to
3
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 101
realize that congressionally created opportunity, their visas must issue by a statutorily mandated deadline of September 30, 2020 (the end of the 2020 fiscal year). Because the June Proclamation extends beyond that deadline, and because Defendants have implemented the Proclamations to forbid not only entry but also the antecedent step of issuing a visa, the result is to unilaterally and permanently revoke diversity lottery winners’ visa eligibility. And that in turn will mean that highly qualified visa applicants from around the world—from Gambia and Cote D’Ivoire, Albania and Tajikistan, Nepal and Japan—may never have the opportunity either to pursue their American dreams or to promote Congress’s goal of increasing the diversity of this country’s immigrant populations.
10. All of this is unlawful. Congress has already considered and rejected the immigration cuts the President seeks to implement unilaterally through the June Proclamation. Over the course of seven decades, Congress consistently has maintained and expanded the U.S. immigration system, even in the face of severe economic contractions, striking a considered balance between protecting domestic jobs and encouraging immigration to reunify families, promote diversity, and give domestic employers the necessary tools to manage their workforces and weather economic downturns. The June Proclamation seeks to unilaterally rewrite the federal immigration laws, imposing new and harsh restrictions that Congress has refused to adopt. In so doing, the June Proclamation contravenes multiple provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), exceeds the scope of the President’s statutory authority, and violates the separation-ofpowers and due-process principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
11. Plaintiffs challenge the June Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation of it, under this Court’s inherent authority to review executive actions that exceed the President’s authority, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 101
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue appropriate declaratory relief, and that it preliminarily and permanently enjoin the June Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation thereof, in their entirety.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has additional remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because (a) this is a civil action in which Defendants are the President and federal officers and agencies of the United States, (b) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Columbia, and (c) Defendants are headquartered in this district. 14. Plaintiffs have standing to sue. Defendants’ actions are causing and will continue to cause Plaintiffs imminent, concrete, and irreparable injuries-in-fact, as detailed herein, by preventing the individual Plaintiffs and the beneficiaries of the sponsoring Plaintiffs from obtaining visas and entering the country, despite the fact that these individuals would be granted those benefits if not for the June Proclamation. Defendants’ actions are depriving the employer Plaintiffs of the critical services and expertise provided by the foreign nationals who are unable to obtain visas because of the June Proclamation. And Defendants’ actions are depriving the institutional Plaintiffs of the funding they would have received from the entry of foreign nationals who are unable to obtain visas because of the June Proclamation. The requested relief will redress these injuries-in-fact by allowing these individuals to obtain the immigration benefits for which they are otherwise eligible.
5
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 9 of 101
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Nazif Alam is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in New York, New York. He has sponsored his wife, a citizen of Bangladesh, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for spouses of lawful permanent residents. Mr. Alam and his wife are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Alam is classified as an essential worker, and his work and well-being have been adversely affected by his inability to bring his wife to join him in the United States. 16. Plaintiff Carmen Ligia Pimentel is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in Houston, Texas. She has sponsored her husband, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for spouses of lawful permanent residents. Ms. Pimentel is pregnant with the couple’s first child, who will be born on approximately July 31, 2020. Ms. Pimentel and her husband are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Pimentel has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her husband to join her in the United States to support her through her pregnancy and to join her for the birth of their child. 17. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in Lawrence, Massachusetts. He has sponsored his unmarried minor children, aged 12 and 17, who are both citizens of the Dominican Republic, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for children of lawful permanent residents. Mr. Lebron and his children are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr.
6
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 10 of 101
Lebron has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his children to join him in the United States.
18. Plaintiff Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo is a U.S. citizen residing in Houston, Texas. He has sponsored his father, a citizen of Nigeria, for an immigrant visa as an immediate relative. Mr. Nwankwo and his father are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Nwankwo has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his father to join him in the United States.
19. Plaintiff Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jiménez is a U.S. lawful permanent resident residing in Hoover Alabama. He has sponsored his unmarried minor son, a citizen of Chile, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for the children of lawful permanent residents. Mr. Sarniguet Jimenez and his son are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Sarniguet Jimenez has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his son to join him in the United States.
20. Plaintiff Angela Sinon is a U.S. citizen residing in White Plains, New York. She has sponsored her unmarried adult son, a citizen of the Philippines, for an immigrant visa in the family-based, second preference category for the adult sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents. Ms. Sinon is elderly and a single parent, who relies on her adult son for all of her basic life activities. Ms. Sinon and her adult son are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Sinon has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her adult son to join her in the United States.
21. Plaintiff Loida Phelps is a citizen of the United States residing in Glen Burnie, Maryland. She has sponsored her daughter, a citizen of the Philippines, for lawful permanent residence in the family-based, second preference category for the unmarried sons and daughters of
7
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 11 of 101
U.S. citizens. Ms. Phelps’s petition on behalf of her daughter also includes her daughter’s three children. Ms. Phelps and her daughter are unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation, and the daughter’s oldest child—Ms. Phelps’s grandchild—could “age out” during the validity of the Proclamation. Ms. Phelps has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her daughter and grandchildren to join her in the United States.
22. Plaintiff Nancy Abarca is a citizen of the United States residing in Maryland Heights, Missouri. She has sponsored her brother, a citizen of the Philippines, for lawful permanent residence in the family-based, fourth preference category for the brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens. Ms. Abarca’s brother is married to a citizen of the Philippines, and the couple has two children, born in 1996 and 1999. The family is unable to complete the immigrant visa process because of the June Proclamation, and its younger child could “age out” during the validity of the Proclamation. Ms. Abarca has been adversely affected by her inability to bring her brother and his family to join her in the United States.
23. Plaintiff M.S. is a citizen of the United States residing in San Francisco, California. He has sponsored his son, a citizen of Yemen, for lawful permanent residence in the family-based, third preference category for the married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. M.S.’s petition on behalf of his son also included his son’s spouse and children. M.S.’s son is unable to complete the immigrant visa process for his 10-year-old child—M.S.’s grandchild—because of the June Proclamation. M.S. has been adversely affected by his inability to bring his grandchild to join him in the United States.
24. Plaintiff Fatma Bushati is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Albania residing in Shkodra, Albania. Ms. Bushati submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable complete the immigrant visa
8
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 12 of 101
process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Bushati has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
25. Plaintiff Jodi Lynn Karpes is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of South Africa residing in Johannesburg, South Africa. Ms. Karpes submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Karpes has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
26. Plaintiff Shyam Sundar Koirala is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Nepal residing in Kathmandu, Nepal. Mr. Koirala submitted an immigrant visa application based on his selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Mr. Koirala has been adversely affected by the delay in his application to immigrate to the United States.
27. Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Tajikistan residing in Khujand, Tajikistan. Ms. Kurbonova submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Kurbonova has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
28. Plaintiff Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Gambia residing in Banjul, Gambia. Ms. Kinteh submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the
9
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 13 of 101
immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Kinteh has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
29. Plaintiff Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Cote D’Ivoire residing in Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire. Ms. Iwundu submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Iwundu has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
30. Plaintiff Aya Nakamura is an applicant for an immigrant visa and a citizen of Japan residing in Tokyo, Japan. Ms. Nakamura submitted an immigrant visa application based on her selection in the FY 2020 Diversity Visa lottery, but is unable to complete the immigrant visa application process because of the June Proclamation. Ms. Nakamura has been adversely affected by the delay in her application to immigrate to the United States.
31. Plaintiff 3Q Digital is a digital marketing agency headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, with other offices in San Francisco, Denver, Austin, San Diego, Raleigh, and Charlottesville. 3Q Digital has 330 employees in the United States, consisting of U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals. 3Q Digital has petitioned for H-1B visa status to employ a citizen of India in the United States in a specialty occupation position. The petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but the candidate is unable to secure the required H-1B visa and travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. 3Q Digital has been adversely affected by the inability of the candidate to begin work in the United States.
32. Plaintiff ASSE International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit. ASSE is engaged in a private-public partnership with the Department of State
10
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 14 of 101
to manage and administer exchange visitor programs that use the J-1 nonimmigrant visa category. Because the June Proclamation forbids the entry of individuals on J-1 visas – the type of visa used by participants in ASSE’s exchange programs—and because the Department of State has decided to implement the June Proclamation by no longer issuing J-1 visas, the June Proclamation has stopped ASSE from continuing to operate its programs and ASSE has been forced to provide refunds totaling more than a million dollars to host companies that would have employed its interns or trainees. ASSE is currently receiving no income because of the June Proclamation, has been forced to terminate 5 of its 33 full-time employees, and has placed an additional 3 employees on furlough effective August 1, 2020. Because of the June Proclamation, ASSE has been adversely affected by its inability to conduct its exchange program.
33. Plaintiff EurAuPair International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit. EurAuPair is engaged in a private-public partnership with the Department of State to manage and administer an exchange visitor program that uses the J-1 nonimmigrant visa category. EurAuPair runs an exchange visitor program for au pairs, who come to the United States on J-1 nonimmigrant visas. The J-1 au pair program allows qualified parents or guardians, who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and who have a child for the au pair to look after, the opportunity to host an au pair in their home. Because of the June Proclamation, EurAuPair cannot conduct is exchange visitor program for au pairs. It is currently receiving no income, has been forced to terminate 3 of its 11 full-time employees, and has placed another two employees on furlough effective August 1, 2020. EurAuPair has been adversely affected by its inability to conduct its program due to the June Proclamation.
34. Plaintiff SEIU Healthcare (CIR) is a labor organization headquartered in Long Island City, New York. CIR is the largest housestaff union in the country, representing
11
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 15 of 101
approximately 17,000 physicians in California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Washington, D.C. Its members regularly include interns and residents working in hospitals in H-1B nonimmigrant visa status as specialty occupational professionals. Its members also regularly include interns and residents working in hospitals in J-1 nonimmigrant visa status. CIR’s members and future members normally travel to the United States in June and July. CIR’s future members have been unable to travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. CIR has been adversely affected by the inability of its future members to enter the United States, and CIR’s current members have been adversely affected by the increased hours they have to work to make up for the loss of physicians who should have arrived on H-1B and J-1 visas.
35. Plaintiff PowerTrunk, Inc. is a commercial radio equipment company headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. PowerTrunk supplies radio equipment used by transit systems nationwide, including the New Jersey Transit Corporation, NY Metropolitan Transit Authority, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport. PowerTrunk has eleven employees, who include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals. PowerTrunk petitioned for L-1B visa status to employ a citizen of Spain in the United States in a specialty occupation position. The petition was approved by USCIS, but the candidate is unable to secure the required L-1 visa and travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. PowerTrunk has been adversely affected by the inability of the candidate to begin work in the United States.
36. Plaintiff Shipco Transport Inc. (Shipco) is headquartered in Chatham, New Jersey. Shipco is one of the world’s leading neutral Non-Vessel Operating Carriers (NVOCC). Shipco has 21 branch offices and 425 employees in the United States, consisting of
12
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 16 of 101
US citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visa holders. Shipco has petitioned for L-1A status to employ a citizen of Denmark in the United States in a managerial position. The petition was approved by USCIS, but the candidate is unable to secure the required L-1 visa and travel to the United States because of the June Proclamation. Shipco has been adversely affected by the inability of the candidate to begin work in the United States.
37. Plaintiff Superior Scape, Inc. (Superior) is headquartered in Shelby Township, Michigan. Superior is a landscape contractor. Superior has a year-round staff of 14 employees, as well as 50-55 seasonal workers during peak periods. Its workforce consists of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visa holders. Superior submitted applications for labor certification to the U.S. Department of Labor for a pool of H-2B seasonal, non-agricultural workers. The applications were certified, but Superior has been unable to proceed with H-2B sponsorship for these workers because of the June Proclamation. Superior has been adversely affected by the inability of the H-2B workers to begin work in the United States.
38. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. In that capacity, he issued the Presidential Proclamation challenged in this lawsuit.
39. Defendant William Barr is the Attorney General of the United States and has responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103. He is sued in his official capacity.
40. Defendant Department of State (DOS) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant visas abroad. The Proclamations assign DOS a variety of responsibilities regarding their implementation and enforcement.
13
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 17 of 101
41. Defendant Michael Pompeo is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamations by all DOS staff. He is sued in his official capacity.
42. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. The Proclamations assign DHS a variety of responsibilities regarding their implementation and enforcement.
43. Defendant Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamations by all Department of Homeland Security staff. He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS STATUTORY BACKGROUND 44. The INA was enacted in 1952 and has since been amended several times. The 1965 amendment created the version of the INA that endures today. That amendment established “a new system of selection designed to be fair, rational, humane, and in the national interest,” S. Rep. No. 89-748 (1965), as reprinted in 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328, 3332, which Congress “approached with foresight and caution.” H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), as reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1678. This new system was the product of “painstaking study, as well as careful weighing of equities, human rights, and continuous consideration of the social, economic, and security
14
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 18 of 101
interests of the people of the United States.” H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), as reprinted in 1952
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1678.2
45. The comprehensive system that Congress created in the INA expresses and reflects
Congress’s intent that foreign nationals who meet certain qualifications may come to the United
States to further four principal goals: promoting family reunification, admitting immigrants with
skills that are useful to the U.S. economy, protecting foreigners in need of humanitarian relief, and
increasing diversity. Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 580 (D. Or. 2019); see also Elkins v.
Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 664 (1978); H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990), as reprinted in 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710 (summarizing statutory history).
46. To serve those goals, Congress has prioritized admission of family members to
support its goal of “preservation of the family unit,” H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), as reprinted
in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1680,3 established an annual “diversity visa” lottery program for the
express purpose of “maintain[ing] an ongoing diverse flow of immigrants,” 136 Cong Rec. H-
8629-02 1990,4 created the J exchange visa “to promote a better understanding of the United States
2 Pub. L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (amending 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, Sections 1101, 1151-57, 1181-82, 1201, 1254-55, 1259, 1322, 1351). 3 See, e.g., Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-395, 114 Stat. 1631 (2000) (H.R. 2883) (amending INA to confer U.S. citizenship automatically and retroactively to certain foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizens); Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000, Title IX of Pub. L. No. 106-553, § 1103, 114 Stat. 2762 (2000); Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 3359 (1965) (granting 74 percent of all immigrant visas to family reunification categories); see also Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879, 886 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “Congress’s general purpose in enacting [8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) on sibling immigration] was to keep families intact . . . .”); see also Philip E. Wolgin, “Family Reunification is the Bedrock of U.S. Immigration Policy,” Center for American Progress (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2018/02/12/446402/familyreunification-bedrock-u-s-immigration-policy/. 4 See also, e.g., Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (2000) (VTVPA, precursor to TVPRA); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
15
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 19 of 101
in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries,” H.R. Rep. No. 87-271, at 21 (1961),5 and put in place the L visa to allow multi-national employers to bring managers, executives, and employees with specialized knowledge to the United States on a temporary basis, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L); see also id. § 1184(c)(2)(F).
47. The INA also authorizes the issuance each year of tens of thousands of temporary H nonimmigrant visas for workers in a wide range of occupations and industries, as well as for those workers’ families. Such visas are subject to strict numerical visa caps, specific visaeligibility criteria, and strong enforcement mechanisms to “facilitat[e] the migration of professional, managerial, and skilled foreign workers without adversely affecting U.S. workers and U.S. students entering the labor market.”6 Among other things, Congress has prescribed a comprehensive set of inadmissibility provisions designed to protect American workers. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) (foreign nationals seeking to “perform[] skilled or unskilled labor” are inadmissible unless the Secretary of Labor certifies that “there are not sufficient [U.S.] workers”
Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (IIRIRA); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c). 5 See, e.g., 22 U.S.C. §§ 2451-2464 (establishing various educational and cultural exchange programs). 6 Ruth Ellen Wasem, “Temporary Professional, Managerial, and Skilled Foreign Workers: Policy and Trends,” Congressional Research Service, at 1 (Jan. 13, 2016), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43735.pdf.
16
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 20 of 101
to perform the same job, and that their admission “will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed”).
Immigrant Visas 48. The INA’s immigrant visa provisions reflect Congress’s intent to permit “worldwide level of immigration,” 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a), based on, among other things, an allocation of family-based immigrant visas “made available to individuals who have family members in the United States” and diversity-based immigrant visas “to promote diversity in our current immigration system.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. I (1990) as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6715, 6728.
Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens 49. Recognizing that it is “antifamily to allow . . . long separations” of family members, 136 Cong. Rec. H-8629-02 (1990), the INA makes available visas for “immediate relatives”—the parents, spouses, and unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b). 50. Affirming that “family reunification” is “the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy” and serves the “national interest,” Congress has prioritized the admission of these “immediate relatives” by excepting the visas available to them from any numerical limits. Id. As a practical matter, this means that immigrant visas are always immediately available to qualified immediate relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
Family-based Preference Visas 51. Apart from visas for immediate relatives, family-based immigrant visas are available in four delineated “preference” categories based on the familial relationship between the sponsor and the beneficiary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a). Derivative spouses and unmarried minor
17
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 21 of 101
children are entitled to the same preference category as the “principal” beneficiary. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d); 9 FAM 502.2-3(C)(a).7
52. Congress has allocated an annual minimum of 226,000 family-based preference visas, and an annual maximum of 480,000 such visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(c)(1)(B)(ii). In addition, each foreign country is limited to 7 percent of the total number of family-based preference visas made available in any given year, unless there are visas available that would otherwise go unused. 8 U.S.C. § 1152. The actual number of family-based visas issued in a particular preference category varies from year to year and depends in part on how many visas are granted in other preference categories. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153.
53. Family-based visas are distributed to eligible applicants through a complex system of queues; thus, an intending immigrant must wait in line for a visa to become available before he or she may apply to receive it. Because the demand for visas regularly exceeds supply, persons eligible for visas in the preference categories must often wait years, or even decades, for the opportunity to immigrate to the United States. See Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41, 48 (2014).
54. Congress expressly considered the impact of family-based immigration on the labor market when it created the modern-day family preference visa system. At the time that Congress drafted and enacted the Immigration Act of 1990, it relied on the nation’s top economists to conclude that increased family-based immigration, and therefore overall levels of immigration, benefits the U.S. economy. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6717.
7 “FAM” refers to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which is available at https://fam.state.gov/.
18
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 22 of 101

Diversity visas 55. Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-649) amended the INA 203 to provide for a new class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” to “enhance and promote” the diversity of immigration to the United States. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1, at 48 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6728. 56. Through the INA, Congress has made up to 55,000 diversity visas available each year. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e). To be eligible for a diversity visa, an applicant must be a citizen of a country with low levels of immigration to the United States, as determined by the Attorney General,8 and must have either a high school diploma or two years of qualifying work experience. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1)–(2). 57. Applicants enter a random and always over-subscribed visa lottery, which is held once each fiscal year. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33. For fiscal year 2018, approximately 14.7 million people entered the lottery with the hopes of winning one of the 55,000 available visa slots.9 Thus, any individual entrant had about a 0.37 percent chance at winning the lottery. In other words, an individual entering the lottery every year may expect to win once every 267 years. 58. Assuming that a lottery winner submits the requisite documentation and is found admissible to the United States, he or she must be granted a visa. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), 1153(e)(2); 22 C.F.R. § 40.6. In the interests of preserving family unity, a lottery winner’s spouse

8 For example, forty percent of diversity visas have traditionally gone to African countries, which

are underrepresented in other immigrant categories. See American Immigration Council, “The

Diversity Immigrant Visa Program:

An Overview,” (Nov. 2017),

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_diversity_immigran

t_visa_program_an_overview.pdf.

9 See U.S. Dep’t of State, Diversity Visa Program, DV 2016-2018: Number of Entries Received During Each Online Registration Period by Country of Chargeability, https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/DiversityVisa/DVStatistics/DV%20AES%20statistics %20by%20FSC%202016-2018.pdf.

19

AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 23 of 101
and unmarried minor children may also immigrate through the program as derivatives. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(e), 1153(d). Once the visa issues, it is normally valid for a maximum of six months. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(c).
59. By statute, a diversity lottery winner must receive his or her visa by the end of the federal government’s fiscal year (September 30) for the year in which he or she has won the lottery. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). Failure to obtain the visa by that date results in permanent loss of the opportunity to immigrate based on that year’s lottery. Id. There is no provision for extension of this deadline. Although a person who misses the deadline may enter subsequent lotteries, the chance of winning again is miniscule.
Nonimmigrant Visas 60. In addition to permanent immigrant visas, Congress has created temporary nonimmigrant visas for the purpose of meeting “the demands of American business in the international marketplace.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, pt. 1 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710. These visa categories, which include the H, J, and L categories described below, enable U.S. employers to sponsor foreign nationals to come and work in the United States on a temporary basis. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H), (J), (L). In creating and expanding these temporary nonimmigrant visa categories, Congress has recognized the “principle that labor markets have demonstrated time and time again: additional people entering the labor force, whether native-born students out of school, immigrants, or nonimmigrants, expand job
20
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 24 of 101

opportunities and create other jobs through innovation, entrepreneurship, and money spent on consumer items like food, clothing, and housing.” S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 12 (2000).
H Visas 61. Congress established the H visa category to allow the entry of three different categories of temporary workers: (1) workers “of distinguished merit and ability” who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services of an exceptional nature requiring such merit and ability”; (2) workers who are “coming temporarily to the United States to perform other temporary services or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country; and (3) workers who are “coming temporarily to the United States as an industrial trainee.” Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952), Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
H-1B Visas 62. The H-1B visa category allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign professionals in “specialty occupation[s]” requiring “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge” and a “bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent).” 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1); see id. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). H-1B positions for workers in specialty occupations primarily fall within occupations in the “STEM” (science, technology, engineering, and math) and computer-related fields.10 63. For an H-1B visa to issue, a sponsoring employer must commit to pay the prospective visa recipient a minimum salary of $60,000, and must attest, in a Labor Condition

10 Alex Nowrasteh, “Don’t Ban H-1B Workers: They Are Worth Their Weight in Innovation,”

Cato at Liberty (May 14, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-ban-h-1b-workers-they-are-

worth-their-weight-patents; see also Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers,

USCIS

(Mar.

5,

2020),

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/reports-

studies/Characteristics_of_Specialty_Occupation_Workers_H-1B_Fiscal_Year_2019.pdf.

21

AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 25 of 101
Application (LCA), that the employer will pay the employee the “prevailing wage” for his or her occupation; will provide working conditions that would not affect the working conditions of other similarly employed workers; and has provided notice of the LCA to its currently employed workers so that they may file a complaint if the employment of the H-1B worker adversely affects their own wages or working conditions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.731, 655.732, 655.733, 655.736.
64. In addition, any “H-1B dependent employer”—an employer for whom H-1B skilled workers constitute a specified minimum percentage of its workforce, depending on the size of the business—must also affirm in its LCA that hiring an H-1B worker would not displace any U.S. workers and that it has taken good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job for which it seeks the H-1B worker. 20 C.F.R. § 655.739; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n).
65. The maximum number of H-1B visas (cap and cap-exempt) that may be issued is currently 85,000 per year. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1184(g)(1)(a), 1184(g)(5)(C).
66. The spouses and minor children of H-1B sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on H-4 visas. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv); Pub. L. No. 91-225, 84 Stat. 116 (1970). The status of H-4 derivatives depends on the continued employment of the H-1B employee. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
67. Most H-4 derivative visa holders are not legally authorized to work in the United States. Only H-4 spouses (not H-4 children) may obtain such authorization, and they may do so only by applying for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which is generally available only if the H-1B visa holder has an approved I-140 petition to obtain a permanent immigrant visa. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
22
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 26 of 101
H-2B Visas 68. H-2B visas allow U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals “to perform temporary service or labor” in non-agricultural sectors “if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).11 In creating the H-2B visa category for temporary non-agricultural workers in 1990, Congress stressed that “[t]he essential feature of the H-2[B] program” is “the requirement that efforts be made to find domestic workers before admitting workers from abroad” and that “the importation of foreign workers will not be allowed if it would adversely effect [sic] the wages and working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-682, pt. 1. (1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5684. 69. To sponsor and hire an H-2B temporary worker, an employer must receive an approved labor certification from the Department of Labor, confirming that no U.S. workers are available and that the employment of an H-2B worker will not adversely affect the wage rate and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A)-(D), (6)(iv)(A). The employer must also establish that the need for an H-2B employee is temporary— in other words, that the need is “for a limited period of time” that “will end in the near, definable future.” Id. § 214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B). 70. The Immigration Act of 1990 imposed an annual cap of 66,000 H-2B visas that remains in place today. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(1)(B).
11 Agricultural workers fall under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa category. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The June Proclamation’s entry suspension does not apply to such workers. See generally June Proclamation § 2.
23
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 27 of 101
71. Although the spouses and minor children of H-2B sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on H-4 visas, it is rare for H-2B workers to bring family on H-4 visas.12
J Visas 72. Congress created the J visa category in 1961 in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (Fulbright-Hays Act) “to enable the Government of the United States to promote a better understanding of the United States in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries.” H.R. Rep. No. 87-721, at 21 (1961). See also Pub. L. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (1961). 73. The INA makes J-1 visas available to a variety of individuals, including students, scholars, trainees, teachers, professors, research assistants, specialists, and leaders in fields of specialized knowledge or skill, to pursue temporary work in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J). Implementing regulations have created J-1 visa programs for, among others, trainees and interns, 22 C.F.R. § 62.22; teachers, id. § 62.24; camp counselors, id. § 62.30; au pairs, id. § 62.31; and summer students in work/travel programs, id. § 22.62.32. 74. The summer work/travel program has a cap of 109,000 visas per year. Employers who seek to hire summer students in this program, as well as employers seeking to hire interns and trainees, must certify that in doing so they “will not displace U.S. workers at worksites where they will place program participants.” Id. § 62.32(n)(3); see also id. § 62.22(f)(2). Employers who hire summer students in work/travel programs also must confirm that they “have not experienced layoffs in the past 120 days and do not have workers on lockout or strike.” Id. § 62.32(n)(3).
12 David J. Bier, “The Facts About H-4 Visas for Spouses of H-1B Workers,” Cato at Liberty (June 16, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/facts-about-h-4-visas-spouses-h-1b-workers
24
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 28 of 101
75. The spouses and minor children of J-1 sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on J-2 visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J). J-2 spouses are not automatically entitled to work in the United States but may seek employment authorization. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(j)(1)(v)(B).
L Visas 76. Congress established the L visa category in 1970 to allow multinational corporations to transfer executives, managers, or employees with “specialized knowledge” to an office here in the United States on a temporary basis. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 77. To qualify for an L visa, an employee must have been employed abroad by the sponsoring employer for at least one year. Id. L-1A visas are available to managers and executives. Id. L-1B visas are available to workers with specialized knowledge, either of the company’s product and its application in international markets, or of the company’s processes and procedures. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). L visas are approved in the first instance for a maximum of three years. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(11). An employer may renew an L-1A visa for a manager or executive for up to 7 years, and an L-1B visa for a worker with specialized knowledge for up to 5 years. 78. The spouses and minor children of L-1 sponsored employees may accompany those employees to the United States as derivatives on L-2 visas, which Congress created at the same time as L-1 visas. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). To avoid discouraging critical L-1 employees from relocating to this country, the statute categorically permits spouses on L-2 visas to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(E). L-2 children, however, are not eligible for such work authorization.
25
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 29 of 101
79. Congress has not imposed numerical limits on L-1 visas and has allowed multinational companies to bring into the United States as many of their foreign employees as necessary, so long as the employees meet the visa’s requirements.
80. According to the Congressional Research Service, the L-1 visa is “essential to retaining and expanding international businesses in the United States.”13 When investigating whether L-1 visa holders have displaced U.S. workers, the Office of the Inspector General of DHS found that claims of job displacement “do not seem to represent a significant trend.”14
81. U.S. companies rely on H-1B, H-2B and L-1 employees. For example, entire projects are dependent upon the ability of U.S. employers to transfer L-1B employees to bring knowledge of the foreign company’s operations to the U.S. Companies transfer L-1A executives and managers as an integral part of their plans for starting or expanding operations in the United States. H-1B employers pay substantial fees to the government and to attorneys and go through a lengthy, multi-tier process to assure themselves of the availability of H-1B workers who are needed for specific projects.
82. Congress has in recent years repeatedly refused to enact legislation that would have limited legal immigration and visa issuance. Specifically, the proposed Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act was introduced in February 2017 (S. 354) and was later reintroduced in August 2017 (S.B. 1720) and in 2019 (H.R. 2278). The proposed legislation would have (among other things) eliminated all family sponsorship beyond spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents; reduced the visa allocation for
13 See supra note 7. 14 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Office of the Inspector General, Review of Vulnerabilities and Potential Abuses of the L-1 Visa Program, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_0622_Jan06.pdf (last visited on July 17, 2020).
26
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 30 of 101
family-based visas by more than 60 percent; eliminated the diversity lottery; and moved to “meritbased” point immigration system. The legislation failed every time it was introduced.
THE APRIL PROCLAMATION 83. On April 20, 2020, President Trump tweeted that “[i]n light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!”15 84. Two days later, on April 22, 2020, President Trump announced and executed Presidential Proclamation 10014, 85 Fed. Reg. 23441 (the “April Proclamation”), which broadly suspended the entry of aliens as immigrants into the United States for 60 days, with limited exceptions. The April Proclamation is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. 85. The April Proclamation took effect at 11:59 Eastern Daylight Time on April 23, 2020, approximately 30 hours after the President signed it. 86. The April Proclamation was not issued in response to any national-security or foreign-relations consideration; it was ostensibly a response to the COVID-19 crisis and the pandemic’s effects on the U.S. labor market. But it does not reflect any agency fact-finding; nor does it cite research or analysis of any kind. As justification for restricting immigration, the April Proclamation cited a so-called “excess labor supply” resulting from the purported “impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in an environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor.”
15 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Apr. 20, 2020, 10:06 PM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1252418369170501639, attached as Exhibit B; see Betsy Klein, Priscilla Alvarez & Kevin Liptak, Trump claims he will temporarily suspend immigration into the US due to coronavirus fears, CNN (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/donald-trump-immigraiton-halt-coronavirus/index. html.
27
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 31 of 101
87. Specifically, the April Proclamation noted that lawful permanent residents (i.e., aliens who have entered the country on immigrant visas) have “immediate eligibility to compete for almost any job, in any sector of the economy,” and asserted without explanation that “[e]xisting immigrant visa processing protections” are inadequate either “to protect already disadvantaged and unemployed Americans from the threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents,” or to support “recovery from the COVID-19 outbreak.”
88. The April Proclamation broadly suspends the entry of intending immigrants if, as of the Proclamation’s effective date of April 23, 2020, the intending immigrants:
(a) were outside the United States (April Proclamation § 2(a)(i)); (b) did not have a valid immigrant visa (id. § 2(a)(ii)); and (c) did not have a valid official travel document other than a visa (id.
§ 2(a)(iii)).16 89. The April Proclamation provides for nine limited exceptions to its otherwise broad suspension of immigration, including (as relevant to this case) a vague exception for immigrants “whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.” Id. § 2(b)(ix). 90. The April Proclamation states that a consular officer “shall determine, in his or her discretion,” whether an immigrant qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions. It also directs the Secretary of State to “implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish in the Secretary of State’s discretion,” and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to
16 The prospective immigrants in this case are not covered by § 2(a)(iii), as they seek entry pursuant to various classes of visas.
28
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 32 of 101
“implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion.”
91. The April Proclamation was set to expire by its own terms 60 days after its effective date (i.e., on June 22, 2020), but it provided that it could “be continued as necessary.” The April Proclamation did not specify the circumstances under which it would, in the President’s view, no longer be “necessary.”
THE JUNE PROCLAMATION 92. On June 22, 2020, President Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10052, 85 Fed. Reg. 38263 (the “June Proclamation”), which extends the April Proclamation’s entry suspension of individuals seeking immigrant visas and adds sweeping new restrictions on the entry into the United States of individuals seeking certain nonimmigrant visas. A copy of the June Proclamation is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit C. 93. With respect to immigrant visas, the June Proclamation amends the April Proclamation’s broad entry suspension by extending it until at least December 31, 2020. June Proclamation § 1(a). As with the April Proclamation, the June Proclamation provides that the immigrant visa entry suspension may “be continued as necessary” but does not specify the conditions under which the conditions requiring the suspension will no longer be considered “necessary.” 94. The June Proclamation seeks to justify the continuation of the immigration suspension on grounds that “the considerations present in [the April Proclamation] remain,” and that the President lacks “sufficient alternative means to protect unemployed Americans from the
29
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 33 of 101
threat of competition for scarce jobs from new lawful permanent residents.” As with the April Proclamation, the President provided no analytical basis for these assertions.
95. With respect to nonimmigrant visas, the June Proclamation states that the “Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security reviewed nonimmigrant programs” and concluded that “the present admission of workers within several nonimmigrant visa categories also poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery.”
96. The June Proclamation states that “between February and April of 2020, more than 17 million United States jobs were lost in industries in which employers are seeking to fill worker positions tied to H-2B nonimmigrant visas,” and that “[d]uring this same period, more than 20 million United States workers lost their jobs in key industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions.” The June Proclamation also states that “the May unemployment rate for young Americans, who compete with certain J nonimmigrant visa applicants, has been particularly high—29.9 percent for 16-19 year olds, and 23.2 percent for the 20-24 year old group.”
97. Without analysis or further factual support, the June Proclamation states that “[t]he entry of additional workers through the H-1B, H-2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa programs . . . presents a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans affected by the extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.”
98. The June Proclamation broadly suspends entry into the country of “any alien seeking entry pursuant to any of the following nonimmigrant visas”:
30
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 34 of 101
(a) “an H-1B or H-2B visa, and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien [i.e., spouses and children seeking to enter pursuant to H-4 visas]” (June Proclamation § 2(a));
(b) “a J visa to the extent the alien is participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program, and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien” (id. § 2(b)); and,
(c) “an L visa, and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien” (id. § 2(c)).
99. The June Proclamation’s entry suspension became effective at 12:01 Eastern Daylight Time on June 24, 2020, just over one day after the President announced it. Id. § 7.
100. The entry suspension set forth in the June Proclamation is set to expire on December 31, 2020, but “may be continued as necessary.” Id. § 6. The June Proclamation does not specify the conditions under which its entry suspension will, in the President’s view, no longer be “necessary.”
101. As amended, the nonimmigrant entry suspension applies to any intending nonimmigrant visa applicant who, as of the June Proclamation’s effective date (June 24, 2020):
(a) was outside the United States (id. § 3(a)(i)); (b) “d[id] not have a nonimmigrant visa, of any of the classifications specified
in section 2 of this proclamation and to which the alien is seeking entry”17; and
17 This language is provided in Proclamation No. 10054, 85 Fed. Reg. 40085, which the President signed on June 29, 2020, and which amends § 3(a)(ii) of the June Proclamation. The amending Proclamation is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamationamendment-proclamation-10052/ and is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit D.
31
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 35 of 101
(c) did not have an official travel document other than a visa (id. § 3(a)(iii)).18 102. The June Proclamation’s nonimmigrant entry suspension provides for four exceptions, including (as relevant to this case), “any alien whose entry would be in the national interest as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.” Id. § 3(b)(iv). 103. Like the April Proclamation, the June Proclamation states that a consular officer “shall determine, in his or her discretion,” whether an individual qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions. Id. § 4(a). It again directs the Secretary of State to “implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish in the Secretary of State’s discretion,” and conversely directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion.” Id. 104. The June Proclamation directs the Secretary of State, Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “establish standards” to “define categories of aliens covered by section 3(b)(iv),” the “national interest” exception. Id. § 4(a)(i). The June Proclamation states that the exception includes those who “are critical to the defense, law enforcement, diplomacy, or national security of the United States; are involved with the provision of medical care to individuals who have contracted COVID-19 and are currently hospitalized; are involved with the provision of medical research at United States facilities to help the United States combat COVID-
18 Again, the prospective immigrants in this case are seeking visas and so are not covered by § 3(a)(iii).
32
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 36 of 101
19; or are necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States.” Id. To date, the Secretaries have not publicly announced any “standards” governing the “national interest” exception, including whether these enumerate grounds are the exclusive bases on which to obtain a national interest exception.
105. Seemingly in response to this litigation, the June Proclamation specifically provides that “[t]he Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exercise the authority under section 3(b)(iv) of this proclamation and section 2(b)([ix19]) of Proclamation 10014 to exempt noncitizen children who would as a result of the suspension in section 2 of this proclamation or the suspension in section 1 of Proclamation 10014 age out of eligibility for a visa.” Id.
106. The June Proclamation directs that noncitizens covered by § 3(b)(iv)’s “national interest” exception “shall be identified by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees, in his or her sole discretion.” Id. § 4(a)(ii).
AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCLAMATIONS 107. The State Department posted to its website an announcement concerning the April Proclamation on or about April 23, 2020. See ECF 21, at 9 & n.8. That announcement has since been updated to reflect the June Proclamation’s extension of the existing restrictions on
19 As the Court observed in its order of June 23, 2020, “[t]he reference . . . to . . . ‘section 2(b)(iv) of Proclamation 10014’ appears to be a scrivener’s error,” as it appears to be meant to reference the April Proclamation’s “national interest” exception, which “is found in section 2(b)(ix)” of that Proclamation (not section 2(b)(iv)). ECF No. 41, at 4 n.2.
33
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 37 of 101
immigration.20 The announcement summarizes the April Proclamation’s scope and exceptions,
and directs the reader to the text of the April Proclamation for further information.
108. DOS posted to its website a similar announcement summarizing the June
Proclamation’s scope and exceptions, and directing the reader to the text of the June Proclamation
for further information, on or about June 23, 2020.21
109. Although DOS suspended routine visa services on or about March 20, 2020 in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic,22 the Bureau of Consular Affairs has advised that “U.S.
Embassies and Consulates are beginning a phased resumption of routine visa services.”23
110. The Bureau of Consular Affairs has also published, through a series of tweets, a
brief FAQ regarding the State Department’s implementation of the June Proclamation. The FAQ
largely repeats the language contained in the June Proclamation but adds, in response to the
question whether the June Proclamation will “impact Diversity Visa applicants,” that “the
suspension does apply to DV applicants” and that “[t]he Proclamation will expire on December 31
20 U.S. Dep’t of State, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/Proclamation-Suspending-Entry-ofImmigrants-Who-Present-Risk-to-the-US-labor-market.html (last visited on July 17, 2020). A copy is attached as Exhibit E. 21 U.S. Dep’t of State, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/proclamation-suspendingentry-of-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-who-present-risk-to-the-US-labor-market-during-theeconomic-recovery-following-the-COVID-19-outbreak.html (last visited on July 17, 2020). A copy is attached as Exhibit F. 22See U.S. Dep’t of State, Suspension of Routine Visa Services, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-routine-visaservices.html (last visited on July 17, 2020). 23 See U.S. Dep’t of State, Phased Resumption of Routine Visa Services (July 14, 2020), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/phased-resumption-routine-visaservices.html (last visited on July 17, 2020).
34
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 38 of 101
unless extended”—i.e., after the September 30, 2020 deadline for Diversity Visas to issue for the current fiscal year.24
111. The Bureau of Consular Affairs Twitter account has also responded to a number of individual queries regarding the Proclamations’ effect. For example:
(a) In response to the question “[w]hat’s going to happen to” Diversity Visa 2020 winners who have not yet had an interview, the Bureau responded that “the Proclamation suspends the issuance of several categories of immigrant visas, including Diversity Visas. While the proclamation is in place, the issuance of diversity visas is not permitted.”25
(b) Responding to a follow-up question, the Bureau reiterated, “We will not be issuing diversity visas while the proclamation remains in effect. The proclamation will expire on December 31, 2020, unless continued. The September 30, 2020, deadline for DV-2020 has not been extended.”26
(c) In response to a question whether 2020 Diversity Visa applicants “can . . . do the interview” despite the June Proclamation, the Bureau responded that “DV-2020 applicants who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23, 2020, are subject to the proclamation’s restrictions unless eligible
24 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 23, 2020, 7:49 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1275576629947822080, attached as Exhibit G. 25 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 24, 2020, 7:02 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1275927372269846529, attached as Exhibit H. 26 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 29, 2020, 8:24 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277578676574568448, attached as Exhibit I; see also U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 29, 2020, 9:00 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277587840428367874, attached as Exhibit J (similar).
35
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 39 of 101
for an exception. The September 30, 2020, deadline for obtaining a visa has not been extended.”27
(d) In response to the question whether a Diversity Visa 2020 lottery winner
who is “waiting for [an] interview” is “affected by [the] proclamation of
President Trump,” the Bureau stated, “Applicants for immigrant visas
covered by the proclamation, including DV-2020 applicants, who have not
been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23, 2020, are subject to the proclamation's restrictions unless eligible for an exception,”28 and that
“[t]he September 30, 2020, deadline for DV-2020 applicants to obtain their visa has not been extended.”29
(e) The Bureau gave the same answer to the observation that even if Diversity
Visa holders “are suspended from entering till after the proclamation ends,”
“[t]he Proclamation only suspends entry, it does not mention suspending the Interview and Visa Issuance process.”30
(f) With respect to nonimmigrant visas, in response to the following question:
I’m on H1 and inside US. My wife and kid have H4 approval notices but no valid visa stamps on passports, that means their August appointment is useless and they can’t get visa stamps and can’t get in although they don’t have SSN and can’t work here?
27 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (July 6, 2020 10:29 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1280146948054487041, attached as Exhibit K; 28 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 26, 2020, 10:20 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1276520628577882112, attached as Exhibit L. The tweet to which the Bureau was responding appears to have been deleted. 29 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 26, 2020, 12:00 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1276545941819056128, attached as Exhibit M. 30 See U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 30, 2020, 12:29 pm), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1278002698487554052, attached as Exhibit N.
36
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 40 of 101
The Bureau responded,
We will not be issuing H-1B, H-2B, L, or certain J visas, and their derivatives through December 31, 2020, unless an exception applies.31 (g) In response to a question regarding where to “read a National Interest
waiver procedure,” the Bureau stated, “per the Proclamation please contact
[the Department of Homeland Security] for information on a national
interest waiver.”32 Neither Proclamation directs DHS alone to issue such
information, and to Plaintiffs’ knowledge DHS has not done so.
112. A search of the Bureau’s Twitter feed shows that it has continued to reiterate these
positions.33
113. Plaintiffs’ individual experiences bear out that the State Department has
implemented the Proclamations by refusing to issue visas. See infra ⁋⁋ 138-299.
114. On or about June 22, 2020, DHS posted to its website an announcement concerning
the June Proclamation.34 The announcement summarizes the June Proclamation’s scope and
31 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 30, 2020, 8:15 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277938802259042304, attached as Exhibit O. The tweet to which the Bureau was responding appears to have been deleted. See also U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), TWITTER (June 29, 2020, 8:22 AM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1277578175741153281, attached as Exhibit P (similar in response to question whether an “H4 will be allowed to get [a] visa stamp if [the principal] H1 [visa holder is already] in US…?”). 32 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (@TravelGov), Tweet to Albert Alam, TWITTER (June 30, 2020, 12:56 PM), https://twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1278009405460676609, attached as Exhibit Q. The Bureau misidentified the Department of Homeland security’s Twitter account as “@DHS”; the correct account is @DHSgov. 33 See generally https://twitter.com/search?q=proclamation%20(from%3Atravelgov)&f=live. 34 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Trump Administration, DHS Prioritizes American Citizens for American Jobs, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/06/22/trump-administration-dhs-prioritizesamerican-citizens-american-jobs (last visited on July 17, 2020). A copy is attached as Exhibit R.
37
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 41 of 101
exceptions and directs the reader to the full text of the June Proclamation. It states that DHS “will begin implementing” the June Proclamation but does not specify how it will be implemented.
115. DHS’s announcement further states that it “is also directed to use all available tools to transition to a merit-based immigration system, ending often-exploited avenues for fraud and abuse.” Neither the April Proclamation nor the June Proclamation, however, contains any provision concerning a “merit-based immigration system,” and DHS’s announcement provides no other citation for this asserted “direct[ive].”
116. On July 16, 2020, DOS posted to its website an announcement regarding its implementation of the June Proclamation.35 It states, apparently under the authority of the Proclamations’ “national interest” exceptions, that “limited exceptions may be provided” to:
 applicants who are subject to aging out of their current immigrant visa classification before the relevant Proclamations expire or within two weeks thereafter;
 certain H and J visa applicants who are traveling to work in support of a critical U.S. foreign policy objective (such as COVID-19 response) and/or traveling at the request of the U.S. government; and
 spouses and children of certain visa class holders, such as H, J, and L visa holders who are already excepted from, or not subject to, the June Proclamation.
35 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Exceptions to Presidential Proclamations (10014 & 10052) Suspending the Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Presenting a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/exceptions-top-p-10014-10052-suspending-entry-of-immigrants-non-immigrants-presenting-risk-to-us-labormarket-during-economic-recovery.html (last visited July 17, 2020). A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit S.
38
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 42 of 101
117. DOS’s announcement further states that it “will continue to issue H, L, and J visas to otherwise qualified derivative applicants who are otherwise currently excepted or where the principal applicant is currently in the United States.”
118. The announcement further affirms that “[a]pplicants for immigrant visas covered by the proclamation, including Diversity Visa 2020 (DV-2020) applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23 are subject to the proclamation's restrictions unless eligible for an exception.”  
THE JUNE PROCLAMATION CONFLICTS WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND THE PROCLAMATION’S OWN STATED GOALS
119. Although the June Proclamation purports to be supported by economic and labor market justifications, those justifications are contradicted by all established economic research. Indeed, they appear to have been created out of whole cloth and without any consideration of the issues.
120. The June Proclamation rests on a fundamentally flawed premise: that its restrictions on the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants into the United States are necessary to protect the U.S. labor force during a time of economic contraction, because foreign-born workers “pose[] a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers”—especially during a time of high unemployment.
121. This premise is contrary to decades of economic research. Indeed, numerous economists of all political stripes have thoroughly discredited the “fallacy” that “there is a fixed amount of work to be done.”36 In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and
36 Economics A-Z Terms Beginning with L, The Economist, https://goo.gl/BvRwKU; see also Paul Krugman, Lumps of Labor, N.Y. Times (Oct. 7, 2003), https://goo.gl/GyYTG5.
39
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 43 of 101
Medicine published a 642-page “Consensus Study Report” authored by a panel of nearly 40 economists from across the policy and political spectrum—including “immigration sceptics.” The Report concluded that inflows of foreign-born workers have no significant effect on the overall employment levels of U.S. workers.37
122. Congress has likewise rejected that “there is a fixed number of jobs for which competition is a zero-sum game,” such that immigrants and foreign-born workers “presen[t] a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans.” S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 12 (2000). Instead, Congress has found that “labor markets have demonstrated time and time again [that] additional people entering the labor force, whether native-born students out of school, immigrants, or non-immigrants, expand opportunities and create other jobs through innovation, entrepreneurship, and money spent on consumer items like food, clothing, and housing.” Id.
123. Congress has therefore found, and economic studies consistently show, that increased immigration levels into the U.S. have had positive impacts on the employment levels and incomes of U.S.-born workers.38 This is because foreign-born workers innovate more, creating jobs and increasing the productivity of U.S. workers;39 they complement, rather than compete with,
37 THE NAT’L ACAD. OF SCIS., ENG’G., AND MED., THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF IMMIGRATION (The National Academies Press 2017), https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/1. 38 See, e.g., Jacqueline Varas, Am. Action Forum, How Immigration Helps U.S. Workers and the Economy (Mar. 20, 2017), https://goo.gl/ovHQEh; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Immigration Myths and Facts (Apr. 14, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/yay4xjm9. 39 Giovani Peri & Chad Sparber, Global Migration Center, Presidential Executive Actions Halting High Skilled Immigration Hurt the US Economy. https://globalmigration.ucdavis.edu/presidentialexecutive-actions-halting-high-skilled-immigration-hurt-us-economy.
40
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 44 of 101
U.S.-born workers in the workforce;40 and they participate in the economy as consumers, stimulating demand.41
124. Perhaps for this reason, Congress has three times in the past four years refused invitations to curtail legal immigration. See supra ¶ 82.
125. The June Proclamation’s sweeping ban on both immigrant and nonimmigrant entry, which the Department of State has decided to implement by refusing to issue visas in any of the covered categories, is therefore directly and irrationally contrary both to decades of Congressional judgment and to the June Proclamation’s own stated economic goals. By dramatically limiting the number of foreign nationals entering the U.S. economy at a time when consumer demand is already low, the June Proclamation hinders recovery of both the economy and the labor market. “Far from helping American workers, barring immigrants is likely to make the economy less productive.”42
126. Many of the particular immigration restrictions effected by the June Proclamation are irrational for additional reasons.

40 See, e.g., Matthew Denhart, George W. Bush Institute, America’s Advantage: A Handbook on Immigration and Economic Growth 70, 118 (3d ed., Sept. 2017), https://tinyurl.com/y4ykokn9; Gretchen Frazee, 4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy, PBS NewsHour (Nov. 2, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/yxlwzkth; Maria E. Enchautegui, Immigrant and Native Workers Compete for Different Low-Skilled Jobs, The Urban Institute: Urban Wire (Oct. 13, 2015), https://tinyurl.com/ycayp6ky; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supra note 18.

41 Kenneth Megan, Bipartisan Policy Ctr., Immigration and the Labor Force (Aug. 25, 2015), https://goo.gl/8p3SP8 (“[A] breadth of research indicates that immigration can be complementary to native born employment, as it spurs demand for goods and services”); Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity, Fed. Reserve Bank of S.F. Econ. Letter (Aug. 30, 2010), https://goo.gl/jK17fcl; Buttonwood, Keep on Trucking, The Economist (Feb. 11, 2012), https://goo.gl/x8vqaL (“When people work for a living, they earn money. They spend that money on goods and services that are produced by other people.”).

42 Ilya Somin, The Danger of America’s Coronavirus Immigration Bans, THE ATLANTIC (June 28,

2020),

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/danger-americas-coronavirus-

immigration -bans /613537/.

41

AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 45 of 101
127. First, the June Proclamation, as implemented, suspends visa issuance and entry for thousands of individuals who cannot or will not seek employment in the United States, and therefore do not contribute to the alleged problem of job competition that the June Proclamation purports to address. These restricted individuals include children; elderly, retired, or disabled parents; students; and individuals who are legally not permitted to work, such as H-4 spouses and children.
128. Second, the June Proclamation, as implemented, suspends visa issuance and entry for thousands of workers for whom a precondition of visa approval is that such workers will not take a job away from a U.S. worker—and therefore cannot “pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers.” In particular, the INA requires the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that no U.S. workers are available before employers may hire H-2B workers. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); see 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6)(iii). The same is true for employers seeking to hire workers through the J-1 summer work/travel program or trainee/intern program—they must certify that hiring such workers will not “displace” any U.S. workers. 22 C.F.R. §§ 62.22(f)(2), 62.32(n)(3). These certification requirements ensure that it is legally and practically impossible for the H-2B visa program to be responsible for the “more than 17 million United States jobs [that] were lost in industries in which employers are seeking to fill worker positions tied to H-2B nonimmigrant visas”; for the J exchange program to be responsible for the “particularly high” unemployment rates for “young Americans, who compete with certain J nonimmigrant visa applicants”; or for workers on H-2B or J-1 visas to “present[] a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans,” as the June Proclamation incorrectly claims.
129. Third, the June Proclamation, as implemented, suspends visa issuance and entry for thousands of H-1B and L-1 workers who play critical roles in job preservation and creation, and
42
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 46 of 101
whose entry would therefore alleviate the effects of “the extraordinary economic disruptions
caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.”
130. Many H-1B visas, for example, are provided to IT professionals, who have helped
to transition much of the U.S. workforce to working from home during the COVID-19 crisis and
who are needed to maintain the technology that allows the work-from-home economy to
continue.43
131. H-1B visa holders are also disproportionately likely to patent new technologies.
Restricting their entry therefore not only denies U.S. companies the opportunities for growth and
job creation that would have otherwise resulted from those new technologies,44 but also “risk[s]
reducing growth and productivity” as companies “off-shore” jobs to countries where they are able
to hire skilled foreign workers.45 Indeed, recent academic research by the Wharton School of
Business confirms that restrictions on high-skilled immigration causes firms to send jobs
elsewhere by “open[ing] new foreign affiliates abroad” and increasing employment “at existing
foreign affiliates.”46
43 Alex Nowrasteh, President Trump’s Cancellation of Many Work Visas Will Hurt the American Economy, Cato at Liberty (June 22, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trumpscancellation-many-work-visas-will-hurt-american-economy. 44 Id. 45 Letter from 324 employers and trade, industry, and higher education associations and groups across the American economy focused on the high-skilled workforce to President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf (May 21, 2020), https://competeamerica.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/26/2020/05/324-Signatory-Business-Letter-to-President-and-SecretariesNonimmigrant-Visa-Facts-5-21-2020.pdf. 46 Britta Glennon, How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-1B Program, SSRN (2020) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3547655; see also S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 19 (2000). (“In 1998, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote, ‘If U.S. companies are told to put up “No Vacancy” signs, they are inevitably going to move more knowledge operations overseas, and that will spur more innovation, wealth creation, and jobs over there.’”)
43
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 47 of 101
132. H-1B visa holders are also hired for particular specialty occupations, and the majority of those specialty occupations are currently experiencing economic stability and success as opposed to the high unemployment currently experienced in other parts of the U.S. economy. Although the June Proclamation states that “more than 20 million United States workers lost their jobs in key industries where employers are currently requesting H-1B and L workers to fill positions,” that assertion ignores that U.S. employers seeking to hire H-1B workers cannot hire any worker from an entire industry, but instead must hire someone seeking to work in a specific type of job. Data on the top H-1B jobs—not industries—shows that between January 2020 and May 2020, total employment increased by about 185,000 in the top 20 H-1B occupations, which account for 85 percent of all H-1B requests.47 In fact, DHS data shows that 66 percent of all H-1B workers work in computer-related occupations, in which the unemployment rate through April 2020—at the height of stay-at-home-orders in the United States—was 2.8 percent.48 For this reason, too, the ban on H-1B entry/visa issuance is contrary to the economic data: there are plenty of jobs in the highly skilled occupations most commonly held by H-1B visa holders.49
133. The June Proclamation is similarly irrational with respect to L visas. These workers must demonstrate significant institutional knowledge, expertise, or experience specific to the sponsoring company. Such workers are not fungible, and do not compete with unemployed U.S. workers for open positions.
47 David J. Bier, “The Facts About H-4 Visas for Spouses of H-1B Workers”, Cato at Liberty (July 7, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-h-1b-ban-based-misreading-economic-statistics. 48 Supra note 46. 49 In addition, H-1B-dependent employers must certify that the position for which the foreign worker is being recruited cannot be filled by a United States worker. See supra ¶47; 22 C.F.R. § 655.738.
44
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 48 of 101
134. Moreover, L-visa holders are crucial for job creation in the United States because they provide critical on-the-ground leadership for multinational employers seeking to invest in their U.S. affiliates. According to the Congressional Research Service, the L-1 visa category is “essential to retaining and expanding international businesses in the United States,” not least because it allows multinational corporations to bring key employees, including top executives, to the United States on a temporary basis to oversee investments and set up new operations here. In creating the L visa, Congress found that “[s]uch intracompany transfers have contributed immeasurably to the growth of American enterprise throughout the world and to the international trade of the United States.” H.R. Rep. 91-851, at 2755 (1970).
135. In short, the June Proclamation’s effects are directly and irrationally contrary to its asserted purposes and cursory findings. Rather than protecting the U.S. labor force, as it claims to do, the June Proclamation endangers the U.S. economy by cutting off the supply of foreign-born workers, innovators, and consumers that the economy relies on for stability and continued growth. At the same time, the Proclamation prohibits individuals with no intention of working in the U.S. from contributing their purchasing power to the U.S. economy, to the ultimate detriment of U.S. workers.
THE PROCLAMATIONS AND DEFENDANTS’ IMPLEMENTATION HARM PLAINTIFFS
136. The Proclamations have effectively shut down a significant portion of the U.S. immigration system. The CATO Institute estimates that at least 164,000 immigrants and 381,000 nonimmigrant workers and their derivatives have been and will be banned through the June Proclamation’s effective date, which will also affect approximately 20,000 U.S. employers seeking
45
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 49 of 101
to bring workers in on nonimmigrant visas.50 The White House estimates that the June Proclamation will affect at least 525,000 people.
137. The Proclamations and their implementation therefore cause Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated entities and individuals substantial, concrete, particularized, and irreparable injury.
Family-Based Immigrant Visa Plaintiffs 138. Plaintiff Nazif Alam is a Lawful Permanent Resident originally from Bangladesh. On March 29, 2019, he filed a petition to sponsor his wife, a prospective student at Cornell University who currently resides in Bangladesh, for an F2A immigrant visa. USCIS approved the visa petition on February 14, 2020, and Mr. Alam submitted all necessary documentation in support of the visa on April 8, 2020. The only remaining step was for Mr. Alam’s wife to attend a consular interview. 139. Mr. Alam has been waiting to be reunited with his wife for two years. They are two young adults who are on the cusp of beginning their American dream together. The last several months of their separation have been particularly trying, as Mr. Alam is an essential employee in the food distribution industry in New York City. He works for the firm Harold Levinson
50 See David J. Bier, “Trump’s Migration Ban Could Affect Up to 545,500 if Consulates Reopen— Fewer than 18,000 Otherwise,” Cato at Liberty (July 7, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/trumpsmigration-ban-could-affect-545500-consulates-reopen-fewer-18000-otherwise; David J. Bier, “About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year,” Cato at Liberty (July 16, 2020), https://www.cato.org/blog/about-20000-us-employers-are-affected-trumpstravel-bans-year. The Migration Policy Institute has issued similar estimates. See Migration Policy Inst. (@MigrationPolicy) TWITTER (Jun. 22, 2020, 5:42 PM) https://twitter.com/MigrationPolicy/status/1275167186794024962; see also Sruthi Darbhamulla, Trump’s COVID-19 visa bans may alter the face of American immigration beyond the pandemic, THE CHICAGO REPORTER (July 8, 2020), https://www.chicagoreporter.com/trumps-covid-19-visabans-may-alter-the-face-of-american-immigration-beyond-the-pandemic/ (providing similar estimates from the American Immigration Council).
46
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 50 of 101
Associates LLC, where he is responsible for ensuring that the grocery shelves of the convenience stores for which he is responsible are stocked with much-needed supplies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have been allowed to work from home to avoid exposure to the virus, but Mr. Alam has not had that luxury. He comes home every day with the anxiety of having been exposed to one of the most lethal viruses in modern history. Not having his wife’s support, comfort, and companionship during these difficult times has left him even more stressed and burned out.
140. Mr. Alam’s wife will be fully supported financially when she arrives in the United States. Not only will she be supported by her husband’s steady job; she also has been accepted to a Master’s program at Cornell University for fall 2020. It is a rare opportunity for any person, and more so for a woman from a developing country, to be accepted into an esteemed institute like Cornell University. This came at a steep cost: dedication, effort, and many sleepless nights in order to get good scores in standardized tests and to write exceptional essays. Mr. Alam and his wife stand to lose the initial monetary deposit that was made to Cornell to secure his wife’s admission. Her inability to attend Cornell would also result in severely restricting her earning potential and her ability to contribute to the economy of this country when she is here and ready to enter the job market, thereby severely harming their effort in pursuing the American dream. Mr. Alam has the necessary resources to support his wife for the eighteen months of her educational program when she will be a full-time student and not working.
141. In late April 2020, when Mr. Alam learned about the Presidential Proclamation, he was devastated, because he knew it would prolong his separation from his wife, but he hoped that it would only last for 60 days. When he learned in late June that the entry bar affecting his wife
47
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 51 of 101
would extend at least another six months, if not indefinitely, he was beside himself. It is emotionally wearing on Mr. Alam to be separated from his wife.
142. On July 11 and 12, 2020, Mr. Alam contacted the National Visa Center and the U.S. Consulate in Dhaka Bangladesh to inquire about the visa process for his wife. The Consulate only told Mr. Alam that “that they were awaiting approval from the Consulate in Bangladesh to approve the case being forwarded.”
143. Plaintiff Carmen Ligia Pimentel is a lawful permanent resident originally from the Dominican Republic. She sponsored her husband Luis Beltre Rondon, who currently resides in the Dominican Republic, for an F2A immigrant visas. Ms. Pimentel is currently pregnant with her first child, who will be born on or about July 31, 2020.
144. Ms. Pimentel filed her husband’s visa petition with USCIS on or around January 18, 2018, which was approved on or around September 27, 2019. On March 16, 2020, the National Visa Center confirmed that the application was documentarily qualified, and Ms. Pimentel’s husband was eligible for a visa interview.
145. Ms. Pimentel has been separated from her husband for about two and a half years. Because the couple anticipated that he would receive his visa in short order, they made the decision to try to get pregnant and start a family sooner than later. They are both in the workforce, and once their baby is born, they had planned for one of them to stay home with the baby while the other worked, to avoid the cost of childcare. However, when Ms. Pimentel received the happy news in February 2020 that she was several months pregnant, and her husband had still not been scheduled for a visa interview, she requested expedited processing to secure the interview as soon as possible. The request was approved on or about March 20, 2020, but because of the COVID19 pandemic, they did not hear anything further for about a month. In late April 2020, the
48
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 52 of 101
Consulate contacted Ms. Pimentel’s husband to inquire further about his request for an expedited interview and confirmed that his circumstances warranted expedition. However, they further informed him that they could not schedule his interview because of the Presidential Proclamation banning immigration for 60 days.
146. Through her attorney, Ms. Pimentel contacted her congressional representative to ask how to invoke the “national interest” exception so that her husband would not have to miss the birth of their first child. She held out hope that the Proclamation would not be extended beyond the initial 60-day period so her husband could join her thereafter.
147. In late June 2020, when Ms. Pimentel learned the President had extended the Proclamation through the end of the year, and perhaps indefinitely, she was devastated. Her separation from her husband has been extremely hard on her, particularly because he has not been there to provide her emotional support as she navigated her first pregnancy. Although she speaks to her husband on a daily basis, this is no substitute for the comfort and companionship his physical presence could provide. She is also heartbroken about the prospect of not having her husband there with her for the birth of their child, the most beautiful moment of their lives. But even worse is the prospect that her husband will also be separated from his child and be unable to help her care for him here in the United States, potentially indefinitely. Ms. Pimentel cannot easily travel to the Dominican Republic to reunite with her husband once her child is born, particularly in light of the risk of becoming exposed to the COVID-19 virus.
148. On July 10, 2020, Ms. Pimentel’s attorney contacted the office of her Congressional representative, Sylvia R. Garcia, to seek an exception to the entry suspension for her husband. On July 13, 2020, the U.S. Embassy in the Dominican Republic responded: “Thank you for your inquiry … According to our records Ms. Pimentel petitioned for her husband Luis Beltre Rondon
49
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 53 of 101
… as such, the visa application falls under the recent Presidential Proclamation …, and we cannot process this visa until the expiration of the Proclamation.”
149. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron is a Lawful Permanent Resident originally from the Dominican Republic. On April 25, 2018, he filed applications to sponsor his two minor daughters (ages 12 and 17) for F2A immigrant visas. On February 26, 2020 the National Visa Center notified him that his applications were complete and that his daughters were eligible for visa interviews.
150. Mr. Lebron has been living apart from his two minor daughters for 7 years, and for over two years since his petition was approved. Although Mr. Lebron was eligible to sponsor his daughters earlier, when he became a lawful permanent resident in 2013, he was in an abusive relationship and wanted to wait before bringing his daughters to live with him. In the meantime, his mother has been their primary caretaker, while he provided for them financially. However, his mother is now advanced in age and is no longer healthy enough to adequately care for his daughters. Mr. Lebron also cannot return to the Dominican Republic for any significant length of time to care for his daughters without jeopardizing his career and financial stability, his Lawful Permanent Resident status, and his eligibility to become a U.S. citizen.
151. In late April 2020, Mr. Lebron learned about the April Proclamation that banned immigration for 60 days, which prompted him to try to seek expedited emergency interviews in light of his mother’s precarious health situation. However, he has to date received no response to this request.
152. Upon learning that the Proclamation entry suspension was being extended to the end of the year, and possibly indefinitely, Mr. Lebron has become distraught. After waiting for his daughters’ visa applications to become current for more than two years, he now faces the
50
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 54 of 101
prospect that they will continue to be separated for at least another six months, and possibly indefinitely. This has caused him great fear and anxiety, particularly because of his mother’s precarious health situation. His mother could take a turn for the worse at any time, leaving his minor daughters to fend for themselves in a country where they have no other support structure.
153. On July 14, 2020, Mr. Lebron contacted the National Visa Center to seek an emergency interview for his daughters, in order to invoke an exception to the June Proclamation. Congresswoman Lori Trahan also made a request for an emergency interview on Mr. Lebron’s behalf on July 17, 2020. As of the filing of this Amended Complaint, he has not received a response to his request.
154. Plaintiff Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo is a U.S. citizen who was born in Nigeria. On March 18, 2018, he filed a petition to sponsor his father Sylva Nwankwo, who resides in Nigeria, for an immigrant visa. The petition was approved on February 18, 2020. After submitting all necessary paperwork, Mr. Nwankwo has been waiting for his father to be scheduled for a visa at the Consulate in Nigeria.
155. Mr. Nwankwo has been separated from his father for over two and half years since he sponsored his immigrant visa. The separation has been very difficult and has resulted in less and less personal interaction with his father as time goes by. He misses his father’s love, care, guidance and discipline, which is essential to his balanced development. Mr. Nwankwo is an undergraduate student in electrical engineering and looks to his father as his role model and mentor. His father is a well-established engineer with a current license from the State of California.
156. When Mr. Nwankwo learned in late April 2020 about the Presidential Proclamation’s initial 60-day ban on immigration, and then in late June about the extension of the ban for another six months, if not longer, he and his family were heartbroken. This protracted and
51
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 55 of 101
possibly indefinite separation has made Mr. Nwankwo feel disappointed and troubled. He had to go through many difficult life events without his father’s support but was holding out hope that he only had to wait for his companionship a short time longer. But when he learned about the prolonged and potentially indefinite separation imposed by the June Proclamation, his hopes were crushed by the uncertainty of how much longer it would take to reunite with his father.
157. Plaintiff Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jiménez is a Lawful Permanent Resident originally from Chile. On December 20, 2017, shortly after he became a Lawful Permanent Resident, Mr. Jimenez sponsored his now 19-year old son, Claudio, for an F2A immigrant visa. The application took two years to process but was finally approved on August 22, 2019.
158. At that time, Claudio was temporarily living with his father in the United States. On August 23, 2019, Mr. Jimenez sent Claudio to Chile to carry out consular visa processing there. He anticipated that he would be separated from Claudio for only a few months, and diligently worked to submit all documents in support of his application to ensure that they would be reunited soon. By January 22, 2020, Claudio was documentarily qualified for a visa interview. The interview was originally scheduled for March 20, 2020, in Santiago, Chile, but was rescheduled to March 30, and then was indefinitely postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
159. Mr. Jimenez has now been separated from his son for almost a full year during one of the most critical periods in his son’s life. Claudio was planning on starting college at Auburn University or Troy University in Oklahoma in the fall of 2020. Both schools expressed interest in offering Claudio a full scholarship. He had expressed an interest in studying nuclear engineering so that one day he could enlist in the U.S. Navy and, after that, go to work for NASA. Mr. Jimenez is very proud of his son and is eager to see him pursue higher education and advance his career in the near future.
52
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 56 of 101
160. When the Presidential Proclamation was announced in late April, Mr. Jimenez held out hope that it would expire after 60 days, as it initially stated, so that his son’s plans to start college in the fall would not be disrupted. When the Proclamation entry suspension was extended for at least the next six months and possibly indefinitely, Mr. Jimenez was emotionally devastated. What was supposed to be a brief separation from his son has turned out to be an extended, if not indefinite family nightmare. Not only was Mr. Jimenez’s dream to see his son begin higher education in the United States destroyed, it also meant Mr. Jimenez would have to suffer prolonged and potentially indefinite separation from his son, with whom he had expected to reunite months ago. He is only able to communicate with his son by phone once a week because of issues with the telephone signal, which has been difficult to bear. Mr. Jimenez has spent thousands of dollars on legal counsel and government fees in connection with his son’s immigration processing to hasten being reunited with him, which now appears to have been for naught. He also has had to spend additional money providing for his son’s living expenses in Chile, and he must pay for any medical expenses out-of-pocket as his son has no health insurance there.
161. Mr. Jimenez has requested an emergency interview for his son, in order to invoke an exception to the June Proclamation. As of the filing of this Amended Complaint, he has not received a response to his request.
162. Plaintiff Angela Sinon is a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines and worked for the United Nations in New York for 25 years before retiring in 2013. On January 5, 2009, she filed a petition to sponsor her unmarried adult son Emmanuel Sinon for an F2B immigrant visa. The petition was approved on September 24, 2009, and her son was finally scheduled for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Manila on March 10, 2020.
53
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 57 of 101
163. Ms. Sinon’s son was living with her in the United States, but when his interview was scheduled, he returned to the Philippines for the interview. However, the interview was canceled because Mr. Sinon had to wait eight weeks for the results of a medical test. Mr. Sinon’s test ultimately came back negative, so he was again ready for the interview. But the Consulate has not rescheduled Mr. Sinon’s interview.
164. Though Ms. Sinon has been separated from her son for only a few months, she has suffered greatly, and this suffering has only become more severe with each day he is away from her. Ms. Sinon is an elderly, unmarried woman, and she relies on her son for all of her basic life activities. Both of her parents have passed away, and her son is the only family she has left. Ms. Sinon’s son assists her with all of her daily activities, including buying groceries, taking her to her medical appointments, doing household chores, and paying her bills. Because of all of the day-today assistance her son provides, Ms. Sinon has suffered significantly these last few months that her son has been in the Philippines awaiting his visa. She has also suffered financially because of the separation from her son. She has had to pay for his apartment and living expenses in the Philippines while he awaits visa processing there, which she can ill afford on her retiree income.
165. Her son has a Bachelor’s degree, and Ms. Sinon was expecting her son to help support her financially once he obtained his immigrant visa and was able to find employment. He has been volunteering for the American Red Cross since 2013, and before that for the Department of Veterans Affairs from 2000 to 2013, always looking to give back to his adopted country.
166. When Ms. Sinon learned in late April that the April Proclamation would ban immigration for 60 days, and then in late June that it would be extended to the end of the year, if not longer, she was heartbroken and devastated. She has been waiting for her son’s visa to become
54
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 58 of 101
current for 10 years. The prospect of having to wait to reunite with him for at least another six months, if not indefinitely, is more than she can bear.
167. On July 13, 2020 Ms. Sinon contacted the U.S. Consulate in Manilla to seek an emergency interview for her son, in order to invoke an exception to the June Proclamation. As of the filing of this Amended Complaint, she has not received a response to her request.
168. Plaintiff Loida Phelps is a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines. On March 18, 2009, she filed a petition to sponsor her unmarried adult daughter Maria Lourdes Aligam Dolom for an F2B immigrant visa, together with her three granddaughters Marylour Angela Dolom Reano, Sebastian Dolom Lozano, and Marylour Angela Dolom Lozano, all of whom currently reside in the Philippines. The petition was approved on April 22, 2010. Because her oldest granddaughter was close to aging out of her visa preference category, she was initially approved to expedite their visa interview, and she scheduled medical appointments for July 14, 2020 in Manila.
169. Ms. Phelps has been separated from her daughter and granddaughters for the last 20 years, and began the process of reuniting with them 11 years ago. She successfully petitioned to bring her other two daughters to the United States in 2003. They are now married, have children and live ten minutes away from Ms. Phelps. It has been her life-long dream to have all of her children and grandchildren together with her in the United States.
170. Ms. Phelps was set to achieve her family reunification dream when in late April, and then again in late June, the Proclamation forced her to defer it further, possibly indefinitely. However, the consequences of this delay are dire. Ms. Phelps is in her 60s and has a number of health issues, including osteoporosis, arthritis, migraines and a benign breast tumor that her doctor is monitoring. She longs to have the comfort of her whole family around her, and worries that her
55
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 59 of 101
declining health will rob her of the ability to enjoy their company if their arrival continues to be delayed. Though Ms. Phelps has tried to visit her daughter and granddaughters in the Philippines regularly, each trip is a bit harder than the last, and she is not sure how much longer she will be able make these long journeys.
171. Her daughter and granddaughters will not only be able to support her as she advances in age, but they will also contribute to American society. Her eldest granddaughter is a senior in college studying medical technology in the Philippines, and has plans to enter a masters’ program in this field when she comes to the U.S.
172. Complicating matters is the fact that Ms. Phelps’ granddaughter Marylour Angela Dolom Reano may be entitled to an exemption under the Proclamation because she may age out while the Proclamation is in effect on October 26, 2020, under the rules of the Child Status Protection Act. However, this is cold comfort for the family, as her granddaughter, a derivative applicant, cannot immigrate unless her mother Maria Lourdes first receives a her visa.
173. Ms. Phelps’s attorney has repeatedly attempted to contact the Embassy through the U.S. Travel Docs system, to seek an exception to the Proclamation, but to date has had no response.
174. Plaintiff Nancy Abarca is a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines. On February 9, 1995, she submitted a petition to sponsor her brother Renato Gawat, together with his wife Christina Tesaluna Gawat, and their minor daughter Maria Andrea Tesaluna Gawat, who currently reside in the Philippines. The petition was approved on December 13, 1999, they have submitted all of the necessary paperwork. Their case is now “current” according to the July 2020 Visa Bulletin, and they are awaiting a visa interview.
175. Ms. Abarca has been waiting 25 years to reunite with her brother and his family in the United States. While she knew the wait would be long under the sibling fourth preference
56
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 60 of 101
category, the time has taken its toll on her health in ways that she did not expect. She suffers from asthma, arthritis and diabetes. Because of the heightened risks of the COVID-19 pandemic, she can no longer carry out full time work as a registered nurse. She worries that a flare up of any of her health conditions could greatly diminish the quality of her time with her brother if and when he eventually makes it here. Ms. Abarca is no longer able to make the 10,000 mile journey to see her brother and his family in the Philippines.
176. When Ms. Abarca learned in late April that her plans to reunite with her brother and his family would be further delayed because of the Proclamation, she was disappointed, but was prepared to wait the specified additional two months. However, when she learned that the Proclamation would be extended to the end of the year, if not indefinitely, she was devastated. She has longed to see her brother and his family settled in the U.S. near her. She has also longed to see her niece, the next generation of her family, carry on their legacy here. Her niece is studying architecture in the Philippines, and had hoped to complete her studies in the U.S., and go on to become a self-supporting professional who will contribute to American society.
177. Complicating matters is the fact that Ms. Abarca’s niece may be entitled to an exemption under the Proclamation because she may age out while the Proclamation is in effect. Her niece’s birthday is November 26, 2020. However, this is cold comfort for the family, as her niece, derivative applicant, cannot immigrate unless Renato first receives his visa.
178. On July 12, 2020, Ms. Abarca’s lawyer contacted the U.S. Embassy in Manila seeking an emergency interview for her brother and his family, in order to invoke an exception to the Proclamation. As of the filing of this Complaint, they have not received a response to this request.
57
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 61 of 101
179. Plaintiff M.S. is a U.S. citizen originally from Yemen. M.S. became a citizen in 2000, and shortly thereafter petitioned for his immediate family to immigrate to the United States, including his wife, two daughters and two sons. His son A.B.’s petition was not approved until 2016, and in the intervening years A.B. got married in Yemen, and had four children there, including a daughter R.S. (now ten years old), all of whom he added to the petition.
180. Although A.B. received his visa in 2016, M.S. asked the U.S. Embassy to hold off issuing visas to A.B.’s wife and four children at that time, so that A.B. could spend some time working and saving money to support them. A few years later, in October 2019, A.B. contacted the U.S. Embassy in Egypt to continue processing visas for his wife and children.
181. The Embassy scheduled the interviews for A.B.’s family in February 2020. A.B.’s family traveled from Yemen to the Egypt to attend the interview. At the interview, the officer granted the family a waiver from Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the “Muslim Ban”), because they had nobody to support them in Yemen. The day after the interview, the Embassy called the family and asked them some further questions about R.S., which were similar to the questions they had asked at the interview—mainly relating to information they had provided on their DS 260 form. The family answered the questions the same day. Within a few days, the whole family, except for R.S., received their visas. The Embassy official assured them that R.S. would be issued a visa soon as well.
182. However, when weeks passed and R.S. had still not received her visa, A.B. contacted the Embassy several times between March and June 2020 to inquire when the visa would be ready. He explained that the rest of the family’s visas were about to expire, and that they needed R.S.’s visa so they could travel as a family back to the U.S. The Embassy told A.B. that they could not issue the visa because it was in administrative processing.
58
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 62 of 101
183. In late April, M.S. contacted the office of their local Congressional representative Nancy Pelosi, who contacted the Embassy on their behalf. The Embassy informed Pelosi’s office that the visa could not be issued because of the Proclamation. M.S. also contacted an attorney who contacted the Embassy on their behalf to seek an exception to the Proclamation for R.S. However, the Embassy simply relayed that they could not issue the visa.
184. In late June, because their visas would soon expire, the rest of A.B.’s family was forced to travel to the U.S. or risk losing their visas, which they had waited four years to obtain. They asked the Embassy to extend their visas, so that they could wait for R.S.’s visa to be issued, but they were told that there was no guarantee that the visas would be reissued once they expired. Though it was heartbreaking to do, they had no choice but to leave R.S. with acquaintances in Egypt, who agreed to look after her for a while.
185. Since R.S. was separated from her family, the whole family has been inconsolable. They each speak to R.S. almost every day, each taking turns to check on her. She is a young girl and feels sad and alone in a foreign country, living with people she barely knows. She cries on each phone call, in turn leaving M.S. and his family miserable knowing there is little they can do to console her from so far away, let alone take care of and protect her.
186. The harm M.S.’s family is suffering because of their separation from R.S. is profound. While A.B.’s wife plans to return to Egypt to be with her young daughter while they wait out the saga of securing her visa, she cannot do so until she gets her green card. A.B. also is unable to travel to be with R.S. because he is the family’s sole breadwinner and cannot take leave from his job. Having R.S. in Egypt is taking a toll on the family’s finances as well, as A.B. has to support both his family in the U.S. and R.S. in Egypt. R.S. would normally have been starting school in a few months, but she will be missing school if she continues to live in limbo in Egypt
59
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 63 of 101
much longer. M.S. has not seen his granddaughter R.S. since she was a baby, and was looking forward to being reunited with her, and finally having his whole family together after so many years. Now he wonders if that will ever happen during his lifetime, leaving him heartbroken.
Diversity Visa Lottery Winners 187. Plaintiff Fatma Bushati is a citizen and resident of Albania. Ms. Bushati has a Master’s degree in Business Administration and works as a human resources professional for Albania’s healthcare system. She applied for the FY 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery in 2019 on behalf of herself and her immediate family, including her husband Eldis Bushati and her daughter Alia Bushati, age 3. On May 11, 2019, she received notice that she had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program, bringing her family one step closer to realizing their lifelong dream of immigrating to the United States. On March 12, 2020, she received notification from the Department of State that she was “ready to be scheduled for an interview when [her] case number becomes current.” However, because of the Proclamations, Ms. Bushati has never been scheduled for her visa interview. 188. Ms. Bushati has entered the Diversity Visa Lottery every single year since she turned 18 years old because she has long admired the United States, its justice system and freedoms, and its opportunities for upward mobility. All of these things are sorely absent in her native Albania, an economically and politically unstable country. Although she understood her chances of obtaining a diversity visa were slim, throughout her adult life she took intentional steps to ensure she could be successful in the United States, including learning English and obtaining relevant skills and education to succeed in the U.S. job market. 189. Ms. Bushati has specialized skills in the healthcare industry and would be able to contribute much-needed human capital to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic at a time when
60
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 64 of 101
the U.S. healthcare system is under considerable strain. She works as a human-resources professional for the Office of the Operations of Health Care Services for the entire northern region of Albania. In this role, she is responsible for fulfilling the personnel needs of more than 80 healthcare facilities, including support staff, doctors, and nurses. During the COVID-19 crisis, she has been working day and night to ensure the healthcare facilities have the personnel they need. She is highly employable and plans to seek a health care administration job in the United States. Ms. Bushati’s husband has a Bachelor’s degree in finance but works as a plumber because of the limited career opportunities in his field in Albania.
190. Ms. Bushati has family in the United States, including her husband’s aunt, who has submitted an affidavit of support on their behalf, and she has already expended financial resources in anticipation of the Bushati family’s arrival. Her aunt recently purchased a new condo, in which she has placed furniture and home goods so the Bushati family can live comfortably while they get their bearings and find gainful employment in the United States.
191. But the Bushati family’s hopes and plans to realize the American dream were upended when, in April 2020, Ms. Bushati learned of the Presidential Proclamation suspending immigration to the United States for 60 days, and she later learned that the suspension would be extended through at least the end of the year, if not indefinitely. Upon hearing the news, Ms. Bushati and her family have been suffering from mental anguish and anxiety, as the immigration ban will forever change their lives for the worse.
192. The June Proclamation will forever destroy Ms. Bushati’s dream of immigrating to the United States if she is unable to receive her diversity visa before the end of the federal fiscal year. She never imagined that, after spending the past 13 months diligently fulfilling all of the conditions and requirements of the visa, the rug would be pulled out from under her just months
61
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 65 of 101
before her American dream was to be realized. She had plans to be self-sufficient in the United States, and is now sorely disappointed by the injustice of the June Proclamation’s arbitrary and irrational denial of her ability to immigrate.
193. The U.S. Consulate in Tirana, Albania, has stated that diversity visa applicants will not be scheduled for an emergency visa interview prior to September 30, 2020. Nonetheless, on July 12, 2020, Ms. Bushati contacted the U.S. Consulate to request an emergency interview, in order to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. The Consulate replied on July 13, stating: “the Presidential Proclamation 10014 suspended the issuance of several categories of immigrant visas, including diversity visas. This proclamation was recently extended until December 31, 2020. Applicants for immigrant visas covered by the proclamation, including Diversity Visa 2020 (DV-2020) applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23, 2020, are subject to the proclamation's restrictions. The September 30, 2020, deadline to obtain an immigrant visa for DV-2020 has not been extended.”
194. Plaintiff Jodi Lynn Karpes is a citizen of South Africa, where she currently resides. Ms. Karpes is an accomplished public relations specialist who runs her own business. She applied for and was selected as a winner for the FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery. Thereafter, she applied for a visa number, which is current, meaning a visa is available if she is able to schedule her interview. However, as of the filing of this Amended Complaint, she has not yet had an interview.
195. Ms. Karpes did have an interview scheduled, but in May 2020, she received notification from the U.S. Embassy in South Africa that her interview had been cancelled. On July 13, 2020, Ms. Karpes requested an emergency immigrant interview. The Consulate declined her request and stated that “[a]ll routine visa processing has been suspended until 30 December 2020
62
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 66 of 101
due to the Presidential Proclamation for coronavirus. There are exceptions for IR1/IR2s, CR1/2s visas. We are not conducting any visa interviews at the moment and awaiting guidance on how to process and scheduled visa interviews.”
196. Ms. Karpes is a highly educated business professional who has degrees and certificates from educational institutions around the world. She has a Bachelor’s degree in business from the University of South Africa, a teaching diploma from Trinity College of London, and a diploma in digital marketing from Digital Marketing Institute—Vega School of Brand Advertising. She also spent a semester at Scottsdale Community College in Arizona, where she fell in love with America and began to dream about immigrating here.
197. In 2007, Ms. Karpes established her own business in South Africa, GreenQueen Communications, where she works as a public relations specialist.
198. Ms. Karpes entered the Diversity Visa Lottery to overcome the limited professional opportunities she has in South Africa and other societal challenges associated with the country’s depressed economy. Although she has developed important skills and achieved business success in South Africa, her opportunities for professional and business growth are limited there. The country’s unemployment rate remains above 20 percent, crime is high, and there is rampant inequality in income and educational opportunities. This has not been an ideal environment in which to advance herself professionally, let alone grow her business.
199. In April 2020, she learned about the April Proclamation banning immigration to the United States for 60 days. On June 22, 2020, she learned that the President had extended the immigrant ban for the rest of the year, if not indefinitely, which would likely end her chance to immigrate. The news was devastating for her, as she had already made plans to move her life to the United States and expand her business there. She had plans to move to Tulsa, Oklahoma to
63
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 67 of 101
live with a friend and develop a business plan that would result in the creation of more American jobs.
200. Plaintiff Shyam Sundar Koirala is a citizen of Nepal, where he currently resides with his wife. Mr. Koirala is a microbiologist by training, and works at an India-based pharmaceutical company. Mr. Koirala has entered the diversity lottery each year for the last ten years so that he could come to the United States and build a new life for his family here. On May 7, 2019, Mr. Koirala’s dream came true: he received notification from the U.S. State Department’s Diversity visa website that he had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program, bringing him one step closer to realizing his goal of improving his family’s standard of living. On December 16, 2019, he received notification from the Department of State that he had “submitted all required documentation to the Kentucky Consular Center and [was] ready to be scheduled for an interview when [his] case number becomes current.”
201. Mr. Koirala grew up with modest means—both of his parents are farmers—but he strived to improve his lot in life through education and hard work. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in microbiology. For the last seven years he has been working at the India-based pharmaceutical company RPG Life Sciences, where he is a territory business manager. His wife Bhumika is also a professional, working for the past eight years as a banking assistant at a bank in Nepal. While they have become established in their careers, they have few paths to further upward mobility given that Nepal continues to be an underdeveloped country with a struggling economy.
202. Once Mr. Koirala was selected, he began to make concrete plans to start a new life in the United States, including by saving money and foregoing investment opportunities in Nepal. His plan was to continue his career in the pharmaceutical industry in the United States. His wife also planned to continue her career in the banking and finance industry.
64
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 68 of 101
203. However, Mr. Koirala’s hopes and plans were put on hold in late April 2020, when his family learned about the Presidential Proclamation’s 60-day ban on immigration. Their dreams were later shattered in late June 2020, when they learned that the President had extended the ban through the end of the year, if not indefinitely. Since they are required under the diversity visa program to secure visas by September 30, 2020, they understood their opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. was likely gone.
204. On July 14, 2020, as a last-ditch attempt to resurrect their dream to come to America, Mr. Koirala contacted the U.S. Embassy to request an emergency interview to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. He received a form response that failed to address his request for an emergency interview. The U.S. Embassy stated, “Please be informed that as of March 17, 2020, the United States Embassy in Kathmandu is canceling routine Diversity visas and nonimmigrant visa appointments. From March 23, 2020, the U.S. Embassy is canceling all routine immigrant visa appointments. We will resume routine visa services as soon as possible but are unable to provide a specific date at this time.”
205. Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova is a citizen of Tajikistan where she currently resides. She and her husband, Sobirjon Kurbonov, have a successful import business in Tajikistan, which Sobirjon runs. On October 6, 2018, she applied for a diversity visa for herself and her immediate family, including her husband and her three daughters, Safiya Kurbonova, age 8; Muharram Kurbonova, age 4; and Aliya Kurbonova, age 2. On May 7, 2019, Ms. Kurbonova received notification from the U.S. State Department’s Diversity Visa Lottery web page that she had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program. On December 4, 2019, she was notified by the State Department that she had “submitted all required documentation to the
65
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 69 of 101
Kentucky Consular Center and [was] ready to be scheduled for an interview when [her] case number becomes current.”
206. Ms. Kurbonova’s visa interview was initially scheduled for March 31, 2020 at the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, but it was later canceled and postponed indefinitely.
207. The Kurbonova family has entered the Diversity Visa Lottery several times, because they had long aspired to immigrate to the United States. Although they were able to build a comfortable life in Tajikistan, it was punctuated by financial and political instability. Ms. Kurbonova’s husband is highly credentialed in the field of finance, having received a Ph.D. from the State University—Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia and completed a fellowship at Harvard University. He then secured a job with the U.S. accounting firm Ernst & Young in Russia, where he worked for several years. These opportunities provided him with the skills to start his own business in Tajikistan, importing fast-moving consumer goods, including poultry from the United States. But the business has always been at the mercy of a corrupt and arbitrary government. Last year, for example, the government confiscated approximately $500,000 worth of his goods, despite the fact that he had permission for the import. These sorts of arbitrary business setbacks prompted the family to apply for the Diversity Visa Lottery several years in a row.
208. In 2019, after the family had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program, and they received a low preference number indicating they would likely be able to obtain a visa in 2020, they began making concrete plans to wind down their business and prepare to relocate their assets to the United States. They sold half of their inventory, canceled contracts with suppliers, and scaled back their business significantly. They also expended over $2,000 to
66
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 70 of 101
purchase plane tickets and cover other travel costs to attend their scheduled visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in nearby Kazakhstan.
209. The Kurbonova family also began to plan their life in the United States. Ms. Kurbonova’s husband hoped to eventually start his own business, like the one he has in Tajikistan, and had set aside significant sums of money to do that. In Tajikistan, Ms. Kurbonova had been assisting her husband with their family business while at the same time caring for their three young children. Her plan on coming to the United States was to return to school to learn accounting once her family settled into their new home. The Kurbonova children were looking forward to learning English and attending new and higher quality schools in the United States.
210. In late April 2020, Ms. Kurbonova learned about the April Proclamation suspending entry to the United States of potential immigrants like herself with pending visa applications, and in late June she learned that the entry suspension was being extended through at least the end of the year. This news was devastating for her and her family, who had for some time hoped to leave Tajikistan to escape its authoritarian style of government.
211. In early June 2020, Ms. Kurbonova inquired with the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan about the status of the processing of their diversity visas. The U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan responded on June 10, 2020 stating, “Please be informed that Immigration is suspended in accordance with the Proclamation dated April 22, 2020. . . . As per the proclamation Immigrant visas cannot be issued or reissued or extended.”
212. On July 12, 2020, Ms. Kurbonova contacted the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan to request an emergency interview in an attempt to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. On July 13, 2020, she received a form response that was not responsive to her request for an emergency interview. It stated, “Thank you for your email. Our post will work to review for
67
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 71 of 101
possible renewal of an immigrant visa that was issued before April 22, 2020. We will resume routine visa services as soon as possible but are unable to provide a specific date at this time.”
213. Plaintiff Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh is a citizen of Gambia where she currently resides. Ms. Kinteh has a degree in economics and works as a statistician. On October 4, 2018, she applied for a diversity visa for herself and her immediate family, including her husband Cherno Aboubacarr Jagne, her 6-year-old stepson Modou Lamin Jagne, her 3-year-old daughter Neima Aisha Jagne, and her 1-year-old daughter Fatimah Dagga Jagne. On May 7, 2019, she received notification from the U.S. Department of State that she had been selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program. On February 19, 2020, after receiving notification from the U.S. Department of State that she had submitted all necessary documentation, she was scheduled for a visa interview on April 21, 2020 at the U.S. Embassy in neighboring Senegal. The U.S. Embassy later postponed her interview to August 6, 2020.
214. Ms. Kinteh entered the Diversity Visa Lottery to seek better professional and educational opportunities for herself and her children. Ms. Kinteh works as a statistician at The Gambia Bureau of Statistics. Her educational training in economic theory has taught her about the intricate relationship between human resource development and economic growth. Though she enjoys her work in The Gambia, she knows that the country’s position on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder make it difficult to put her human resources to the best use there. She feels that the U.S., with its vast opportunities, is the only place she can truly achieve her dreams. She has instilled her hopes and dreams for bigger and better opportunities in her young children, who are especially excited about the prospect of coming to America. Her daughter Neima Aisha wants to study medicine and become a doctor when she grows up. Ms. Kinteh’s husband works for
68
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 72 of 101
himself and runs a software and web design company. He too is looking to use his skills to expand his business in the United States, and ideally create jobs there.
215. In late April 2020, Ms. Kinteh learned about the April Proclamation suspending immigration to the U.S., and later learned of the news in late June that the entry suspension was being extended through at least the end of the year. Since hearing about the June Proclamation and its potential to permanently end their plan to immigrate to the United States, her whole family has become heartbroken and sorely disappointed. They had already been making firm plans to move to Seattle, Washington to live near her uncle. He runs an adult care facility in Everett, Washington and offered Ms. Kinteh and her husband jobs there until they are able to gain their own professional footing. He also provided affidavits of support to bolster their immigration petitions, and has committed to provide them room and board in the U.S. until they could support themselves. Knowing that their earnings would not be enough to foot their travel bills, Ms. Kinteh and her family have sold property to secure the necessary resources. The news of the Proclamations was particularly painful for her children, who had started dreams of meeting Santa Claus and receiving a gift from him during the Christmas season, building a snowman, and visiting Disneyland.
216. On July 12, 2020, Ms. Kinteh contacted the U.S. Embassy in Dakar to inquire about the status of her August 6, 2020 interview. Having received no response, on July 13, 2020, she requested an emergency interview, hoping to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. That same day, the U.S. Embassy in Dakar responded, asking her to “explain [her] matter of urgency,” and “[w]hat exception to the Presidential Proclamation [she] believe[s] [she] fall[s] under.” Ms. Kinteh immediately responded, explaining that the deadline to obtain a Diversity visa was fast approaching on September 30, 2020 and seeking guidance on what else the U.S. requires her to
69
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 73 of 101
present to meet an exception to the June Proclamation. As of the filing of the Complaint, Ms. Kinteh has not received any response to this request
217. Plaintiff Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden is a citizen of Cote D’Ivoire, where she currently resides. Ms. Iwundu is a chemist by training but currently works in the hospitality industry. She applied for a Diversity visa on November 2, 2018 on behalf of herself and her immediate family, including her husband Kouadio Kouassi Constant, their 3-year-old daughter Kouadio Moaye Deborah Roxanne Chidinma, and their 9-month-old daughter Kouadio Akachi Kenora Rébecca. She was selected to participate in the 2020 Diversity Visa Program on January 7, 2020, bringing them one step closer to realizing their dream of improving their standard of living in the U.S. On January 9, 2020, Ms. Iwundu was notified by the Department of State that she had “submitted all required documentation to the Kentucky Consular Center and [was] ready to be scheduled for an interview when your case number becomes current.” She was scheduled for a visa interview on April 28, 2020 but it was canceled on April 7, 2020, and it has not been rescheduled.
218. Ms. Iwundu applied for the Diversity Visa Lottery because of the limited economic opportunities available to them in the tiny nation of Cote D’Ivoire. Though Ms. Iwundu and her family have built a decent life for themselves, their education and professional skills have not been put to the best use, and they are eager to take advantage of the far greater opportunities available to both them and their children in the U.S. While Ms. Iwundu is a chemist by training, she is currently working as a receptionist at the five-star Radisson Blue Hotel in Abidjan. Her husband is self-employed and runs his own real estate business, and also runs a digital printing business. He plans to continue his current business ventures in the United States, and potentially create jobs in this country.
70
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 74 of 101
219. In late April 2020, Ms. Iwundu learned about the April Proclamation suspending entry to the United States of potential immigrants like herself with pending visa applications, and in late June she learned the entry suspension was being extended through at least the end of the year. The news of the June Proclamation, and its impact on her and her family’s plan to immigrate to the United States, felt like a grave injustice to Ms. Iwundu. She has a particularly low visa preference number, meaning that her chances of receiving a diversity visa were good, and therefore had begun making concrete plans to move to the U.S. She and her husband had been planning to invest in a restaurant in Cote D’Ivoire but put those plans aside in order to preserve their resources to have a nest egg with which to start their new lives in the U.S. She was particularly devastated to have lost the opportunity to pursue higher education in the United States, and to expand her children’s educational opportunities as well.
220. On July 13, 2020, Ms. Iwundu contacted the U.S. Embassy to request an emergency interview in order to seek an exception to the June Proclamation. On July 14, 2020, she received a form response, stating in pertinent part: “As of March 17, 2020, the United States Embassy in Abidjan has cancelled all routine nonimmigrant and immigrant visa appointments, as well as DNA testing. We will resume routine visa services as soon as possible, but are unable to provide a specific date at this time . . . . For immigrant visas, including Diversity Visas, you will be contacted once your visa appointment is able to be re-scheduled.” Ms. Iwundu received a further, more definititive response from the Embassy the next day: “It will not be possible to schedule your DV interview before September 30, 2020 due to the restrictions in the Presidential Proclamation on Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak. On June 22, the President extended these restrictions through December 30, 2020. At this time, applicants for the
71
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 75 of 101
Diversity Visa do not meet the criteria provided for a national interest exception. We understand your request and desire for an interview, but unfortunately will not be able to facilitate this under the current immigration laws.”
221. Plaintiff Aya Nakamura is a citizen of Japan, where she currently resides. She was a student in the United States for several years, and has degrees in business and applied science. She applied for a diversity visa in 2019, and learned that she had won the lottery on May 7, 2019, while she was living in the United States on F-1 student visa status in New York, New York. On June 19, 2020 after submitting all the necessary paperwork, she was notified that her visa interview was “ready for scheduling.”
222. At that time, she had completed her degrees and was on a post completion Optical Practical Training period authorized by the F-1 student visa. But rather than complete this training period, she decided to return to Japan on January 1, 2020, to complete visa consular processing there, so that she could return to the United States with a green card.
223. Winning the Diversity Visa Lottery was a dream come true for Ms. Nakamura, who had spent significant time in the United States completing her studies and could not imagine ever leaving permanently. She had applied for the Diversity Visa Lottery four times while she was in the United States on F-1 student visa status before she won the lottery in 2019. She had also invested significant resources into obtaining degrees in the United States, to best position herself to succeed professionally if she were able to make this her permanent home. She has plans to become a Certified Public Accountant and work as a CPA. She also has dreams of opening her own accounting firm and creating jobs in the United States.
224. Her dreams were upended, however, when in late April 2020, she learned of the Presidential Proclamation suspending immigration to the U.S. for 60 days. Her dreams were
72
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 76 of 101
further devastated when she learned in late June 2020 that the suspension would last until at least the end of the year and possibly indefinitely. Ms. Nakamura has now spent so much time in the United States that she fears she will no longer fit back into Japanese society if she is forced to stay there. The devastation of being denied the diversity visa will forever change her life.
225. The website for the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Japan indicates that they will “process a limited number of visa applications on an emergency basis,” providing a list that “represents the types of visas that are eligible to request an emergency appointment.” That list does not include diversity visa applicants.51
226. On July 13, 2020, Ms. Nakamura’s immigration attorney contacted the U.S. Consulate in Tokyo on her behalf to request an emergency interview. The Consulate responded that “[a]ll diversity (DV) immigrant visa appointments have been cancelled at this time.” On July 16, 2020, Mr. Dunn again contacted the U.S. Consulate in Tokyo to request an emergency interview, specifically to seek an exception to the proclamation. As of today’s date, Mr. Dunn has not received a response to this request.
Nonimmigrant Visa Sponsors (H-1B, H-2B, J and L) 227. Plaintiff 3Q Digital is a digital marketing agency that is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Illinois, with multiple offices in the United States and abroad. In 2019, its gross income was over $15 million. 228. 3Q Digital has 330 employees in the United States. More than 95% of its staff are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
51 See Qualifications for Emergency Appointment Request, U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Japan, https://jp.usembassy.gov/visas/emergencyappo/ (last visited on July 17, 2020).
73
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 77 of 101
229. 3Q Digital is the largest independent digital marketing agency. According to its Chief People Officer, Laura Rodnitzky, its success is due to the diligent efforts and dedication of its knowledgeable staff.
230. 3Q Digital has been so successful, it was not forced to downsize during the economic downturn caused by COVID-19. While it initially furloughed approximately 3% of its staff, it has already brought many of those furloughed workers back for full-time work and did not lay off a single U.S. worker.
231. 3Q Digital prefers to hire American workers, but sometimes it has been unable to find them to fill key roles that are critical to 3Q Digital’s success and that of its clients. In those instances, 3Q Digital has found success hiring foreign nationals.
232. Over the course of several years, 3Q Digital has petitioned to sponsor approximately ten H-1B nonimmigrant, temporary workers to perform specialized work at its U.S. offices.
233. One of those petitions was for Balaji Bhat, whom 3Q Digital sought to continue to employ as a Search Engine Account Manager, which is a specialty occupation. At the time – March 30, 2018 – Bhat was already working for 3Q Digital in that role; he was in the United States in F-1 OPT status and sought to change status to H-1B.
234. Bhat has a Bachelor’s degree in Economics and a Certificate in New Media and Humanities from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Massachusetts.
235. On November 27, 2018, USCIS denied 3Q Digital’s H-1B petition on behalf of Bhat. Bhat was forced to leave the United States.
236. Bhat has continued to work for 3Q Digital from its Singapore affiliate as a Search Engine Marketing Account Manager. The time difference between Singapore and the United
74
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 78 of 101
States has harmed his ability to collaborate with other 3Q team members. He is only able to work overlapping hours with his U.S. clients and team members on 4 days a week and, even then, not for the entire work day. He is separated from his family in San Francisco, California. 3Q Digital is also unable to invest in Bhat’s talent by providing him with training and development activities, and Bhat is unable to pursue management opportunities within his team. 3Q Digital fears that due to these difficulties, he may seek employment elsewhere, to 3Q Digital’s detriment.
237. In March 2019, 3Q Digital filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the USCIS denial of its H1B petition for Bhat. On March 6, 2020, the district court held that USCIS abused its discretion when it denied 3Q Digital’s petition. On June 15, 2020, USCIS approved the H-1B petition for Bhat.
238. Upon receiving the USCIS approval, Bhat immediately began compiling all the necessary paperwork. He filed the DS-160 Nonimmigrant Visa Form on June 24, 2020, and requested an emergency H-1B visa interview, because all U.S. consulates were closed for routine visa appointments at the time.
239. However, on June 22, 2020, President Trump issued the June Proclamation, barring the entry of H-1B visa holders. Because of the Proclamation, Bhat has been unable to obtain a visa to enter the United States.
240. The inability to bring Bhat and other foreign nationals to work in its U.S. offices harms 3Q Digital and its ability to meet its clients’ needs. The inability to bring talented foreign nationals to work in its U.S. offices hampers 3Q Digital’s continued economic growth and impedes its ability to create more jobs for U.S. workers.
75
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 79 of 101
241. Plaintiff ASSE International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
242. ASSE is engaged in a private-public partnership with DOS to manage and administer exchange visitor programs for J-1 nonimmigrants.
243. ASSE runs three J-1 exchange programs that have been harmed by the June Proclamation. The first of those exchange programs is part of DOS’s Summer Work Travel Program, which is open for current university students at foreign universities coming to the United States to work in a seasonal job for their summer break. The second affected exchange program is part of DOS’s Intern Program, which offers on-the-job training opportunities of up to 12 months to individuals who are current full-time students at foreign universities, or have completed a foreign university degree within the last year. The third of affected exchange program is part of DOS’s Trainee Program, which allows up to 18 months of on-the-job training for individuals who completed their degree more than a year ago and also have one year of employment experience; this program is also an option for individuals without a degree but in possession of five years of related employment. For all three programs, DOS’s regulations require orientation, cultural, and community events to be integrated into the J-1 participant’s stay.
244. So far in 2020, only 98 summer work and travel participants, 80 interns, and 49 trainees have been able to enter the United States through ASSE. In comparison, 3,287 summer work and travel participants, 229 interns, and 174 trainees were able to enter the United States through ASSE in 2019.
245. Because the June Proclamation forbids the entry of individuals on J-1 visas—the type of visa used by participants in ASSE’s exchange programs—and because DOS has decided
76
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 80 of 101
to implement the June Proclamation by no longer issuing J-1 visas, the June Proclamation has stopped ASSE from continuing to operate its exchange programs.
246. In 2020, ASSE has had to provide refunds of $123,238 to host companies that would have employed its interns or trainees, and has had to pay $1,012,843 in cancellation refunds to its foreign partners in the summer work and travel program. ASSE has had to pay these refunds because individuals were not able to come to the United States on J-1 visas as originally planned.
247. ASSE is currently receiving no income because of the June Proclamation. 248. ASSE has been forced to terminate five of its 33 full-time employees. It has placed another three employees on furlough, with the furlough to begin on August 1, 2020. If the routine entry of J-1 visa holders does not resume for the rest of 2020, ASSE will need to furlough or terminate at least eight additional employees. 249. Absent the June Proclamation, ASSE would not have had to furlough or terminate multiple employees, and would not have had to pay over a million dollars in refunds. ASSE anticipates that if the June Proclamation’s entry restrictions do not end, ASSE will run out of money by early 2021. 250. Plaintiff EurAuPair International, Inc. is a California public benefit organization and 501(c)(3) nonprofit. EurAuPair is engaged in a private-public partnership with DOS to manage and administer an exchange visitor program that uses the J-1 nonimmigrant visa category. 251. EurAuPair runs an exchange visitor program for au pairs, who come to the United States on J-1 nonimmigrant visas. The J-1 au pair program allows qualified parents or guardians, who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and who have a child for the au pair to look after, the opportunity to host an au pair in their home. The au pair’s childcare schedule cannot exceed 45 hours per week, and the au pair must receive weekend and other time off, including paid
77
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 81 of 101
vacation. The au pair also must receive a stipend for post-secondary classwork available in the family’s locale and receive wages in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Department of Labor rules. Au pairs who participate in this program must be between 18 and 26 years old on their arrival to the United States, pass a criminal background check in their home country, pass a standardized psychological test, speak English, have childcare experience, and be willing to become part of an American host family for at least a year.
252. In 2019, EurAuPair sponsored 739 au pairs from 21 countries, who worked for and lived with families in 48 states. So far in 2020, only 150 au pairs have been able to enter the United States through EurAuPair, despite the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic, having live-in childcare would be a significant help to many families.
253. Because the June Proclamation forbids the entry of individuals on J-1 visas – the type of visa used by participants in EurAuPair’s exchange program – and because DOS has decided to implement the June Proclamation by no longer issuing J-1 visas, the June Proclamation has stopped EurAuPair from continuing to operate its exchange program.
254. In 2020, EurAuPair has had to provide refunds of $434,500 to host families who would have hosted au pairs.
255. EurAuPair is currently receiving no income because of the June Proclamation. 256. EurAuPair has been forced to terminate three of its eleven full-time employees. It has placed another two employees on furlough, with the furlough to begin on August 1, 2020. EurAuPair will need to eliminate one or two more positions by September 1, 2020, if the bar on the entry of J-1 visa holders continues. Should the June Proclamation’s restrictions on the entry of J-1 visa holders remain in effect for the remainder of the year, EurAuPair will forego $2.5 million in revenue.
78
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 82 of 101
257. Absent the June Proclamation, EurAuPair would not have had to furlough or terminate multiple employees, and would not have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in refunds. EurAuPair anticipates that if the June Proclamation’s entry restrictions do not end, it will run out of money by early 2021.
258. Plaintiff SEIU Healthcare (CIR) is the largest medical housestaff union in the country, representing approximately 17,000 intern, resident, and fellow physicians nationwide in collective bargaining. It is headquartered in Long Island City, New York, and has multiple additional offices across the country.
259. CIR represents physicians working in the United States on H-1B and J-1 visas. These physicians are in training programs that last three to seven years.
260. When physicians holding H-1B and J-1 visas join CIR, they become either duespaying members or agency fee payors, who pay a fee for the benefits and services connected to their collective bargaining agreement.
261. The June Proclamation has stopped physicians with H-1B and J-1 visas from traveling to the United States to start their residency programs, which typically begin in June and July.
262. The June Proclamation has harmed CIR by lowering the number of H-1B and J-1 physicians joining CIR. CIR has been denied the dues and fees that those individuals would have paid had they been able to start work in the United States. CIR has already been deprived of dues and fees from at least 60 residents, who have been barred from entering the United States because of the June Proclamation. Those residents were supposed to start work by July 1, 2020. The loss of these unpaid dues and fees cannot be recouped, and during each week when those residents are
79
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 83 of 101
not working in the United States, CIR’s financial loss grows. This financial harm will impede CIR’s ability to provide services to its members.
263. Additionally, current CIR members are harmed by the June Proclamation because they have to work extra hours to cover for the absent residents. Current CIR members are working 80-hour work weeks because of the June Proclamation. This creates additional stress during a time when physicians are already under heavy strain due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
264. The June Proclamation has caused hospitals to work with fewer physicians, because it has forbidden the entry of qualified physicians. This loss of staff negatively affects the U.S. healthcare system’s ability to respond to the pandemic. The absence of qualified physicians, due to the June Proclamation, will only exacerbate the economic harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic – economic harms that CIR is already experiencing.52
265. Plaintiff PowerTrunk, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in New Jersey. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teltronic S.A.U., a Spain-based Professional Mobile Radio company. PowerTrunk is a pioneer in bringing TETRA technology—a type of professional land mobile radio system—to the United States. PowerTrunk has deployed TETRA technology in the New Jersey Transit Corporation, the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York City, the Los Angeles International Airport, and the John F. Kennedy International Airport.
266. PowerTrunk has 11 employees in the United States. These employees are a mix of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals. The foreign nationals are typically employees transferred from PowerTrunk’s parent company.
52 See, e.g., Dara Lind, “Hospitals Are Suddenly Short of Young Doctors—Because of Trump’s Visa Ban,” ProPublica (July 17, 2020), https://www.propublica.org/article/hospitals-are-suddenlyshort-of-young-doctors-because-of-trumps-visa-ban (“some [hospitals] are acutely short-staffed because of an ill-timed change to immigration policy and its inconsistent implementation”).
80
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 84 of 101
267. Since 2009, PowerTrunk has filed approximately 10 nonimmigrant visa petitions in the L and H-1B categories. Because TETRA technology is new to the United States— PowerTrunk has introduced it to this country—PowerTrunk relies on foreign talent to operate and expand its U.S. business. With the help of that foreign talent, PowerTrunk hopes to hire and train more and more U.S. workers to work on its TETRA systems.
268. On January 10, 2017, PowerTrunk filed an L-1B petition on behalf of Victor Manuel Hernandez, a Spanish national. PowerTrunk filed an extension petition on October 11, 2019.
269. Hernandez has worked for PowerTrunk as a Senior TETRA Systems Engineer since 2017. He was employed by PowerTrunk’s parent corporation, Teltronic, starting in 2012. Hernandez is a critical employee for PowerTrunk.
270. USCIS approved the L-1B extension petition on October 22, 2019. After Hernandez filed an application to renew his L-1B visa stamp, he was interviewed at the U.S. embassy in Madrid, Spain on January 9, 2020. He returned to the United States on January 18, 2020.
271. Hernandez submitted all additional information that the embassy requested from him. The embassy then asked him, around February 24, 2020, to provide his passport so that he could receive the new L-1 visa stamp. He promptly flew back to Spain and submitted his passport to the embassy on March 10, 2020.
272. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the embassy had suspended services. Weeks passed, during which the embassy told Hernandez that he could not receive a visa stamp until the embassy had resumed services. Finally, PowerTrunk hired a law firm to request an
81
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 85 of 101
emergency visa issuance, because it urgently needed Hernandez to return to the United States to provide essential services for New Jersey Transit.
273. In response to the attorney’s inquiry, the Madrid embassy responded that it would not issue a visa stamp to Hernandez until certain COVID-19 related restrictions had been lifted.
274. Then, the June Proclamation suspended the entry of L-1 visa holders. The Department of State decided to implement the June Proclamation by suspending the issuance of L-1 visas. Hernandez now cannot receive his L-1 visa even if the COVID-19 restrictions end.
275. To date, Hernandez has not received a new L-1 visa stamp, and he has been unable to return to the United States. This has caused extreme hardship to Hernandez, who has been living with relatives and staying in hotels for several months. He has been separated from his wife, who is in the United States, since March 2020.
276. Hernandez’s prolonged stay in Spain has also caused extreme hardship to PowerTrunk. PowerTrunk has multiple contracts with transit agencies, which require it to complete crucial tasks on strict timelines. Among those contracts is one with New Jersey Transit, pursuant to which PowerTrunk is in the final stages of implementing mission-critical TETRA technology throughout New Jersey Transit operations. PowerTrunk urgently needs Hernandez to return so that this New Jersey Transit project can be completed. Hernandez is the most qualified and knowledgeable employee PowerTrunk has on certain TETRA features.
277. Another of PowerTrunk’s contracts is with the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Pursuant to this contract, PowerTrunk is implementing bus radio systems. Hernandez is the only engineer at PowerTrunk qualified to complete aspects of this project. Without Hernandez, PowerTrunk will not be able to meet its contractual deadlines and will need to seek an extension.
82
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 86 of 101
278. The nonimmigrant visa ban is devastating for PowerTrunk’s business and continued economic growth. PowerTrunk may be unable to meet its contractual obligations because of this ban, and may have to fire other employees if those obligations are not met. Without Hernandez present in the United States, PowerTrunk is already facing reputational damage among its U.S. customers and potential customers, which will cause additional financial hardship for the company and further hamper PowerTrunk’s ability to grow and create more job opportunities for U.S. workers.
279. Plaintiff Shipco Transport Inc. is a New Jersey corporation and one of the world’s leading non-vessel operating common carriers. It has 425 employees in the United States and more than 2,000 employees at its affiliate international branches. In 2019, Shipco earned over $55 million in gross income, and it is continuing to expand.
280. Shipco’s co-founder and current CEO credits his company’s success to the selection of key employees, who strategize, establish, and implement corporate processes and operations. He believes that the company’s continued success hinges on strategic planning and expert application of the company’s carefully developed methods, systems, and techniques. Shipco operates in a competitive market, and such planning and execution helps Shipco stand out from its competitors.
281. Approximately ninety percent of Shipco’s U.S. staff are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Shipco has not furloughed or laid off any U.S. workers during the current economic downturn. In fact, Shipco continues to give back to those communities where it has a presence.
282. Shipco’s success is critical to the success of other industries. Shipco facilitates the shipment of all kinds of goods, including personal protective equipment, medical devices, cars,
83
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 87 of 101
aircraft parts, food and beverages, household items, and retail items. Shipco’s continued efficiency (or lack thereof) has ripple effects on the industries that rely on its services.
283. On or about May 7, 2020, Shipco filed an L-1A nonimmigrant visa petition for Brian Nielsen. Shipco employs Nielsen as a chief financial officer at its sister office in Denmark. Nielsen has unique knowledge of Shipco’s global accounting and financial functions. Shipco filed the nonimmigrant petition for Nielsen because it wished to employ Nielsen in the United States as the Finance Director of its Americas Region.
284. USCIS approved Shipco’s L-1A petition for Nielsen on June 30, 2020. However, Nielsen cannot begin to work for Shipco in the United States unless he receives an L-1A visa from a U.S. consulate abroad and enters the United States with L-1A status.
285. Shipco has now learned that DOS will not issue a visa to Nielsen because of the June Proclamation unless Nielsen qualifies for an exception to the June Proclamation.
286. The inability to obtain an L-1A visa on behalf of Nielsen, Shipco’s potential Finance Director, will harm Shipco’s profitability. Nielsen is expected to increase Shipco’s efficiency and therefore allow Shipco to expand and hire even more U.S. workers. The inability to bring a knowledgeable and experienced employee from an affiliate international office to the United States has hamstrung Shipco and undermined the positive economic good that it could provide to its community and to the other industries that rely on it.
287. Plaintiff Superior Scape is a landscape contractor and Michigan corporation. Superior Scape provides year-round landscaping services for commercial and residential properties. Superior Scape has enjoyed consistent growth for at least the past five years. Its gross sales have increased from $3.2 million in 2014 to $5.3 million in 2019.
84
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 88 of 101
288. Superior Scape currently has 19 permanent employees. Each year, from March until December – the months during which Superior Scape has the most work – Superior Scape also hires an additional 50 to 55 temporary workers.
289. Superior Scape has found it difficult to find 50 to 55 temporary workers each year without seeking additional workers through the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program. Although it pays above the prevailing wage, Superior Scape experiences a massive turnover rate: Landscaping is hard, hot work. Many of its U.S. employees are also college students who leave for school once summer ends.
290. For the past 10 years, Superior Scape has received Department of Labor certifications to bring 10 to 28 workers into the United States on H-2B visas. Many of Superior Scape’s H-2B workers return year after year.
291. Through the H-2B visa program, Superior Scape has been able to guarantee a steady supply of experienced workers. This has enabled Superior Scape to plan, budget, set sales targets, and ensure that it can fulfill its contracts.
292. Without H-2B visas, Superior Scape is unable to meet its contractual obligations or complete projects for its customers. In 2017, Superior Scape’s visa petition for H-2B workers was not processed before the government ran out of H-2B visas for the year. The resulting delays prevented Superior Scape from adding H-2B workers to its staff until mid-August that year. The delay caused Superior Scape to lose $850,000.
293. Superior Scape’s owner and president, Terry Newman, credits the H-2B visa program for the company’s growth since 2014. Superior Scape has added four permanent positions to its company since it began participating in the H-2B program.
85
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 89 of 101
294. Superior Scape was unable to obtain H-2B temporary workers in early 2020. The government again ran out of H-2B visas before Superior Scape’s visa petition was processed.
295. Superior Scape’s projected income for 2020, with H-2B workers, was $5.9 million. Without H-2B workers, it now has a projected loss of $1.9 million.
296. After losing the chance to hire H-2B workers for the spring, Superior Scape planned to file paperwork to bring 40 H-2B temporary workers into the United States for an October 1, 2020 start date. These workers are necessary to save the company: without them, Superior Scape may be unable to complete its clients’ major projects in the fall. If Superior Scape receives all 40 temporary workers, it hopes to cut its losses for the year in half.
297. The June Proclamation has ruined these plans. Due to the June Proclamation, Superior Scape will be unable to hire the 40 H-2B workers that are desperately needed for its survival. Superior Scape’s attempts to hire U.S. workers have been unsuccessful – although it has hired some U.S. workers, it remains critically understaffed.
298. Superior Scape’s president fears that he is at risk of losing everything he worked his entire life to build. He had expected to sell Superior Scape and retire soon. However, with the company’s looming financial losses, he fears that he will need to start all over again or seek employment elsewhere and may never be able to retire.
299. Should Superior Scape not receive the H-2B workers it needs for the fall, its 14 permanent employees will lose their jobs. Moreover, Superior Scape will no longer contribute to the local economy by purchasing equipment, vehicles, and supplies. In short, the June Proclamation inflicts devastating financial harm on Superior Scape’s owner, his employees, their families, and the local economy.
86
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 90 of 101
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 300. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and all other persons for whom Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamations interferes with family reunification or the issuance of visas in a manner consistent with federal law. Plaintiffs seek certification of four subclasses, consisting of:
(a) Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before June 23, 2020, when the June Proclamation took effect, and who, as a result of the June Proclamation, will become ineligible to a receive a visa through the FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and therefore will be unable to immigrate to the United States with any eligible derivatives as of midnight on September 30, 2020.
(b) Individual U.S. citizens with an approved immigrant visa petition for an immediate relative parent who is a foreign national; whose sponsored parent is subject to the Proclamations and will, as a result of the Proclamations, be unable to immigrate to the United States.
(c) Individual lawful permanent residents with an approved immigrant visa petition for a preference relative who is a foreign national, including a spouse, parent, child, or sibling; whose sponsored preference relative’s application is “current” or will become “current” while the Proclamations are in effect, and whose sponsored preference relative is subject to the
87
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 91 of 101
Proclamations and will, as a result of those Proclamations, be unable to immigrate to the United States with any eligible derivatives. (d) United States employers with an approved nonimmigrant visa petition for an employee or potential employee in the H1-B, H2-B, J-1, or L-1 nonimmigrant visa categories; whose sponsored employee or potential employee’s work petition for nonimmigrant status has been approved for employment in the United States, and whose sponsored employee or potential employee is subject to the June Proclamation and will, as a result of the June Proclamation, be unable to enter the United States on the nonimmigrant visa and work for the sponsoring employer. 301. This action meets all of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for maintaining a class action. 302. The Plaintiff Classes are so numerous that joinder is impracticable, satisfying Rule 23(a)(1). The White House has estimated that the June Proclamation will affect approximately 525,000 individuals who would otherwise come to the United States. Estimates from the CATO Institute suggest that the Proclamations will ban at least 361,000 nonimmigrant workers and 164,000 immigrants, affecting approximately 20,000 U.S. employers. Moreover, a class action is the only appropriate procedural avenue for the protections of the class members’ statutory and constitutional rights and rights under the APA. 303. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law and fact and will not require individualized determinations of the circumstances to any plaintiff, satisfying Rule 23(a)(2). Such common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: (a) Whether, in issuing the Proclamations, Defendants acted in a manner outside the authority delegated to them by Congress under INA;
88
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 92 of 101
(b) Whether the Proclamations violate the INA to the extent that they impose requirements that contravene or conflict with certain provisions of the INA, including labor market protections that the INA requires relating to the issuance of visas and the Diversity Visa Lottery program that guarantees the issuance of visas to individuals who are selected to receive a visa through that program;
(c) Whether the terms of the Proclamations are unconstitutionally vague; (d) Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamations, Defendants relied on
factors that Congress did not intend for it to consider; (e) Whether, in issuing and implementing the Proclamations, Defendants failed to
consider important aspects of the problem it sought to address; (f) Whether Defendants quantified or considered harms, including reliance interests of
visa applicants and their families and communities, that would result from the Proclamations and their implementation; (g) Whether the Proclamations are being or will be implemented and enforced so as to either prevent class members from reuniting with family members in the United States, or to force their separation from family members in the United States, and thereby infringe on class members protected liberty interests in family unity; (h) Whether class members have suffered harm as a result of the Proclamations and Defendants’ actions taken to implement the Proclamations. 304. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the Plaintiff Class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3). Like other members of the class, Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Proclamations’ contravention of multiple provisions of the INA and separation-ofpowers principles of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Defendants’ failure to abide by statutory
89
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 93 of 101
limitations on their actions, thereby leading to arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful agency action that fails to account for important aspects of the supposed problems the Proclamations seek to address. Plaintiffs have further been harmed by Defendants’ failure to adequately explain their decision to issue and implement the Proclamations, to account for the reliance interests at stake, or to explain why suspending visa issuance and entry for members of the Plaintiff Class serves the interests of Defendants or is otherwise a valid exercise of their respective authority. Each of these actions, independently and collectively, have caused harm to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
305. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(4). The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may become antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiff Class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiffs include experienced civil rights and immigration attorneys who are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
306. The members of the proposed class are readily ascertainable through Defendants’ records.
307. Counsel for Plaintiffs do not anticipate any conflicts of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the other class members nor does Counsel anticipate any reason that the other class members would dispute the adequacy of Counsel’s representation.
308. Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
309. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible standards
90
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 94 of 101
of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may therefore by properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)—Against Defendants DOS and Pompeo 310. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 311. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) by preventing issuance of visas for which Plaintiffs and class members who are otherwise eligible. 312. The INA distinguishes between entry, admission, and visa issuance. Section 1182(f) authorizes the President only to suspend the entry of certain aliens into the United States. It does not authorize the President to suspend the issuance of visas. Section 1185(a) likewise does not authorize suspension of visa issuance. 313. DOS has implemented the Proclamations in a manner that suspends the issuance of visas while the Proclamations are in effect. 314. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations constitutes final agency action within the meaning of the APA. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). 315. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations is in excess of authority in violation of the APA, § 706(2)(C), because, among other things, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) does not permit Defendants to suspend the issuance of visas or deprive consular officers of the authority to issue visas to individuals “who ha[ve] made proper application therefore.” 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). 316. In implementing the Proclamations, DOS also failed to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including the purposes of the visa system and the interests, including reliance
91
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 95 of 101
interests, of Plaintiffs, other class members, and other segments of society such as employers. DOS also failed to articulate a rational connection between any relevant facts and the choice to discontinue visa issuance for those who have paid the applicable fees and submitted the necessary documentation for issuance of the visa. It has thus failed to provide a rational explanation for its action. The State Department’s implementation of the Proclamations is thus “arbitrary, capricious, [and] an abuse of discretion,” in violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
317. DOS’s implementation of the Proclamations as to visas is also “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” id. § 706(2)(B), because, among other things, it denies family members their protected right to family unity without due process of law.
318. DOS’s actions are without good cause. 319. DOS’s actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs. 320. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)—Against All Agency Defendants 321. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 322. Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamations’ “national interest” exception violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 323. The June Proclamation directs the Secretaries of State and of Homeland Security to “establish standards to define categories of aliens covered by” its “national interest” exception. 324. To the extent that Defendants have (through DOS’s July 16 website posting or otherwise) established policies, procedures, and/or standards to govern their implementation of the “national interest” exception, those policies, procedures, and/or standards constitute final agency
92
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 96 of 101
action reviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Such final agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law in at least the following ways.
(a) Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are based on legal error; failed to consider all relevant factors; and lacked a rational explanation, particularly in light of the reliance interests at stake; and are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
(b) Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are contrary to constitutional rights, including Plaintiffs’ rights not to be deprived of their liberty interests in family reunification, without due process and as protected by the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in violation of the APA, id. § 706(2)(B).
325. Defendants’ actions are without good cause. 326. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause, ongoing harm to Plaintiffs. 327. Plaintiffs have no adequate alternative to review under the APA.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)—Against Defendants Trump,
DOS, and Pompeo 328. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 329. Congress has afforded consular officers the authority to issue visas to immigrants and nonimmigrants “who ha[ve] made proper application therefore.” 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). 330. Neither § 1182(f) nor § 1185(a) permits the President by proclamation to suspend consular officers’ discretion to issue visas in cases where proper applications have been made.
93
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 97 of 101
331. To the extent that the Proclamations purport to suspend not only the entry of noncitizens into the United States, but also the issuance of visas to individuals who are otherwise eligible to receive them, they are ultra vires, in excess of the President’s authority under the INA. The Proclamations therefore are accordingly invalid, null, and void.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a)—Against All
Defendants 332. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 333. Section 1182(f) requires, as a prerequisite to an entry suspension, the President to “‘fin[d]’ that the entry of the covered aliens ‘would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.’” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2408 (2018). 334. The June Proclamation does not include findings sufficient to satisfy § 1182(f)’s statutory prerequisite. The statements and/or justifications on which the June Proclamation relies to support its entry suspension are wholly unsupported by facts or evidence. The President cannot rationally have found that the entry of the immigrant and nonimmigrant classes of noncitizens that the June Proclamation suspends would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 335. For the same reasons, the restrictions imposed by the June Proclamation are not reasonable within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a). 336. Because the June Proclamation does not satisfy the requirements of § 1182(f) or § 1185(a), it is ultra vires and invalid.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Ultra Vires—Violation of the INA, 8 USC § 1154(a)—Diversity Visa Subclass Only—
Against All Defendants 337. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
94
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 98 of 101
338. The issuance and implementation of the June Proclamation are invalid to the extent that they halt the processing and issuance of diversity visas and the entry of immigrants pursuant to such visas.
339. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II), noncitizens “who qualify, through random selection, for [a diversity visa] shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected.” (Emphasis added.)
340. The President is not authorized “to expressly override particular provisions of the INA.” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2411.
341. The June Proclamation effectively revokes and renders void qualified applicants’ statutorily guaranteed eligibility for a diversity visa by suspending the issuance of visas beyond the Diversity Lottery Program deadline of September 30, 2020. The June Proclamation therefore violates § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II), is ultra vires, and is invalid.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Separation of Powers/Nondelegation Doctrine—Against All Defendants 342. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 343. It is the role of Congress, not the President, to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe terms and conditions upon which they may come into or remain in this country.” See Fok Young Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296, 302 (1902). 344. In that role, and pursuant to that power, Congress has crafted a complex and carefully balanced system of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and in doing so considered the effects that the issuance of visas and entry of foreign nationals may have on the U.S. economy and labor market. Within the system, Congress specifically provided labor-market protections
95
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 99 of 101
designed to ensure that workers who enter the country from abroad will not displace or disadvantage U.S. workers.
345. In this context, Congress cannot be understood to have delegated to the President (through 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) or § 1185(a)) the authority to override decades of Congressional judgment regarding the interaction of immigration policy and the labor market.
346. The June Proclamation therefore exceeds the authority delegated to the President under the INA. It is invalid, null, and void.
347. To the extent that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and/or § 1185(a) could be interpreted to delegate to the President authority to engage in domestic policy-making concerning purely economic matters such as the labor market, the statutes provide no intelligible principle to guide the President’s exercise of discretion. They therefore violate constitutional nondelegation principles and are invalid. See Doe v. Trump, 418 F. Supp. 3d 573, 589-93 (D. Or. 2019). A Proclamation issued under such an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is invalid, null, and void.
348. The June Proclamation is accordingly in conflict with either the INA or the Constitution, and in either case it impermissibly violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. It is therefore invalid, null, and void
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment—Subclasses (b) and (c)
Only—Against All Defendants 349. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 350. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person will “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
96
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 100 of 101
351. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents have constitutionally protected liberty interests in family unity. Individuals must be given due process prior to any deprivation of these liberty interests.
352. The Proclamations, and Defendants’ implementation thereof, unconstitutionally deny Plaintiffs their constitutional rights by preventing visas from being issued and thereby foreclosing their reunification with family members without the process due under the Fifth Amendment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from implementing or enforcing any part of the Proclamations so as to delay processing visas in a timely manner, deny or refuse visas, and/or deny or refuse entry into the country to any otherwise eligible foreign national;
B. A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Proclamations are unlawful and are set aside;
C. An order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 holding that the agency defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation is unlawful and is set aside;
D. An order awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to any applicable law;
E. Such other relief as this Court deems equitable, just, and proper.
97
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 101 of 101

July 17, 2020
Jesse M. Bless (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0020) AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (781) 704-3897 jbless@aila.org
Karen C. Tumlin (pro hac vice) Esther H. Sung (pro hac vice) JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
Stephen Manning (pro hac vice) Nadia Dahab (pro hac vice) Tess Hellgren (pro hac vice) INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Andrew J. Pincus Andrew J. Pincus (D.D.C. Bar No. 370762) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 apincus@mayerbrown.com
Matthew D. Ingber (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 mingber@mayerbrown.com
Cleland B. Welton II (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN MEXICO, S.C. Goldsmith 53, Polanco Ciudad de México 11560 Telephone: (502) 314-8253 cwelton@mayerbrown.com
Laboni A. Hoq (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ JAC Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 labonihoq@gmail.com

98
AILA Doc. No. 20071700. (Posted 7/17/20)

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 173

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, FESTUS SUH NEBA, M.A.M.S.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
CATHY BOFUMBO ELUO, ELIE VARANGBA GIA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, K.G.S.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
i

Case No. 1:20-cv-2128
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 173
ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NATALIE VAN DER WEEL,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SOFIA SALEH,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA, JESSICA LUILA NKIERI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI, AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR ABOU STAIT, L.A.A., O.A.A.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 173
GIANCARLO CASTELLAN, AURORA BISOGNIN, M.C., R.C.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
LORENC SHABA, JULJANA PERGEGA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA JAEL BERNADETTE PAKAMA, JAEL PAKAMA BERNADETTE,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, JEAN LIONGO MBOBA, J.M.M., J.M.M., J.M.M., D.E.M. S.L.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
MITCH VAN LOOK,
iii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 173
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG, SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED, A.E.A.E., A.E.A.E., A.E.A.E.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
EVGENIA ZORNIA, ANTON KOZYREV, E.K, M.K,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
FRANCESCA MARZANO,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
iv

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 173
PLAINTIFF(S),
VLADISLAV PHILIPPOV, MARINA FILIPPOVA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
PHILIP MARCUS RUFUS KNAUF, PIA ANONG PHANAPHET,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARC DI ROSA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
GIZEM DEMIREL,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
POLINA STETCIUK, ANTON ZVONTCOV, M.Z.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ORLANDO MONTANO MEDEROS,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA
v

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 173
925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), MOTASEM HANI ATTIEH, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), BOKUNGU BOMENGO BENJAMIN, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), PADAM BAHADUR KC, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), SAMIR MEHDIYEV, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), OLEG BORYS, KATERYNA SMIRNOVA, Y.R., C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
vi

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 7 of 173
LEANDRO JONES ROIG, CAROLINA ROCHA CHIMENCEJI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), SEYED VAHID SHOJAEI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), DORELA LIFO
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), TAMER OSSAMA MOUSTAFA ABDELGAWAD ELSHAMI, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), YURELIS SOTO REINA, K.O.S.S., K.M.V.S., C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), HIWOT BERTA TIRYE,
vii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 8 of 173
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
BALKRISHNA LUINTEL,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
KPESSOU ADRIME,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
KATIA ELENA CASANOVA DELGADO, LEONARDO RIFÁ MONTANÉ,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NATHALIE NADEGE NGUEFACK TSOUTSOP. E.B.K.K.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SABAA FADHL ALI HUSSEIN, AWAD MUSAEED ALI HUSSEIN, H.A.M.A.H., N.A.M.A.H., Z.A.M.A.H.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
viii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 9 of 173
PLAINTIFF(S), ARMAGHAN KHAKZAD, SAEID SHOAEE,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), MARTIN ROTH,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), HENRI MUKOBO KAKWATA
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), YURII BOLIUK, ANZHELA KULYNYCH, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), MOHAMED MOKHTAR AHMED ABDELRAHMAN, SARA HAMDY MOHAMED IBRAHIM, J.M.M.A.A., H.M.M.A.A., H.M.M.A.A., C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
ix

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 173
NORGES SAM ARAGON, IDANIA GONZALEZ CABRERA, D.S.G, D.S.G,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDULHAMID SHARIFF AHMED
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SANGOU KOUOTOU LEONEL
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAXMAN GIRI
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
MAHBOOBEH PEYVAS, BABAK PARHOUDEH, P.P.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NARIMAN DAVARANI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR
x

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 11 of 173
LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
GONUL OZKILIC, ALI OZKILIC, S.H.O., S.A.O.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
TALGAT TLEUBAYEV, MADINA TLEUBAEV,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
LUMADI PRASAD ADHIKARI, SUJITA KHATIWADA, A.A, A.A.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
TAYLOR PAUL MARTIN
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
IVAN DELGADO GOENAGA
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ELSJONA BRAHAJ, XHEK PRECETAJ, M.P.,
xi

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 12 of 173
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
LIUBOU KAVALENKA, DZMITRY KAVALENKA, A.K,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALEXANDR KHODORKOVSKIY, GULSINYA AKHMETOVA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
FARZAD VAHABIDEHKORDI, SHABNAM DAEIREZAEI, A.V.
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABYLAY MURAT, AIDA MURAT,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHIMA SHADMEHRI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
xii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 13 of 173
PLAINTIFF(S), PARISA ABDOLLAHI, SHAHROOZ VAFAIKHAH, A.V.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), ALEXANDRU ROTARU, MARIA ROTARU, V.R, A.R., C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), EVGENY PAVLOVICH ZAVITNEVICH, LILIYA VALENTINOVNA ZAVITNEVICH, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), KAROLINA VUKOJICIC, ANDRIJA PETROVIC,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), JOY WAMBUI WANJOHI, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
xiii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 14 of 173
ENDER YILDIZ, MEHTAP YILDIZ,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
FUMIKO TSURUTA, S.T,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALEKSANDR KOTOVICH, OLESIA KOTOVICH, A.K,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
RUNGSIRAT NGAOSINCHAI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
MEAAD MOHAMED FATHI AHMED, MUBARAK AHMED MOHAMED KHALED, S.M.A.M, M.M.A.M, A.M.A.M, R.M.A.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NADA YOUSEF MOHAMMED OSMAN, MOHAMED ABDALLA YASEIN OSMAN, S.M.A.Y., A.B.M.A.Y.. A.M.A.Y.,
xiv

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 173
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
METANAT MOJTABA, RAISI TAYEBEH, K.M., K.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
DMITRY MORDVINTSEV, OLGA DUBACHYOVA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
YURY KLAUSUTS,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABUBAKR ABDELSALAM OSMAN ABDELRAHMAN, KHALID ABDALLA RAGAB,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
OROD LADAN, MARYAM BAYANDORIHA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
xv

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 16 of 173
PLAINTIFF(S), EDMOND KORBI, DJANA KORBI, G.K., S.K.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), ABDELTAWAB OSAMA ABDELKADER, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), TIAGO SONGABIO JACOB, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), LOREDANA MORGANE LIBERA PHILIPPE, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), AKMARAL KAMZAGALIYEVA, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), OMER ABDALLA HASSAN MOHAMED, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA
xvi

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 17 of 173
925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NAZAROV AVAZ ABDURASHIDOVICH,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
KHASHAYAR AZIZSANI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SEMIHA UNLU, GOKHAN UNLU, S.E.U,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
KARIM EL HAJJAR
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
DENIS MARTYNENKO, ANNA MARTYNENKO, V.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NICHITA COVALENCO, ALINA BANUL,
xvii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 18 of 173
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
BRUNETTE TONA MALUNGANA, MUKAMBA ILUNGA JONAS PATRICK,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHAHRAM MEHRAFROOZ, SALOOMEH ESMAEILI, E.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
KAVIRA ALINE KATAVALI, BOKULA MERVEILLE ABILI,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
RUPA SHAH, SOM RAJ SHAHI, R.S, B.B.S.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
WLADIMIR MARMOL AVENDANO, YAJAIRA JOSEFINA LEON DE MARMOL,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
xviii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 19 of 173
PLAINTIFF(S), FATHELRAHMAN YOUSIF ALI SIDAHMED,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), MOISE KAHAMBA LONGAMBO, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMED ABDIRASHID MOHAMUD, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), EDDY NGILA BOTAMBA, LYDIE NTEMO MBIYAVANGA, K.N.D., K.N.B., K.N.N.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S), WIPHAPHORN CHATPONG, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
xix

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 20 of 173
ARGELIO AVILA MORENO, BARBARA MAGDIEL MORENO PEREZ, L.M.A.M., L.M.A.M.,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
BEHROUZ KHOSRAVANI NAZARI, PARISA HONARMAND,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
KIDIST GEBRE CHEGEN,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
WOLDIE KIDUS GETAHUN,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
NOELVIS RODRIGUEZ IGLESIA,
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
EBER BETANCOURT AVALO, YENISLEY RAMOS ALARCON
xx

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 21 of 173
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S), NERMEEN ESSAM ELDIN AHMED SALLAM, MOHAMED GHANEM ABDALLAH MOHAMED GHANEM, SALMA MOHAMED GHANEM ABDALLAH, J.M.G.A., Z.M.G.A.
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
MARIE JOSÉE MULAMBA IOWA NSOMI
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 PLAINTIFF(S),
FRANCYS TELLEZ SOTO, V.E.R.T. C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
MAHDI MOADAB, ELHAM EBRAHIMI, K.M, K.M., C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
xxi

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 22 of 173
SAID HUSEYN SULTANOV, C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. LA BREA AVE, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
PLAINTIFF(S),
V. DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
SERVE: DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20500
DEFENDANT, MICHAEL R. POMPEO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE,
SERVE: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER SUITE 5.600 600 19TH ST. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20522
DEFENDANT.
xxii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 23 of 173
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................4 PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................................5 DEFENDANTS ...............................................................................................................127 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ..........................................................................................128
DIVERSITY VISA IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.......................................................128 THE PRESIDENT’S DIVERSITY VISA ANIMUS ................................................132 DEFENDANTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW AND SUSPENDED THE ADJUDICATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR DV-2020 SELECTEES .......................................................................137 DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY RELY ON PP 10014 TO SUSPEND THE ADJUDICATION AND ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATION FOR DV-2020 PROGRAM SELECTEES AND THEIR DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES ................................................................140 CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................................141 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………141 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………...143 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………...144 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………...146 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………....146 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................148
xxiii

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 24 of 173
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are 243 Diversity Visa program selectees and derivative beneficiaries from 36
countries. Plaintiffs include doctors and nurses, successful businesspeople intent on creating jobs in the United States, people yearning to be reunited with their families, and children with limitless potential. Plaintiffs all yearn for a life in the shining city upon a hill and its beacon of hope – the American Dream.
2. Plaintiffs hereby challenge the U.S. Department of State’s (hereafter referred to as the “Department”) adoption of policies, procedures, and practices implemented pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10014 (hereafter referred to as the “PP 10014”), and its extension in Presidential Proclamation 10052 (“PP 10052), suspending the processing of immigrant visa applications for individuals selected in the fiscal year 2020 Diversity Visa Program (hereafter referred to as “DV-2020 program”) and the resulting unlawful withholding of issuances of visas to eligible applicants. 1

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 25 of 173
3. All Plaintiffs, either as DV-2020 selectees or as derivative spouses or children, have been invited by the Department to apply for the DV-2020 program.
4. All Plaintiffs have submitted immigrant visa applications pursuant to their DV-2020 program selection, and submitted all required documents to the Department’s Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”).
5. Plaintiffs hereby seek an order requiring Defendant President Trump, Secretary Michael R. Pompeo, and the Department to set aside the Department’s unlawful policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees, fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, and issue decisions on their applications before September 30, 2020.
6. For Plaintiffs, the stakes are high and a matter of extreme urgency. By statute, DV-2020 program selectees must have their visas adjudicated and issued before midnight on September 30, 2020.
7. Should the Plaintiffs not have their visas issued before midnight on September 30, 2020, barring a protective order from this Court, Plaintiffs, will lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States of America through the DV-2020 program as a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions.
8. With over 23 million entrants a year, a diversity visa entrant has less than a one percent chance to be selected to apply for the visa. The probability of being selected twice is .00025%.
9. Defendants have suspended the DV-2020 program through policies, procedures, and practices that are contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),federal
2

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 26 of 173
regulations, and preexisting Department policies governing the adjudication of the program. 10. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspend: (1) processing of applications for the DV-2020 program at the KCC; (2) scheduling of mandatory immigrant visa interviews for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries at United States Embassies and Consulates; and (3) adjudications for already submitted applications pending decisions by consular officers. 11. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices will remain in place through September 30, 2020 and effectively end the DV-2020 program. 12. Defendants policies, procedures, and practices suspending the Diversity Visa Program rests, in part, on the Presidential Proclamation 10014, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak (April 23, 2020) (hereafter referred to as “PP 10014”), and its extension in Presidential Proclamation 10052, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak (hereafter referred to as “PP 10052”). 13. Plaintiffs have received emails from U.S. Embassies and Consulates stating: “Unfortunately, Diversity Visa applicants are not exempt of the current Travel Ban and there are [sic] no waiver eligible. Hence, the Embassy is putting all Diversity Visa applications on hold until the Travel Ban is lifted.” 14. State Department officials and media outlets have repeated this message and informed all DV-2020 visa applicants that the adjudications of their visas have been suspended through December 31, 2020 pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052.
3

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 27 of 173
15. The Department’s practices, policies, and procedures refusing to adjudicate immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries and issue visas to eligible applicants is unlawful and violates non-discretionary duty to adjudicate immigrant visa applications.
16. Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court: (1) mandate Defendants reserve visas numbers for Plaintiffs through the pendency of litigation, (2) declare Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspending Plaintiffs’ visa application applications, (3) order Defendants to fully adjudicate Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications before the statutory deadline on September 30, 2020, and issue visas to eligible applicants in accordance with law. If Plaintiffs receive their visas, Plaintiffs request their visas be preserved until the suspension is lifted and they are permitted to enter the United States. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Declaratory relief is authorized by Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has remedial authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
18. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1)(A) because Defendant Michael R. Pompeo, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, resides in the District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, namely, the formulation and promulgation of the challenged policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigration visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
4

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 28 of 173
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS Claudine Ngum Fonjong
19. Claudine Ngum Fonjong is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 20. Plaintiff Festus Suh Neba is a native of Cameroon and spouse of Claudine Ngum Fonjong.
Festus Suh Neba is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Claudine Ngum Fonjong should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV2020 selection. 21. Plaintiff M.A.M.S. is a native of Cameroon and one-year-old minor child of Claudine Ngum Fonjong is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Claudine Ngum Fonjong should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV2020 selection. 22. Claudine Ngum Fonjong holds a State Diploman from Bianka University Institute Buea Cameroon in Midwifery/Nursing, and owned her own pharmacy from 2017 up to February 2020. Festus Suh Neba has a Bachelor’s Degree in English and Literature from University of Douala in Cameroon and was a teacher before recently becoming a safety and security officer. 23. On May 7, 2019, Claudine Ngum Fonjong and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 24. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Claudine Ngum Fonjong 2020AF67798. 25. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff Claudine Ngum Fonjong submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
5

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 29 of 173
26. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff Festus Suh Neba submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
27. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff M.A.M.S. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
28. Plaintiffs Claudine Ngum Fonjong , Festus Suh Neba, and M.A.M.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
29. To date, Plaintiffs Claudine Ngum Fonjong , Festus Suh Neba, and M.A.M.S have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
30. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Claudine Ngum Fonjong , Festus Suh Neba, and M.A.M. S’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Oleksandra V Kapinas 31. Oleksandra V Kapinas is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee. 32. On May 7, 2019 Oleksandra V Kapinas was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 33. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Oleksandra V Kapinas visa case number 2020EU2894. 34. On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff Oleksandra V Kapinas submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 35. Plaintiff Oleksandra V Kapinas has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 6

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 30 of 173
36. Plaintiff Oleksandra V Kapinas had an interview on March 4, 2020. 37. The adjudication of Plaintiff Oleksandra V Kapinas immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor 38. Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 39. On May 7, 2019, Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 40. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor visa case number 2020AF00028315. 41. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 42. Plaintiff Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 43. To date, Plaintiff Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application. 44. The adjudication of Plaintiff Njinuwoh Ndifon Nestor immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Cathy Bofumbo Eluo 45. Cathy Bofumbo Eluo is a native of the Democratic Republic of Congo and DV-2020 selectee. 46. Elie Varangba Gia is a native of the Democratic Republic of Congo and spouse of Cathy Bofumbo Eluo. Elie Varangba Gia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a
7

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 31 of 173
derivative beneficiary of Cathy Bofumbo Eluo should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 47. On May 7, 2019, Cathy Bofumbo Eluo was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 48. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Cathy Bofumbo Eluo visa case number 2020AF0015925. 49. On August 4, 2019 Plaintiff Cathy Bofumbo Eluo submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 50. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff Elie Varangba Gia submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 51. Plaintiffs Cathy Bofumbo Eluo and Elie Varangba Gia have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 52. Plaintiffs Bofumbo Eluo and Elie Varangba Gia were scheduled for an interview on April 23, 2020 but the interview was cancelled. 53. To date, Plaintiffs Bofumbo Eluo and Elie Varangba Gia have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 54. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Bofumbo Eluo and Elie Varangba Gia immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
George Samir Messiha Dawood 55. George Samir Messiha Dawood is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee. 56. Plaintiff Youstina Samir Baghdady Azer is a native of Egypt and spouse of George Samir Messiha Dawood. Youstina Samir Baghdady Azer is eligible to immigrate to the United 8

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 32 of 173
States as a derivative beneficiary of George Samir Messiha Dawood should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 57. Plaintiff K.G.S.M. is a native of Egypt and minor child of George Samir Messiha Dawood. K.G.S.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of George Samir Messiha Dawood should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV2020 selection. 58. On May 7, 2019, George Samir Messiha Dawood and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 59. The KCC assigned Plaintiff George Samir Messiha Dawood visa case number 2020AF37090. 60. On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff George Samir Messiha Dawood submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 61. On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Youstina Samir Baghdady Azer submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 62. On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff K.G.S.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 63. Plaintiffs George Samir Messiha Dawood, Youstina Samir Baghdady Azer and K.G.S.M. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 64. To date, Plaintiffs George Samir Messiha Dawood, Youstina Samir Baghdady Azer and K.G.S.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
9

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 33 of 173
65. The adjudications of Plaintiffs George Samir Messiha Dawood, Youstina Samir Baghdady Azer and K.G.S.M.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov 66. Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 67. Plaintiff Natalia Victorovna Litvinova is a native of Russia and spouse of Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov. Natalia Victorovna Litvinova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 68. Plaintiff Elena Kirillovna Stavrakova is a native of Russia and the child of Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov. Elena Kirillovna Stavrakova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 69. On May 7, 2019, Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 70. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov visa case number 2020EU42452. 71. On May 9, 2020, Plaintiff Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 72. On May 9, 2020, Plaintiff Natalia Victorovna Litvinova submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
10

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 34 of 173
73. On May 9, 2020, Plaintiff Elena Kirillovna Stavrakova submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
74. Plaintiffs Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov, Natalia Victorovna Litvinova, and Elena Kirillovna Stavrakova have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
75. To date, Plaintiffs Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov, Natalia Victorovna Litvinova, and Elena Kirillovna Stavrakova have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
76. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Alexey Nicolaevich Litvinov, Natalia Victorovna Litvinova, and Elena Kirillovna Stavrakova’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel 77. Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel is a native of the Netherlands and DV-2020 selectee. 78. On May 7, 2019, Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 79. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel visa case number 2020EU20237. 80. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel submitted their DS260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
11

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 35 of 173
81. Plaintiff Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
82. Plaintiff Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel had an interview on April 7, 2020. 83. To date, Plaintiff Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel has not been rescheduled for an
interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 84. The adjudication of Plaintiff Lian Ivette Aimee Natalie Van Der Weel immigrant visa
application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Sofia Saleh 85. Sofia Saleh is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee. 86. On May 7, 2019, Sofia Saleh was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 87. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sofia Saleh visa case number 2020EU00015506. 88. On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Sofia Saleh submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 89. Plaintiff Sofia Saleh has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 90. Plaintiff Sofia Saleh was scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020 but the interview was cancelled. 91. Plaintiff Sofia Saleh was rescheduled for an interview on June 3, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.
12

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 36 of 173

92. To date, Plaintiff Sofia Saleh has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
93. The adjudication of Plaintiff Sofia Saleh immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Poireault Malonga Fienga

94. Poireault Malonga Fienga is a native of Congo and DV-2020 selectee.

95. Plaintiff Jessica Luila Nkieri is a native of Congo and spouse of Poireault Malonga Fienga.

Jessica Luila Nkieri is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Poireault Malonga Fienga should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

96. On May 7, 2019, Poireault Malonga Fienga and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

97. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Poireault Malonga Fienga visa case number 2020AF31985.

98. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Poireault Malonga Fienga submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

99. On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Jessica Luila Nkieri submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

100.

Plaintiffs Poireault Malonga Fienga and Jessica Luila Nkieri have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

13

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 37 of 173

101.

To date, Plaintiffs Poireault Malonga Fienga and Jessica Luila Nkieri have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

102.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Poireault Malonga Fienga and Jessica Luila

Nkieri’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi

103.

Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

104.

Plaintiff Ahmed Mohamed Samir Abou Stait is a native of Egypt and spouse of

Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi. Ahmed Mohamed Samir Abou Stait is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi should they

be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

105.

Plaintiff L.A.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Sherin Abdelfattah

Elhanafi. L.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

106.

Plaintiff O.A.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Sherin Abdelfattah

Elhanafi. O.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

14

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 38 of 173

107.

On May 7, 2019, Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi and their derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

108.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi visa case number

2020AS00012769.

109.

On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

110.

On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmed Mohamed Samir Abou Stait submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

111.

On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff L.A.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

112.

On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff O.A.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

113.

Plaintiffs Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi, Ahmed Mohamed Samir Abou Stait,

L.A.A. and O.A.A. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

114.

Plaintiffs Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi, Ahmed Mohamed Samir Abou Stait,

L.A.A. and O.A.A. were scheduled for an interview on April 12, 2020 but the interview

was cancelled.

15

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 39 of 173

115.

To date, Plaintiffs Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi, Ahmed Mohamed Samir Abou

Stait, L.A.A. and O.A.A. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

116.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Sherin Abdelfattah Elhanafi, Ahmed Mohamed

Samir Abou Stait, L.A.A. and O.A.A.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Giancarlo Castellan

117.

Giancarlo Castellan is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

118.

Plaintiff Aurora Bisognin is a native of Italy and spouse of Giancarlo Castellan.

Aurora Bisognin is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Giancarlo Castellan should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

119.

Plaintiff M.C. is a native of Italy and minor child of Giancarlo Castellan is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Giancarlo Castellan should

they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

120.

Plaintiff R.C. is a native of Italy and minor child of Giancarlo Castellan is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Giancarlo Castellan should

they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

121.

On May 7, 2019, Giancarlo Castellan and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

16

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 40 of 173

122.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Giancarlo Castellan visa case number

2020EU00044902.

123.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff Giancarlo Castellan submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

124.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff Aurora Bisognin submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

125.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff M.C. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

126.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff R.C. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

127.

Plaintiffs Giancarlo Castellan, Aurora Bisognin, M.C. and R.C. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

128.

To date, Plaintiffs Giancarlo Castellan, Aurora Bisognin, M.C. and R.C. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

129.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Giancarlo Castellan, Aurora Bisognin, M.C. and

R.C.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky

130.

Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.

17

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 41 of 173

131.

On May 7, 2019, Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

132.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky visa case number

2020AF00043312.

133.

On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

134.

Plaintiff Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

135.

To date, Plaintiff Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

136.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Leugoue Moutcheu Robby Lanky immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Lorenc Shaba

137.

Lorenc Shaba is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

138.

Plaintiff Juljana Pergega is a native of Albania and spouse of Lorenc Shaba. Juljana

Pergega is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Lorenc

Shaba should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

139.

On May 7, 2019, Lorenc Shaba was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

18

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 42 of 173

140.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lorenc Shaba visa case number 2020EU00032636.

141.

On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff Lorenc Shaba submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

142.

On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff Lorenc Shaba submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

143.

Plaintiff Juljana Pergega has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

144.

Plaintiffs Lorenc Shaba and Juljana Pergega have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

145.

To date, Plaintiffs Lorenc Shaba and Juljana Pergega have not been scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

146.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Lorenc Shaba and Juljana Pergega’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama

147.

Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama is a native of the Democratic

Republic of the Congo and DV-2020 selectee.

148.

Plaintiff Jael Pakama Bernadette is a native of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo and spouse of Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama. Jael Pakama

Bernadette is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

19

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 43 of 173

149.

On May 7, 2019, Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama was invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

150.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama

visa case number.

151.

On December 22, 2019, Plaintiff Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette

Pakama submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

152.

On December 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jael Pakama Bernadette submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

153.

Plaintiffs Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama and Jael Pakama

Bernadette have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

154.

To date, Plaintiffs Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama and Jael

Pakama Bernadette have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

155.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Gedeon Mputu Lufungula Jael Bernadette Pakama

and Jael Pakama Bernadette’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

20

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 44 of 173

Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall

156.

Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall is a native of Congo and DV-2020 selectee.

157.

Plaintiff Jean Liongo Mboba is a native of Congo and spouse of Rachel Mbokebote

Bolonkall. Jean Liongo Mboba is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

158.

Plaintiff J.M.M. is a native of Congo and minor child of Rachel Mbokebote

Bolonkall. J.M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

159.

Plaintiff J.M.M. is a native of Congo and minor child of Rachel Mbokebote

Bolonkall. J.M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

160.

Plaintiff J.M.M. is a native of Congo and minor child of Rachel Mbokebote

Bolonkall. J.M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

161.

Plaintiff D.E.M. is a native of Congo and minor child of Rachel Mbokebote

Bolonkall. D.E.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

21

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 45 of 173

of Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

162.

Plaintiff S.L.M. is a native of Congo and minor child of Rachel Mbokebote

Bolonkall. S.L.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

163.

On May 7, 2019, Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall and their derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

164.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall visa case number

2020AF37128.

165.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

166.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Jean Liongo Mboba submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

167.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff J.M.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

168.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff J.M.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

169.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff J.M.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

22

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 46 of 173

170.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff J.M.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

171.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff D.E.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

172.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff S.L.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

173.

Plaintiffs Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall, Jean Liongo Mboba, J.M.M., J.M.M.,

J.M.M., J.M.M., D.E.M., and S.L.M. have submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

174.

To date, Plaintiffs Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall, Jean Liongo Mboba, J.M.M.,

J.M.M., J.M.M., J.M.M., D.E.M., and S.L.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

175.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Rachel Mbokebote Bolonkall, Jean Liongo Mboba,

J.M.M., J.M.M., J.M.M., J.M.M., D.E.M., and S.L.M.’s immigrant visa applications are

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mitch Van Look

176.

Mitch Van Look is a native of Belgium and DV-2020 selectee.

177.

On May 7, 2019, Mitch Van Look was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

178.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mitch Van Look visa case number 2020EU00014539.

179.

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Mitch Van Look submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

23

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 47 of 173

180.

Plaintiff Mitch Van Look has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

181.

To date, Plaintiff Mitch Van Look has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

182.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Mitch Van Look immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Raimund Matthias Hepp

183.

Raimund Matthias Hepp is a native of Austria and DV-2020 selectee.

184.

On May 7, 2019, Raimund Matthias Hepp was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

185.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Raimund Matthias Hepp 2020EU00051499.

186.

On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff Raimund Matthias Hepp submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

187.

Plaintiff Raimund Matthias Hepp has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

188.

To date, Plaintiff Raimund Matthias Hepp has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

189.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Raimund Matthias Hepp immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig

190.

Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee.

24

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 48 of 173

191.

Plaintiff Sara Hassan Elnour Mohamed is a native of Sudan and spouse of

Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig. Sara Hassan Elnour Mohamed is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

192.

Plaintiff A.E.A.E. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Elmountasir Ahmed

Elkadir Sourig. A.E.A.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

193.

Plaintiff A.E.A.E. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Elmountasir Ahmed

Elkadir Sourig. A.E.A.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

194.

Plaintiff A.E.A.E. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Elmountasir Ahmed

Elkadir Sourig. A.E.A.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

195.

On May 7, 2019, Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig and their derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

196.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig visa case number

2020AF26863.

25

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 49 of 173

197.

On September 29, 2019, Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

198.

On September 29, 2019, Sara Hassan Elnour Mohamed submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

199.

On September 29, 2019, A.E.A.E. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

200.

On September 29, 2019, A.E.A.E. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

201.

On September 29, 2019, A.E.A.E. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

202.

Plaintiffs Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig, Sara Hassan Elnour Mohamed,

A.E.A.E., A.E.A.E., and A.E.A.E. have submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

203.

To date, Plaintiffs Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig, Sara Hassan Elnour

Mohamed, A.E.A.E., A.E.A.E., and A.E.A.E. have not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

204.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Elmountasir Ahmed Elkadir Sourig, Sara Hassan

Elnour Mohamed, A.E.A.E., A.E.A.E., and A.E.A.E.’s immigrant visa applications are

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang

205.

Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.

26

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 50 of 173

206.

On May 7, 2019, Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

207.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang visa case number

2020AF00072025.

208.

On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

209.

Plaintiff Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

210.

To date, Plaintiff Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

211.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Anne Merveille Kippe Mbang immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Evgenia Zornia

212.

Evgenia Zornia is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

213.

Plaintiff Anton Kozyrev is a native of Russia and spouse of Evgenia Zornia. Anton

Kozyrev is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Evgenia

Zornia should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

214.

Plaintiff E.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Evgenia Zornia. M.K. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Evgenia Zornia

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

27

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 51 of 173

215.

Plaintiff M.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Evgenia Zornia. M.K. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Evgenia Zornia

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

216.

On May 7, 2019, Evgenia Zornia and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

217.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Evgenia Zornia visa case number 2020EU00009212.

218.

On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff Evgenia Zornia submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

219.

On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff Anton Kozyrev submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

220.

On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff E.K. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

221.

On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff M.K. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

222.

Plaintiffs Evgenia Zornia, Anton Kozyrev, E.K. and M.K. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

223.

Plaintiffs Evgenia Zornia, Anton Kozyrev, E.K. and M.K. were scheduled for an

interview on March 19, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.

224.

To date, Plaintiffs Evgenia Zornia, Anton Kozyrev, E.K. and M.K. have not been

rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

28

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 52 of 173

225.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Evgenia Zornia, Anton Kozyrev, E.K. and M.K.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Francesca Marzano

226.

Francesca Marzano is a native of Italy, and DV-2020 selectee.

227.

On May 7, 2019, Francesca Marzano was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

228.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Francesca Marzano visa case number

2020EU00039258.

229.

On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff Francesca Marzano submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

230.

Plaintiff Francesca Marzano has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

231.

To date, Plaintiff Francesca Marzano has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

232.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Francesca Marzano immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Vladislav Philippov

233.

Vladislav Philippov is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

234.

Plaintiff Marina Filippova is a native of Russia and spouse of Vladislav Philippov.

Marina Filippova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

29

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 53 of 173

of Vladislav Philippov should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

235.

On May 7, 2019, Vladislav Philippov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

236.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vladislav Philippov visa case number 2020EU23891.

237.

On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff Vladislav Philippov submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

238.

On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff Marina Filippova submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

239.

Plaintiffs Vladislav Philippov and Marina Filippova have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

240.

Plaintiffs Vladislav Philippov and Marina Filippova have not been scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

241.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Vladislav Philippov and Marina Filippova’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf

242.

Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf is a native of Germany and DV-2020 selectee.

243.

Plaintiff Pia Anong Phanaphet is a native of Germany and spouse of Philip Marcus

Rufus Knauf. Pia Anong Phanaphet is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

30

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 54 of 173

derivative beneficiary of Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf should they be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

244.

On May 7, 2019, Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf and their derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

245.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf visa case number

2020EU00042071.

246.

On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

247.

On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff Pia Anong Phanaphet submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

248.

Plaintiffs Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf and Pia Anong Phanaphet have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

249.

To date, Plaintiffs Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf and Pia Anong Phanaphet have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

250.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Philip Marcus Rufus Knauf and Pia Anong

Phanaphet’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Marc Di Rosa

251.

Marc Di Rosa is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee.

31

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 55 of 173

252.

On May 7, 2019, Marc Di Rosa was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

253.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marc Di Rosa visa case number 2020EU00028472.

254.

Plaintiff Marc Di Rosa submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

255.

Plaintiff Marc Di Rosa has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

256.

To date, Plaintiff Marc Di Rosa has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

257.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Marc Di Rosa immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Gizem Demirel

258.

Gizem Demirel is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

259.

On May 7, 2019, Gizem Demirel was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

260.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gizem Demirel visa case number 2020EU00038054.

261.

On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff Gizem Demirel submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

262.

Plaintiff Gizem Demirel has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

263.

To date, Plaintiff Gizem Demirel has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

32

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 56 of 173

264.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Gizem Demirel immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Polina Stetciuk

265.

Polina Stetciuk of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

266.

Plaintiff Anton Zvontcov is a native of Russia and spouse of Polina Stetciuk. Anton

Zvontcov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Polina

Stetciuk should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

267.

Plaintiff M.Z. is a native of Russia and minor child of Polina Stetciuk. M.Z. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Polina Stetciuk

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

268.

On May 7, 2019, Polina Stetciuk and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

269.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Polina Stetciuk visa case number 2020EU00019163.

270.

On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff Polina Stetciuk submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

271.

On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff Anton Zvontcov submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

272.

On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff M.Z. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

33

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 57 of 173

273.

Plaintiffs Polina Stetciuk, Anton Zvontcov, and M.Z. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

274.

Plaintiffs Polina Stetciuk, Anton Zvontcov, and M.Z. had an interview on April

23, 2020.

275.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Polina Stetciuk, Anton Zvontcov, and M.Z.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Orlando Montano Mederos

276.

Orlando Montano Mederos is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.

277.

On May 7, 2019, Orlando Montano Mederos was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

278.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Orlando Montano Mederos visa case number

2020SA00002491.

279.

On March 8, 2020, Plaintiff Montano Mederos submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

280.

Plaintiff Orlando Montano Mederos has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

281.

Plaintiff Orlando Montano Mederos was scheduled for an interview on April 8,

2020 but the interview was cancelled.

282.

To date, Plaintiff Orlando Montano Mederos has not been rescheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

34

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 58 of 173

283.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Orlando Montano Mederos immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Motasem Hani Attieh

284.

Motasem Hani Attieh is a native of Jordan and DV-2020 selectee.

285.

On May 7, 2019, Motasem Hani Attieh was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

286.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Motasem Hani Attieh visa case number

2020AS00029919.

287.

On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff Motasem Hani Attieh submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

288.

Plaintiff Motasem Hani Attieh has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

289.

To date, Plaintiff Motasem Hani Attieh has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

290.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Motasem Hani Attieh immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin

291.

Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin is a native of Congo and DV-2020 selectee.

292.

On May 7, 2019, Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

35

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 59 of 173

293.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin visa case number

2020AF00025825.

294.

On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

295.

Plaintiff Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

296.

To date, Plaintiff Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

297.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Bokungu Bomengo Benjamin immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Padam Bahadur kc

298.

Padam Bahadur kc is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

299.

On May 7, 2019, Padam Bahadur kc was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

300.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Padam Bahadur kc visa case number

2020AS00013221.

301.

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Padam Bahadur kc submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

302.

Plaintiff Padam Bahadur kc has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

36

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 60 of 173

303.

To date, Plaintiff Padam Bahadr kc has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

304.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Padam Bahadur kc immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Samir Mehdiyev

305.

Samir Mehdiyev is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee.

306.

On May 7, 2019, Samir Mehdiyev was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

307.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Samir Mehdiyev visa case number 2020EU17724.

308.

On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Samir Mehdiyev submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

309.

Plaintiff Samir Mehdiyev has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

310.

To date, Plaintiff Samir Mehdiyev has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

311.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Samir Mehdiyev immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Oleg Borys

312.

Oleg Borys is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee.

37

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 61 of 173

313.

Plaintiff Kateryna Smirnova is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Oleg Borys.

Kateryna Smirnova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Oleg Borys should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

314.

Plaintiff Y.R. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Oleg Borys is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Borys should they be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

315.

On May 7, 2019, Oleg Borys and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

316.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Oleg Borys visa case number 2020EU00015611.

317.

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Oleg Borys submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

318.

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Kateryna Smirnova submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

319.

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Y.R. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

320.

Plaintiffs Oleg Borys, Kateryna Smirnova, and Y.R. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

321.

To date, Plaintiffs Oleg Borys, Kateryna Smirnova, and Y.R. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

38

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 62 of 173

322.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Oleg Borys, Kateryna Smirnova, and Y.R.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Leandro Jones Roig

323.

Leandro Jones Roig is a native of Uruguay and DV-2020 selectee.

324.

Plaintiff Carolina Rocha Chimenceji is a native of Argentina and spouse of

Leandro Jones Roig. Carolina Rocha Chimenceji is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Leandro Jones Roig should they be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

325.

On May 7, 2019, Leandro Jones Roig and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

326.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Leandro Jones Roig visa case number

2020SA00002766.

327.

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff Leandro Jones Roig submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

328.

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff Carolina Rocha Chimenceji submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

329.

Plaintiffs Leandro Jones Roig, and Carolina Rocha Chimenceji have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

39

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 63 of 173

330.

To date, Plaintiffs Leandro Jones Roig and Carolina Rocha Chimenceji have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

331.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Leandro Jones Roig and Carolina Rocha

Chimenceji’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Seyed Vahid Shojaei

332.

Seyed Vahid Shojaei is a native of Germany and Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

333.

On May 7, 2019, Seyed Vahid Shojaei was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

334.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Seyed Vahid Shojaei visa case number 2020AS11801.

335.

On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff Seyed Vahid Shojaei submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

336.

Plaintiff Seyed Vahid Shojaei has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

337.

To date, Plaintiff Seyed Vahid Shojaei has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

338.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Seyed Vahid Shojaei immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dorela Lifo

339.

Dorela Lifo is a native of Alania and DV-2020 selectee.

40

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 64 of 173

340.

On May 7, 2019, Dorela Lifo was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

341.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dorela Lifo visa case number 2020eu00019059.

342.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Dorela Lifo submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

343.

Plaintiff Dorela Lifo has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

344.

Plaintiff Dorela Lifo was scheduled for an interview on April 2, 2020 but the

interview was cancelled.

345.

To date, Plaintiff Dorela Lifo has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

346.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Dorela Lifo immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami

347.

Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami is a native of Egypt and DV-2020

selectee.

348.

On May 7, 2019, Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami was invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

349.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami visa

case number 2020AF41699.

41

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 65 of 173

350.

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami

submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to

their DV-2020 selection.

351.

Plaintiff Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami has submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

352.

To date, Plaintiff Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami has not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

application.

353.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Tamer Ossama Moustafa Abdelgawad Elshami

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Yurelis Soto Reina

354.

Yurelis Soto Reina is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.

355.

Plaintiff K.O.S.S. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Yurelis Soto Reina.

K.O.S.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yurelis

Soto Reina should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

356.

Plaintiff K.O.S.S. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Yurelis Soto Reina.

K.O.S.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yurelis

Soto Reina should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

42

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 66 of 173

357.

Plaintiff K.M.V.S. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Yurelis Soto Reina.

K.M.V.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yurelis

Soto Reina should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

358.

On May 7, 2019, Yurelis Soto Reina and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

359.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yurelis Soto Reina visa case number

2020SA00002829.

360.

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff Yurelis Soto Reina submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

361.

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff K.O.S.S. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

362.

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff K.M.V.S. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

363.

Plaintiffs Yurelis Soto Reina, K.O.S.S., and K.M.V.S. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

364.

To date, Plaintiffs Yurelis Soto Reina, K.O.S.S., and K.M.V.S. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

365.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Yurelis Soto Reina, K.O.S.S., and K.M.V.S.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

43

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 67 of 173

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Hiwot Berta Tirye

366.

Hiwot Berta Tirye is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee.

367.

On May 7, 2019, Hiwot Berta Tirye was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

368.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hiwot Berta Tirye visa case number 2020AF35474.

369.

On May 26, 2019, Plaintiff Hiwot Berta Tirye submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

370.

Plaintiff Hiwot Berta Tirye has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

371.

To date, Plaintiff Hiwot Berta Tirye has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

372.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Hiwot Berta Tirye immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Balkrishna Luintel

373.

Balkrishna Luintel is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

374.

On May 7, 2019, Balkrishna Luintel was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

375.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Balkrishna Luintel visa case number

2020AS00007748.

44

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 68 of 173

376.

On July 4, 2019, Plaintiff Balkrishna Luintel submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

377.

Plaintiff Balkrishna Luintel has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

378.

To date, Plaintiff Balkrishna Luintel has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

379.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Balkrishna Luintel immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Kpessou Adrime

380.

Kpessou Adrime is a native of Togo and DV-2020 selectee.

381.

On May 7, 2019, Kpessou Adrime was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

382.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Kpessou Adrime visa case number 2020AF30610.

383.

Plaintiff Kpessou Adrime submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

384.

Plaintiff Kpessou Adrime has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

385.

To date, Plaintiff Kpessou Adrime has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

386.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Kpessou Adrime immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

45

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 69 of 173

Katia Elena Casanova Delgado

387.

Katia Elena Casanova Delgado is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.

388.

Plaintiff Leonardo Rifá Montané is a native of Cuba and spouse of Katia Elena

Casanova Delgado. Rifá Montané is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Katia Elena Casanova Delgado should they be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

389.

On May 7, 2019, Katia Elena Casanova Delgado and their derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

390.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Katia Elena Casanova Delgado visa case number

2020SA3111.

391.

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Katia Elena Casanova Delgado submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

392.

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Leonardo Rifá Montané submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

393.

Plaintiffs Katia Elena Casanova Delgado and Leonardo Rifá Montané have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

394.

To date, Plaintiffs Katia Elena Casanova Delgado and Leonardo Rifá Montané

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

46

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 70 of 173

395.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Katia Elena Casanova Delgado and Leonardo Rifá

Montané’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop

396.

Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020

selectee.

397.

Plaintiff E.B.K.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Nathalie Nadege

Nguefack Tsoutsop. E.B.K.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop should they be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

398.

On May 7, 2019, Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop and their derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

399.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop visa case number

2020AF00032759.

400.

On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

401.

On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff E.B.K.K. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

47

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 71 of 173

402.

Plaintiffs Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop and E.B.K.K.have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

403.

To date, Plaintiffs Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop and E.B.K.K. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

404.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Nathalie Nadege Nguefack Tsoutsop and

E.B.K.K.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein

405.

Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein is a native of Yemen and DV-2020 selectee.

406.

Plaintiff Awad Musaeed Ali Hussein is a native of Yemen and spouse of Sabaa

Fadhl Ali Hussein. Awad Musaeed Ali Hussein is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein should they be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

407.

Plaintiff Awad Musaeed Ali Hussein is a dentist, and his brother is a U.S. citizen

living in the United States.

408.

Plaintiff H.A.M.A.H. is a native of Yemen and minor child of Sabaa Fadhl Ali

Hussein is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sabaa

Fadhl Ali Hussein should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

48

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 72 of 173

409.

Plaintiff N.A.M.A.H. is a native of Yemen and minor child of Sabaa Fadhl Ali

Hussein is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sabaa

Fadhl Ali Hussein should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

410.

Plaintiff Z.A.M.A.H. is a native of Yemen and minor child of Sabaa Fadhl Ali

Hussein is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sabaa

Fadhl Ali Hussein should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

411.

On May 7, 2019, Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

412.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein visa case number

2020AS00023428.

413.

The KCC has confirmed receipt of Plaintiff Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein and their

derivative beneficiaries’ documents on June 15, 2020.

414.

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

415.

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff Awad Musaeed Ali Hussein submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

416.

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff H.A.M.A.H. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

49

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 73 of 173

417.

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff N.A.M.A.H. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

418.

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff Z.A.M.A.H. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

419.

Plaintiffs Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein, Awad Musaeed Ali Hussein, H.A.M.A.H.,

N.A.M.A.H., and Z.A.M.A.H. have submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

420.

To date, Plaintiffs Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein, Awad Musaeed Ali Hussein,

H.A.M.A.H., N.A.M.A.H., and Z.A.M.A.H have not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

421.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Sabaa Fadhl Ali Hussein, Awad Musaeed Ali

Hussein, H.A.M.A.H., N.A.M.A.H., and Z.A.M.A.H’s immigrant visa applications are

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Armaghan Khakzad

422.

Armaghan Khakzad is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

423.

Plaintiff Saeid Shoaee is a native of Iran and spouse of Armaghan Khakzad. Saeid

Shoaee is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Armaghan Khakzad should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

424.

On May 7, 2019, Armaghan Khakzad and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

50

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 74 of 173

425.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Armaghan Khakzad visa case number 2020AS3916.

426.

Plaintiff Armaghan Khakzad and Saeid Shoaee submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

427.

Plaintiffs Armaghan Khakzad, and Saeid Shoaee have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

428.

Plaintiffs Armaghan Khakzad, and Saeid Shoaee had an interview on January 21,

2020.

429.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Armaghan Khakzad, and Saeid Shoaee’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Martin Roth

430.

Martin Roth is a native of Switzerland and DV-2020 selectee.

431.

On May 7, 2019, Martin Roth was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

432.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Martin Roth visa case number 2020EU51543.

433.

On May 27, 2019, Plaintiff Martin Roth submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

434.

Plaintiff Martin Roth has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

51

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 75 of 173

435.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Martin Roth immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Henri Mukobo Kakwata

436.

Henri Mukobo Kakwata is a native of Congo and DV-2020 selectee.

437.

On May 7, 2019, Henri Mukobo Kakwata was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

438.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Henri Mukobo Kakwata visa case number

2020AF12207.

439.

On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff Henri Mukobo Kakwata submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

440.

Plaintiff Henri Mukobo Kakwata has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

441.

To date, Plaintiff Henri Mukobo Kakwata has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

442.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Henri Mukobo Kakwata immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Yurii Boliuk

443.

Yurii Boliuk is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee.

444.

Anzhela Kulynych is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Yurii Boliuk. Anzhela

Kulynych is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yurii

Boliuk should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

52

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 76 of 173

445.

On May 7, 2019, Yurii Boliuk and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

446.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yurii Boliuk visa case number 2020EU20349.

447.

On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff Yurii Boliuk submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

448.

On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff Anzhela Kulynych submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

449.

Plaintiffs Yurii Boliuk and Anzhela Kulynych. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

450.

To date, Plaintiffs Yurii Boliuk and Anzhela Kulynych. have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

451.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Yurii Boliuk and Anzhela Kulynych’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman

452.

Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman is a native of Egypt and DV-2020

selectee.

453.

Plaintiff Sara Hamdy Mohamed Ibrahim is a native of Egypt and spouse of

Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman. Sara Hamdy Mohamed Ibrahim is eligible to

53

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 77 of 173

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed

Abdelrahman should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

454.

Plaintiff J.M.M.A.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Mohamed Mokhtar

Ahmed Abdelrahman is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman should they be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

455.

On May 7, 2019, Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman and their derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

456.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman visa case

number 2020AF65785.

457.

On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman submitted

their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

458.

On May 18, 2019, Sara Hamdy Mohamed Ibrahim submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

459.

On May 18, 2019, J.M.M.A.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

460.

Plaintiffs H.M.M.A.A. and H.M.M.A.A. are Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed

Abdelrahman’s newborns daughters, and thus, have not yet submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

54

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 78 of 173

461.

Plaintiffs Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman, Sara Hamdy Mohamed

Ibrahim and J.M.M.A.A. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of

their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

462.

To date, Plaintiffs Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman, Sara Hamdy

Mohamed Ibrahim and J.M.M.A.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

463.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohamed Mokhtar Ahmed Abdelrahman, Sara

Hamdy Mohamed Ibrahim and J.M.M.A.A.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Norges Sam Aragon

464.

Norges Sam Aragon is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.

465.

Plaintiff Idania Gonzalez Cabrera is a native of Cuba and spouse of Norges Sam

Aragon. Idania Gonzalez Cabrera is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Norges Sam Aragon should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

466.

Plaintiff D.S.G. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Norges Sam Aragon is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Norges Sam Aragon

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

467.

Plaintiff D.S.G. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Norges Sam Aragon is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Norges Sam Aragon

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

55

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 79 of 173

468.

On May 7, 2019, Norges Sam Aragon and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

469.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Norges Sam Aragon visa case number 2020SA761.

470.

Plaintiff Norges Sam Aragon submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

471.

Plaintiff Idania Gonzalez Cabrera submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

472.

Plaintiff D.S.G. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

473.

Plaintiff D.S.G. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

474.

Plaintiffs Norges Sam Aragon, Idania Gonzalez Cabrera, D.S.G., and D.S.G. have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

475.

To date, Plaintiffs Norges Sam Aragon, Idania Gonzalez Cabrera, D.S.G., and

D.S.G. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

476.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Norges Sam Aragon, Idania Gonzalez Cabrera,

D.S.G., and D.S.G.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed

56

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 80 of 173

477.

Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee.

478.

On May 7, 2019, Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

479.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed visa case number

2020AF62789.

480.

Plaintiff Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

481.

Plaintiff Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

482.

To date, Plaintiff Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

483.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdulhamid Shariff Ahmed immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Sangou Kouotou Leonel

484.

Sangou Kouotou Leonel is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.

485.

On May 7, 2019, Sangou Kouotou Leonel was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

486.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sangou Kouotou Leonel visa case number

2020AF38993.

487.

On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff Sangou Kouotou Leonel submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

57

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 81 of 173

488.

Plaintiff Sangou Kouotou Leonel has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

489.

To date, Plaintiff Sangou Kouotou Leonel has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

490.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Sangou Kouotou Leonel immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Laxman Giri

491.

Laxman Giri is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

492.

On May 7, 2019, Laxman Giri was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

493.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Laxman Giri visa case number 2020AS10303.

494.

Plaintiff Laxman Giri submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

495.

Plaintiff Laxman Giri has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

496.

Plaintiff Laxman Giri was scheduled for an interview on April 27, 2020 but the

interview was cancelled.

497.

To date, Plaintiff Laxman Giri has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

498.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Laxman Giri immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

58

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 82 of 173

Mahboobeh Peyvas

499.

Mahboobeh Peyvas is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

500.

Plaintiff Babak Parhoudeh is a native of Iran and spouse of Mahboobeh Peyvas.

Babak Parhoudeh is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Mahboobeh Peyvas should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

501.

Plaintiff P.P. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mahboobeh Peyvas is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mahboobeh Peyvas should

they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

502.

On May 7, 2019, Mahboobeh Peyvas and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

503.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mahboobeh Peyvas visa case number 2020AS8670.

504.

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff Mahboobeh Peyvas submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

505.

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff Babak Parhoudeh submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

506.

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff P.P. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

507.

Plaintiffs Mahboobeh Peyvas, Babak Parhoudeh, and P.P. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

59

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 83 of 173

508.

Plaintiffs Mahboobeh Peyvas, Babak Parhoudeh, and P.P. were scheduled for an

interview on April 21, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.

509.

To date, Plaintiffs Mahboobeh Peyvas, Babak Parhoudeh, and P.P. have not been

rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

510.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mahboobeh Peyvas, Babak Parhoudeh, and P.P.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Nariman Davarani

511.

Nariman Davarani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

512.

On May 7, 2019, Nariman Davarani was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

513.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nariman Davarani visa case number 2020AS1497.

514.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Nariman Davarani submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

515.

Plaintiff Nariman Davarani has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

516.

Plaintiff Nariman Davarani was scheduled for an interview December 25, 2020

and is currently in Administrative processing.

517.

To date, Plaintiff Nariman Davarani has not been rescheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

60

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 84 of 173

518.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Nariman Davarani immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Gonul Ozkilic

519.

Gonul Ozkilic is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

520.

Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic is a native of Turkey and spouse of Gonul Ozkilic. Ali Ozkilic

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Gonul Ozkilic

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

521.

Plaintiff S.H.O. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Gonul Ozkilic. S.H.O. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Gonul Ozkilic

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

522.

Plaintiff S.A.O. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Gonul Ozkilic. S.A.O. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Gonul Ozkilic

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

523.

On May 7, 2019, Gonul Ozkilic and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection. June

524.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gonul Ozkilic visa case number 2020EU00005204.

525.

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Gonul Ozkilic submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

526.

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

61

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 85 of 173

527.

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff S.H.O. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

528.

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff S.A.O. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

529.

Plaintiffs Gonul Ozkilic, Ali Ozkilic, S.H.O. and S.A.O. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration

530.

To date, Plaintiffs Gonul Ozkilic, Ali Ozkilic, S.H.O. and S.A.O. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

531.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Gonul Ozkilic, Ali Ozkilic, S.H.O. and S.A.O.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Talgat Tleubayev

532.

Talgat Tleubayev is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.

533.

Plaintiff Madina Tleubaev is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of Talgat

Tleubayev. Madina Tleubaev is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Talgat Tleubayev should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

534.

On May 7, 2019, Talgat Tleubayev and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

62

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 86 of 173

535.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Talgat Tleubayev visa case number 2020EU37169.

536.

On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Talgat Tleubayev submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

537.

On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Madina Tleubaev submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

538.

Plaintiffs Talgat Tleubayev and Madina Tleubaev have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

539.

To date, Plaintiffs Talgat Tleubayev and Madina Tleubaev have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

540.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Talgat Tleubayev and Madina Tleubaev immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Lumadi Prasad Adhikari

541.

Lumadi Prasad Adhikari is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

542.

Plaintiff Sujita Khatiwada is a native of Nepal and spouse of Lumadi Prasad

Adhikari. Sujita Khatiwada is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Lumadi Prasad Adhikari should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

543.

Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Nepal and minor child of Lumadi Prasad Adhikari.

A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Lumadi

63

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 87 of 173

Prasad Adhikari should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

544.

Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Nepal and minor child of Lumadi Prasad Adhikari.

A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Lumadi

Prasad Adhikari should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

545.

On May 7, 2019, Lumadi Prasad Adhikari and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

546.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lumadi Prasad Adhikari visa case number

2020AS00010095.

547.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff Lumadi Prasad Adhikari submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

548.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff Sujita Khatiwada submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

549.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff A.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

550.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff A.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

551.

Plaintiffs Lumadi Prasad Adhikari, Sujita Khatiwada, A.A. and A.A. have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

64

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 88 of 173

552.

Plaintiffs Lumadi Prasad Adhikari, Sujita Khatiwada, A.A. and A.A. were

scheduled for an interview on April 27, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.

553.

To date, Plaintiffs Lumadi Prasad Adhikari, Sujita Khatiwada, A.A. and A.A. have

not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

554.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Lumadi Prasad Adhikari, Sujita Khatiwada, A.A.

and A.A.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Taylor Paul Martin

555.

Taylor Paul Martin is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee.

556.

On May 7, 2019, Taylor Paul Martin was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

557.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Taylor Paul Martin visa case number

2020OC00002228.

558.

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff Taylor Paul Martin submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

559.

Plaintiff Taylor Paul Martin has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

560.

To date, Plaintiff Taylor Paul Martin has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

65

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 89 of 173

561.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Taylor Paul Martin immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Ivan Delgado Goenaga

562.

Ivan Delgado Goenaga is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.

563.

On May 7, 2019, Ivan Delgado Goenaga was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

564.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ivan Delgado Goenaga visa case number

2020SA2003.

565.

On August 24, 2019, Plaintiff Ivan Delgado Goenaga submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

566.

Plaintiff Ivan Delgado Goenaga has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

567.

To date, Plaintiff Ivan Delgado Goenaga has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

568.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ivan Delgado Goenaga immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Elsjona Brahaj

569.

Elsjona Brahaj is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

570.

Plaintiff Xhek Precetaj is a native of Albania and spouse of Elsjona Brahaj. Xhek

Precetaj is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Elsjona

Brahaj should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

66

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 90 of 173

571.

Plaintiff M.P. is a native of Albania and minor child of Elsjona Brahaj. M.P. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Elsjona Brahaj

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

572.

On May 7, 2019, Elsjona Brahaj was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

573.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Elsjona Brahaj visa case number 2020EU33367.

574.

On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff Elsjona Brahaj submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

575.

On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff Xhek Precetaj submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

576.

On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff M.P. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

577.

Plaintiffs Elsjona Brahaj, Xhek Precetaj, and M.P. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

578.

To date, Plaintiffs Elsjona Brahaj, Xhek Precetaj, and M.P. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

579.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Elsjona Brahaj, Xhek Precetaj, and M.P.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Liubou Kavalenka

67

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 91 of 173

580.

Liubou Kavalenka is a native of Belarus and DV-2020 selectee.

581.

Plaintiff Dzmitry Kavalenka is a native of Belarus and spouse of Liubou

Kavalenka. Dzmitry Kavalenka is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Dzmitry Kavalenka should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

their DV-2020 selection.

582.

Plaintiff A.K. is a native of Belarus and minor child of Liubou Kavalenka. A.K. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Liubou Kavalenka

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

583.

On May 7, 2019, Liubou Kavalenka was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

584.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Liubou Kavalenka visa case number

2020EU00013186.

585.

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Liubou Kavalenka submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

586.

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Dzmitry Kavalenka submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

587.

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff A.K. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

588.

To date, Plaintiffs Liubou Kavalenk, Dzmitry Kavalenka, and A.K. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

589.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Liubou Kavalenk, Dzmitry Kavalenka, and A.K.s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

68

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 92 of 173

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Alexandr Khodorkovskiy

590.

Alexandr Khodorkovskiy is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

591.

Plaintiff Gulsinya Akhmetova is a native of Russia and spouse of Alexandr

Khodorkovskiy. Gulsinya Akhmetova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Alexandr Khodorkovskiy should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

592.

On May 7, 2019, Alexandr Khodorkovskiy and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

593.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alexandr Khodorkovskiy visa case number

2020EU00016004.

594.

On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff Alexandr Khodorkovskiy submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

595.

On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff Gulsinya Akhmetova submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

596.

Plaintiffs Alexandr Khodorkovskiy and Gulsinya Akhmetova have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

597.

Plaintiffs Alexandr Khodorkovskiy and Gulsinya Akhmetova were scheduled for

an immigrant visa interview on April 22, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.

69

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 93 of 173

598.

To date, Plaintiffs Alexandr Khodorkovskiy and Gulsinya Akhmetova have not

been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

599.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Alexandr Khodorkovskiy and Gulsinya

Akhmetova’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Farzad Vahabidehkordi

600.

Farzad Vahabidehkordi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

601.

Plaintiff Shabnam Daeirezaei is a native of Iran and spouse of Farzad

Vahabidehkordi. Shabnam Daeirezaei is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Farzad Vahabidehkordi should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

602.

Plaintiff A.V. is a native of Iran and minor child of Farzad Vahabidehkordi A.V.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farzad

Vahabidehkordi should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

603.

On May 7, 2019, Farzad Vahabidehkordi and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

604.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Farzad Vahabidehkordi visa case number

2020AS00005558.

70

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 94 of 173

605.

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff Farzad Vahabidehkordi submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

606.

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff Shabnam Daeirezaei submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

607.

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff A.V. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

608.

Plaintiffs Farzad Vahabidehkordi, Shabnam Daeirezaei, and A.V. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

609.

To date, Plaintiffs Farzad Vahabidehkordi, Shabnam Daeirezaei, and A.V. have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

610.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Farzad Vahabidehkordi, Shabnam Daeirezaei, and

A.V.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Abylay Murat

611.

Abylay Murat is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.

612.

Plaintiff Aida Murat is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of Abylay Murat. Aida

Murat is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Abylay

Murat should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

71

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 95 of 173

613.

On May 7, 2019, Abylay Murat and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

614.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abylay Murat visa case number 2020EU00031110.

615.

On September 21, 2019, Plaintiff Abylay Murat submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

616.

On September 21, 2019, Plaintiff Aida Murat submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

617.

Plaintiffs Abylay Murat and Aida Murat have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

618.

To date, Plaintiffs Abylay Murat and Aida Murat have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

619.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Abylay Murat and Aida Murat’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Shima Shadmehri

620.

Shima Shadmehri is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

621.

On May 7, 2019, Shima Shadmehri was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

622.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shima Shadmehri visa case number

2020AS00002366.

72

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 96 of 173

623.

On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff Shima Shadmehri submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

624.

Plaintiff Shima Shadmehri has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

625.

Plaintiff Shima Shadmehri had an interview on December 6, 2019 and is currently

in Administrative processing.

626.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Shima Shadmehri immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Parisa Abdollahi

627.

Parisa Abdollahi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

628.

Plaintiff Shahrooz Vafaikhah is a native of Iran and spouse of Parisa Abdollahi.

Shahrooz Vafaikhah is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Parisa Abdollahi should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

629.

Plaintiff A.V. is a native of Iran and minor child of Parisa Abdollahi. A.V. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Parisa Abdollahi

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

630.

On May 7, 2019, Parisa Abdollahi and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

631.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Parisa Abdollahi visa case number 2020AS5197.

73

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 97 of 173

632.

On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff Parisa Abdollahi submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

633.

On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff Shahrooz Vafaikhah submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

634.

On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff A.V. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

635.

Plaintiffs Parisa Abdollahi, Shahrooz Vafaikhah, and A.V. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

636.

Plaintiffs Parisa Abdollahi, Shahrooz Vafaikhah, and A.V., had an interview on

February 27, 2020 and is currently in Administrative processing.

637.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Parisa Abdollahi, Shahrooz Vafaikhah, and A.V.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Alexandru Rotaru

638.

Alexandru Rotaru is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee.

639.

Plaintiff Maria Rotaru is a native of Moldova and spouse of Alexandru Rotaru.

Maria Rotaru is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Alexandru Rotaru should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

74

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 98 of 173

640.

Plaintiff V.R. is a native of Moldova and minor child Alexandru Rotaru. V.R. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Alexandru Rotaru

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

641.

Plaintiff A.R. is a native of Moldova and minor child Alexandru Rotaru. A.R. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Alexandru Rotaru

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

642.

On May 7, 2019, Alexandru Rotaru and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

643.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alexandru Rotaru visa case number 2020EU18642.

644.

Plaintiff Alexandru Rotaru submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

645.

Plaintiff Maria Rotaru submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

646.

Plaintiff V.R. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

647.

Plaintiff A.R. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

648.

Plaintiffs Alexandru Rotaru, Maria Rotaru, V.R. and A.R. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

75

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 99 of 173

649.

To date, Plaintiffs Alexandru Rotaru, Maria Rotaru, V.R. and A.R. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

650.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Alexandru Rotaru, Maria Rotaru, V.R. and A.R.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Evgeny Pavlovich Zavitnevich

651.

Evgeny Pavlovich Zavitnevich is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

652.

Plaintiff Liliya Valentinovna Zavitnevich is a native of Russia and spouse of

Pavlovich Zavitnevich. Valentinovna Zavitnevich is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Pavlovich Zavitnevich should they be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

653.

On May 7, 2019, Pavlovich Zavitnevich and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

654.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Pavlovich Zavitnevich visa case number

2020EU35809.

655.

Plaintiff Pavlovich Zavitnevich submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

656.

Plaintiff Valentinovna Zavitnevich submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

76

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 100 of 173

657.

Plaintiffs Pavlovich Zavitnevich, and Valentinovna Zavitnevich have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

658.

To date, Plaintiffs Pavlovich Zavitnevich and Valentinovna Zavitnevich have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

659.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Pavlovich Zavitnevich and Valentinovna

Zavitnevich’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Karolina Vukojicic

660.

Karolina Vukojicic is a native of Serbia and DV-2020 selectee.

661.

Plaintiff Andrija Petrovic is a native of Serbia and spouse of Karolina Vukojicic.

Andrija Petrovic is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Andrija Petrovic should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

662.

On May 7, 2019, Karolina Vukojicic and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

663.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Karolina Vukojicic visa case number

2020EU00021598.

664.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Karolina Vukojicic submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

77

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 101 of 173

665.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Andrija Petrovic submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

666.

Plaintiffs Karolina Vukojicic and Andrija Petrovic have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

667.

Plaintiffs Karolina Vukojicic, and Andrija Petrovic had an interview on May 5,

2020.

668.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Karolina Vukojicic and Elie Bernard Andrija

Petrovic’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Joy Wambui Wanjohi

669.

Joy Wambui Wanjohi is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee.

670.

On May 7, 2019, Joy Wambui Wanjohi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

671.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Joy Wambui Wanjohi visa case number

2020AF20676.

672.

On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff Joy Wambui Wanjohi submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

673.

Plaintiff Joy Wambui Wanjohi has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

674.

Plaintiff Joy Wambui Wanjohi attended an immigrant visa interview on March 13,

2020.

78

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 102 of 173

675.

To date, Plaintiff Joy Wambui Wanjohi has not been rescheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

676.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Joy Wambui Wanjohi immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Ender Yildiz

677.

Ender Yildiz is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

678.

Plaintiff Mehtap Yildiz is a native of Turkey and spouse of Ender Yildiz. Mehtap

Yildizis eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ender

Yildiz should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

679.

On May 7, 2019, Ender Yildiz and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

680.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ender Yildiz visa case number 2020EU24559.

681.

Plaintiff Ender Yildiz submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

682.

Plaintiff Mehtap Yildizsubmitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

683.

Plaintiffs Ender Yildiz and Mehtap Yildizhave submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

684.

To date, Plaintiffs Ender Yildiz and Mehtap Yildizhave have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

79

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 103 of 173

685.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ender Yildiz and Mehtap Yildizhave’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Fumiko Tsuruta

686.

Fumiko Tsuruta is a native of Japan and DV-2020 selectee.

687.

Plaintiff S.T. is a native of Japan and minor child of Fumiko Tsuruta. S.T. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Fumiko Tsuruta

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

688.

On May 7, 2019, Fumiko Tsuruta and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

689.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fumiko Tsuruta visa case number 2020AS00029631.

690.

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Fumiko Tsuruta submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

691.

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff S.T. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

692.

Plaintiffs Fumiko Tsuruta and S.T. have submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

693.

To date, Plaintiffs Fumiko Tsuruta and S.T. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

80

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 104 of 173

694.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Fumiko Tsuruta and S.T.’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Aleksandr Kotovich

695.

Aleksandr Kotovich is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

696.

Plaintiff Olesia Kotovich is a native of Russia and spouse of Aleksandr Kotovich.

Olesia Kotovich is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Aleksandr Kotovich should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

697.

Plaintiff A.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Aleksandr Kotovich. A.K.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Aleksandr

Kotovich should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

698.

On May 7, 2019, Aleksandr Kotovich and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

699.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Aleksandr Kotovich visa case number 2020EU28735.

700.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff Aleksandr Kotovich submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

701.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff Olesia Kotovich submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

702.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff A.S. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

81

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 105 of 173

703.

Plaintiffs Aleksandr Kotovich, Olesia Kotovich, and A.S. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

704.

To date, Plaintiffs Aleksandr Kotovich, Olesia Kotovich, and A.S. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

705.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Aleksandr Kotovich, Olesia Kotovich, and A.S.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Rungsirat Ngaosinchai

706.

Rungsirat Ngaosinchai is a native of Thailand and DV-2020 selectee.

707.

On May 7, 2019, Rungsirat Ngaosinchai was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

708.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Rungsirat Ngaosinchai visa case number

2020AS28236.

709.

On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff Rungsirat Ngaosinchai submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

710.

Plaintiff Rungsirat Ngaosinchai has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

711.

To date, Plaintiff Rungsirat Ngaosinchai has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

82

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 106 of 173

712.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Rungsirat Ngaosinchai immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed

713.

Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee.

714.

Plaintiff Mubarak Ahmed Mohamed Khaled is a native of Sudan and spouse of

Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed. Mubarak Ahmed Mohamed Khaled is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Meaad Mohamed Fathi

Ahmed should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

715.

Plaintiff S.M.A.M. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Meaad Mohamed Fathi

Ahmed. S.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

716.

Plaintiff M.M.A.M. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Meaad Mohamed Fathi

Ahmed. M.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

717.

Plaintiff A.M.A.M. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Meaad Mohamed Fathi

Ahmed. A.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

718.

Plaintiff R.M.A.M. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Meaad Mohamed Fathi

Ahmed. R.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

83

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 107 of 173

of Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

719.

On May 7, 2019, Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed and their derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

720.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed visa case number

2020ِAF00050737.

721.

On December 15, 2019, Plaintiff Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

722.

On December 15, 2019, Plaintiff Mubarak Ahmed Mohamed Khaled submitted

their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

723.

On December 15, 2019, Plaintiff S.M.A.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

724.

On December 15, 2019, Plaintiff M.M.A.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

725.

On December 15, 2019, Plaintiff A.M.A.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

726.

On December 15, 2019, Plaintiff R.M.A.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

727.

Plaintiffs Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed, Mubarak Ahmed Mohamed Khaled,

S.M.A.M., M.M.A.M., A.M.A.M., and R.M.A.M. have submitted all necessary

84

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 108 of 173

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

728.

To date, Plaintiffs Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed, Mubarak Ahmed Mohamed

Khaled, S.M.A.M., M.M.A.M., A.M.A.M., and R.M.A.M. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

729.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Meaad Mohamed Fathi Ahmed, Mubarak Ahmed

Mohamed Khaled, S.M.A.M., M.M.A.M., A.M.A.M., and R.M.A.M.s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman

730.

Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee.

731.

Plaintiff Mohamed Abdalla Yasein Osman is a native of Sudan and spouse of Nada

Yousef Mohammed Osman. Mohamed Abdalla Yasein Osman is eligible to immigrate to

the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman should

they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

732.

Plaintiff S.M.A.Y. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Nada Yousef

Mohammed Osman. S.M.A.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

733.

Plaintiff A.B.M.A.Y. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Nada Yousef

Mohammed Osman. A.B.M.A.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman should they be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

85

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 109 of 173

734.

Plaintiff A.M.A.Y. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Mohamed Abdalla

Yasein Osman. A.M.A.Y.is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mohamed Abdalla Yasein Osman should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

735.

On May 7, 2019, Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman and their derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

736.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman visa case number

2020AS00013417.

737.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

738.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Abdalla Yasein Osman submitted

their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

739.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff S.M.A.Y. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

740.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff A.B.M.A.Y. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

741.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff A.M.A.Y. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

86

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 110 of 173

742.

Plaintiffs Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman, Mohamed Abdalla Yasein Osman,

S.M.A.Y., A.B.M.A.Y., and A.M.A.Y. have submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

743.

Plaintiffs Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman, Mohamed Abdalla Yasein Osman,

S.M.A.Y., A.B.M.A.Y., and A.M.A.Y. had an interview on April 20, 2020.

744.

The adjudications of Nada Yousef Mohammed Osman, Mohamed Abdalla Yasein

Osman, S.M.A.Y., A.B.M.A.Y., and A.M.A.Y.’s immigrant visa applications are

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Metanat Mojtaba

745.

Metanat Mojtaba is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

746.

Plaintiff Raisi Tayebeh is a native of Iran and spouse of Metanat Mojtaba. Raisi

Tayebeh is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Metanat

Mojtaba should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

747.

Plaintiff K.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Metanat Mojtaba. K.M. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Metanat Mojtaba

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

748.

Plaintiff K.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Metanat Mojtaba. K.M. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Metanat Mojtaba

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

749.

On May 7, 2019, Metanat Mojtaba and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

87

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 111 of 173

750.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Metanat Mojtaba visa case number 2020AS8353.

751.

On September 29, 2019, Plaintiff Metanat Mojtaba submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

752.

On September 29, 2019, Plaintiff Raisi Tayebeh submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

753.

On September 29, 2019, Plaintiff K.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

754.

On September 29, 2019, Plaintiff K.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

755.

Plaintiffs Metanat Mojtaba, Raisi Tayebeh, K.M., and K.M. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

756.

Plaintiffs Metanat Mojtaba, Raisi Tayebeh, K.M., and K.M. had an interview on

April 14, 2020.

757.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Metanat Mojtaba, Raisi Tayebeh, K.M., and K.M.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Dmitry Mordvintsev

758.

Dmitry Mordvintsev is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

759.

Plaintiff Olga Dubachyova is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of Dmitry

Mordvintsev. Olga Dubachyova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

88

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 112 of 173

beneficiary of Dmitry Mordvintsev should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

their DV-2020 selection.

760.

On May 7, 2019, Dmitry Mordvintsev and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

761.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dmitry Mordvintsev visa case number

2020EU00018405.

762.

On Jan 3, 2020, Plaintiff Dmitry Mordvintsev submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

763.

On Jan 3, 2020, Plaintiff Olga Dubachyova submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

764.

Plaintiffs Dmitry Mordvintsev and Olga Dubachyova have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

765.

Plaintiffs Dmitry Mordvintsev and Olga Dubachyova were scheduled for an

interview on April 14, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.

766.

To date, Plaintiffs Dmitry Mordvintsev and Olga Dubachyova have not been

rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

767.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Dmitry Mordvintsev and Olga Dubachyova’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

89

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 113 of 173

Yury Klausuts

768.

Yury Klausuts is a native of Belarus and DV-2020 selectee.

769.

On May 7, 2019, Yury Klausuts was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

770.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yury Klausuts visa case number 2020EU00020916.

771.

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff Yury Klausuts submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

772.

Plaintiff Yury Klausuts has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

773.

Plaintiff Yury Klausuts had an interview on April 21, 2020.

774.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Yury Klausuts immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman

775.

Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman is a native of Sudan and DV-2020

selectee.

776.

Plaintiff Khalid Abdalla Ragab is a native of Sudan and family friend of Abubakr

Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman. Khalid Abdalla Ragab is eligible to immigrate to the

United States as a derivative beneficiary of Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

777.

On May 7, 2019, Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman and their derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

90

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 114 of 173

778.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman visa case

number 2020AS13197.

779.

On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman submitted

their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

780.

On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff Khalid Abdalla Ragab submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

781.

Plaintiffs Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman and Khalid Abdalla Ragab

have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration.

782.

Plaintiffs Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman and Khalid Abdalla Ragab,

had an interview on April 14, 2020.

783.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Abubakr Abdelsalam Osman Abdelrahman and

Khalid Abdalla Ragab’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Orod Ladan

784.

Orod Ladan is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

785.

Plaintiff Maryam Bayandoriha is a native of Iran and spouse of Orod Ladan.

Maryam Bayandoriha is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Orod Ladan should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

91

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 115 of 173

786.

On May 7, 2019, Orod Ladan and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

787.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Orod Ladan visa case number 2020AS6262.

788.

Plaintiff Orod Ladan submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

789.

Plaintiff Maryam Bayandoriha submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

790.

Plaintiffs Orod Ladan and Maryam Bayandoriha have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

791.

Plaintiff Orod Ladan and Maryam Bayandoriha attended an interview on February

13, 2020.

792.

To date, Plaintiffs Orod Ladan and Maryam Bayandoriha have not been

rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

793.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Orod Ladan and Maryam Bayandoriha’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Edmond Korbi

794.

Edmond Korbi is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

92

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 116 of 173

795.

Plaintiff Djana Korbi is a native of Albania and spouse of Edmond Korbi. Djana

Korbi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of J Djana

Korbi should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

796.

Plaintiff G.K. is a native of Albania and minor child of Edmond Korbi. G.K. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Edmond Korbi

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

797.

Plaintiff S.K. is a native of Albania and minor child of Edmond Korbi. G.K. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Edmond Korbi

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

798.

On May 7, 2019, Edmond Korbi and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

799.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Edmond Korbi visa case number 2020EU19821.

800.

Plaintiff Edmond Korbi submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

801.

Plaintiff Djana Korbi submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and

Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

802.

Plaintiff G.K. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

803.

Plaintiff S.K. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

93

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 117 of 173

804.

Plaintiffs Edmond Korbi, Djana Korbi, G.K., and S.K. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

805.

To date, Plaintiffs Edmond Korbi, Djana Korbi, G.K., and S.K. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

806.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Edmond Korbi, Djana Korbi, G.K., and S.K.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader

807.

Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

808.

On May 7, 2019, Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

809.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader visa case number

2020AS15659.

810.

Plaintiff Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

811.

Plaintiff Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

812.

Plaintiff Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader had an interview on April 1, 2020.

94

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 118 of 173

813.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdeltawab Osama Abdelkader immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Tiago Songabio Jacob

814.

Tiago Songabio Jacob is a native of Angola and DV-2020 selectee.

815.

On May 7, 2019, Tiago Songabio Jacob was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

816.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tiago Songabio Jacob visa case number

2020AF99305.

817.

On Jan 1, 2019, Plaintiff Tiago Songabio Jacob submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

818.

Plaintiff Tiago Songabio Jacob has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

819.

Plaintiff Tiago Songabio Jacob had an interview on April 1, 2020.

820.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Tiago Songabio Jacob immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe

821.

Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee.

822.

On May 7, 2019, Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

95

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 119 of 173

823.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe visa case number

2020EU00023904.

824.

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

825.

Plaintiff Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

826.

To date, Plaintiff Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe has not been scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

827.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Loredana Morgane Libera Philippe immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva

828.

Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.

829.

On May 7, 2019, Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

830.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva visa case number

2020EU00042312.

831.

In August 2019, Plaintiff Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

832.

To date, Plaintiff Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

96

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 120 of 173

833.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Akmaral Kamzagaliyeva immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed

834.

Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee.

835.

On May 7, 2019, Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

836.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed visa case number

2020AS00019321.

837.

On Juky 27, 2019, Plaintiff Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

838.

Plaintiff Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

839.

To date, Plaintiff Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

840.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Omer Abdalla Hassan Mohamed immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich

841.

Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich is a native of Uzbekistan and DV-2020 selectee.

97

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 121 of 173

842.

On May 7, 2019, Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

843.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich visa case number

2020EU00002722.

844.

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

845.

Plaintiff Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

846.

Plaintiff Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich had an interview on November 7, 2019.

847.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Nazarov Avaz Abdurashidovich immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Khashayar Azizsani

848.

Khashayar Azizsani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

849.

On May 7, 2019, Khashayar Azizsani was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

850.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Khashayar Azizsani visa case number

2020AS00005714.

851.

Plaintiff Khashayar Azizsani submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

98

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 122 of 173

852.

Plaintiff Khashayar Azizsani has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

853.

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff Khashayar attended an immigrant visa interview.

854.

To date, Plaintiff Khashayar Azizsani has not been rescheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

855.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Khashayar Azizsani immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Semiha Unlu

856.

Semiha Unlu is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

857.

Plaintiff Gokhan Unlu is a native of Turkey and spouse of Semiha Unlu. Gokhan

Unlu is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Semiha

Unlu should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

858.

Plaintiff S.E.U. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Semiha Unlu. S.E.U. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Semiha Unlu should

they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

859.

On May 7, 2019, Semiha Unlu and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

860.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Semiha Unlu visa case number 2020EU45956.

861.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff Semiha Unlu submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

99

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 123 of 173

862.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff Gokhan Unlu submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

863.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff S.E.U. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

864.

Plaintiffs Semiha Unlu, Gokhan Unlu, and S.E.U. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

865.

To date, Plaintiffs Semiha Unlu, Gokhan Unlu, and S.E.U. have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

866.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Semiha Unlu, Gokhan Unlu, and S.E.U.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Karim El Hajjar

867.

Karim El Hajjar is a native of Lebanon and DV-2020 selectee.

868.

On May 7, 2019, Karim El Hajjar was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

869.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Karim El Hajjar visa case number 2020AS00024167.

870.

On Jan 19, 2020, Plaintiff Karim El Hajjar submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

871.

To date, Plaintiff Karim El Hajjar has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

100

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 124 of 173

872.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Karim El Hajjar immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Denis Martynenko

873.

Denis Martynenko is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

874.

Plaintiff Anna Martynenko is a native of Russia and spouse of Denis Martynenko.

Anna Martynenko is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Denis Martynenko should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

875.

Plaintiff V.M. is a native of Russia and minor child of Denis Martynenko. V.M. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Denis Martynenko

should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

876.

On May 7, 2019, Denis Martynenko and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

877.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Denis Martynenko visa case number

2020EU00025392.

878.

On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff Denis Martynenko submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

879.

On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff Anna Martynenko submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

880.

On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff V.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

101

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 125 of 173

881.

Plaintiffs Denis Martynenko, Anna Martynenko, and V.M. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

882.

To date, Plaintiffs Denis Martynenko, Anna Martynenko, and V.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

883.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Denis Martynenko, Anna Martynenko, and V.M.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Nichita Covalenco

884.

Nichita Covalenco is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee.

885.

Plaintiff Alina Banul is a native of Moldova and spouse of Nichita Covalenco.

Alina Banul is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Nichita Covalenco should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

886.

On May 7, 2019, Nichita Covalenco and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

887.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nichita Covalenco visa case number 2020EU19267.

888.

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Nichita Covalenco submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

102

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 126 of 173

889.

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Alina Banul submitted their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

890.

Plaintiffs Nichita Covalenco and Alina Banul have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

891.

Plaintiffs Nichita Covalenco and Alina Banul had an interview on May 7, 2020.

892.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Nichita Covalenco and Alina Banul’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Brunette Tona Malungana

893.

Brunette Tona Malungana is a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and

DV-2020 selectee.

894.

Plaintiff Mukamba Ilunga Jonas Patrick is a native of the Democratic Republic of

the Congo and spouse of Brunette Tona Malungana. Mukamba Ilunga Jonas Patrick is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Brunette Tona

Malungana should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

895.

On May 7, 2019, Brunette Tona Malungana and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

896.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Brunette Tona Malungana visa case number

2020AF67499.

103

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 127 of 173

897.

On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Brunette Tona Malungana submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

898.

On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Mukamba Ilunga Jonas Patrick submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

899.

Plaintiffs Brunette Tona Malungana and Mukamba Ilunga Jonas Patrick have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

900.

To date, Plaintiffs Brunette Tona Malungana and Mukamba Ilunga Jonas Patrick

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

901.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Brunette Tona Malungana and Mukamba Ilunga

Jonas Patrick’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Shahram Mehrafrooz

902.

Shahram Mehrafrooz is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

903.

Plaintiff Saloomeh Esmaeili is a native of Iran and spouse of Shahram Mehrafrooz.

Saloomeh Esmaeili is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Shahram Mehrafrooz should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

104

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 128 of 173

904.

Plaintiff E.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Shahram Mehrafrooz. E.M. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Shahram

Mehrafrooz should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

905.

On May 7, 2019, Shahram Mehrafrooz and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

906.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahram Mehrafrooz visa case number 2020AS10181.

907.

On August 3, 2019, Plaintiff Shahram Mehrafrooz submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

908.

On August 3, 2019, Plaintiff Saloomeh Esmaeili submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

909.

On August 3, 2019, Plaintiff E.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

910.

Shahram Mehrafrooz, Saloomeh Esmaeili, and E.M. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

911.

To date, Plaintiffs Mehrafrooz, Saloomeh Esmaeili, and E.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

912.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mehrafrooz, Saloomeh Esmaeili, and E.M.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

105

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 129 of 173

Kavira Aline Katavali

913.

Kavira Aline Katavali is a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and

DV-2020 selectee.

914.

Plaintiff Bokula Merveille Abili is a native of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo and spouse of Kavira Aline Katavali. Bokula Merveille Abili is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Kavira Aline Katavali should

they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

915.

On May 7, 2019, Kavira Aline Katavali and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

916.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Kavira Aline Katavali visa case number

2020AF00055600.

917.

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Kavira Aline Katavali submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

918.

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Bokula Merveille Abili submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

919.

Plaintiffs Kavira Aline Katavali and Bokula Merveille Abili have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration, and KCC has confirmed receipt of that information and that the

couple is ready for an interview.

920.

To date, Plaintiffs Kavira Aline Katavali and Bokula Merveille Abili have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

106

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 130 of 173

921.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Kavira Aline Katavali and Bokula Merveille Abili’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Rupa Shah

922.

Rupa Shah is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. Rupa Shah was issued a

visa, and entered the United States as a Legal Permanent Resident. She resides in Madison,

Wisconsin.

923.

Plaintiff Som Raj Shahi is a native of Nepal and spouse of Rupa Shah. Som Raj

Shahi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rupa Shah

pursuant to the issuance of Rupa Shah’s DV-2020 visa issuance.

924.

Plaintiff R.S. is a native of Nepal and minor child of Rupa Shah. R.S. was issued

a visa, entered the United States, and resides in Madison, Wisconsin as a Legal Permanent

Resident.

925.

Plaintiff B.B.S. is a native of Nepal and minor child of Rupa Shah. B.B.S. was

issued a visa, entered the United States, and resides in Madison, Wisconsin as a Legal

Permanent Resident.

926.

On May 7, 2019, Rupa Shah and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

927.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Rupa Shah visa case number 2020AS00004659.

928.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff Som Raj Shahi submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

107

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 131 of 173

929.

Plaintiffs Som Raj Shahi has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

930.

Plaintiff Som Raj Shahi attended an immigrant visa interview on December 23,

2019.

931.

Plaintiffs Som Raj Shahi was rescheduled for another interview for March 23, 2020

but the interview was cancelled.

932.

To date, Som Raj Shahi is separated from his wife and children, and has not been

rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

933.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Som Raj Shahi’s immigrant visa applications is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Wladimir Marmol Avendano

934.

Wladimir Marmol Avendano is a native of Venezuela and DV-2020 selectee.

935.

Plaintiff Yajaira Josefina Leon De Marmol is a native of Venezuela and spouse of

Marmol Avendano. Yajaira Josefina Leon De Marmol is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Marmol Avendano should they be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

936.

On May 7, 2019, Marmol Avendano and their derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

937.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marmol Avendano visa case number 2020SA3433.

108

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 132 of 173

938.

On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff Marmol Avendano submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

939.

On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff Yajaira Josefina Leon De Marmol submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

940.

Plaintiffs Marmol Avendano and Yajaira Josefina Leon De Marmol have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

941.

To date, Plaintiffs Marmol Avendano and Yajaira Josefina Leon De Marmol have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

942.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Marmol Avendano and Yajaira Josefina Leon De

Marmol’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed

943.

Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee.

944.

On May 7, 2019, Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

945.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed visa case number

2020AF00049955.

109

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 133 of 173

946.

On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed submitted their

DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

947.

Plaintiff Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

948.

To date, Plaintiff Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed has not been scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

949.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Fathelrahman Yousif Ali Sidahmed immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Moise Kahamba Longambo

950.

Moise Kahamba Longambo is a native of The Democratic Republic of the Congo

and DV-2020 selectee.

951.

On May 7, 2019, Moise Kahamba Longambo was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

952.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Moise Kahamba Longambo visa case number

2020AF00014304.

953.

On December 1, 2019, Plaintiff Moise Kahamba Longambo submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

954.

Plaintiff Moise Kahamba Longambo has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

110

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 134 of 173

955.

To date, Plaintiff Moise Kahamba Longambo has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

956.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Moise Kahamba Longambo immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud

957.

Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee.

958.

On May 7, 2019, Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

959.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud visa case number

2020AF23035.

960.

On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

961.

Plaintiff Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

962.

To date, Plaintiff Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.

963.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohamed Abdirashid Mohamud immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Eddy Ngila Botamba

111

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 135 of 173

964.

Eddy Ngila Botamba is a native of The Democratic Republic of the Congo and

DV-2020 selectee.

965.

Plaintiff Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga is a native of The Democratic Republic of the

Congo and spouse of Ngila Botamba. Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ngila Botamba should they be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

966.

Plaintiff K.N.D. is a native of The Democratic Republic of the Congo and minor

child of Ngila Botamba. K.N.D. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ngila Botamba should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

967.

Plaintiff K.N.B. is a native of The Democratic Republic of the Congo and minor

child of Ngila Botamba. K.N.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ngila Botamba should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

968.

Plaintiff K.N.N. is a native of The Democratic Republic of the Congo and minor

child of Ngila Botamba. K.N.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ngila Botamba should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their

DV-2020 selection.

969.

On May 7, 2019, Ngila Botamba and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-

2020 selection.

970.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ngila Botamba visa case number 2020AF31171.

112

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 136 of 173

971.

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff Ngila Botamba submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection

972.

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection

973.

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff K.N.D. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection

974.

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff K.N.B. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection

975.

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff K.N.N. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection

976.

Plaintiffs Ngila Botamba, Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga, K.N.D., K.N.B., and K.N.N.

have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration.

977.

Plaintiffs Ngila Botamba, Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga, K.N.D., K.N.B., and K.N.N.

were scheduled for an interview on April 30, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.

978.

To date, Plaintiffs Ngila Botamba, Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga, K.N.D., K.N.B., and

K.N.N. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or

issued a decision on their applications.

979.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ngila Botamba, Lydie Ntemo Mbiyavanga, K.N.D.,

K.N.B., and K.N.N.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Wiphaphorn Chatpong

113

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 137 of 173

980.

Wiphaphorn Chatpong is a native of Thailand and DV-2020 selectee.

981.

On May 7, 2019, Wiphaphorn Chatpong was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

982.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Wiphaphorn Chatpong visa case number

2020AS11773.

983.

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff Wiphaphorn Chatpong submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

984.

Plaintiff Wiphaphorn Chatpong has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

985.

Plaintiff Wiphaphorn Chatpong was scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020

but the interview was cancelled.

986.

To date, Plaintiff Wiphaphorn Chatpong has not been rescheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

987.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Wiphaphorn Chatpong immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Argelio Avila Moreno

988.

Argelio Avila Moreno is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.

989.

Plaintiff Barbara Magdiel Moreno Perez is a native of Cuba and spouse of Argelio

Avila Moreno. Barbara Magdiel Moreno Perezis eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Argelio Avila Moreno should they be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

114

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 138 of 173

990.

Plaintiff L.M.A.M. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Argelio Avila Moreno.

L.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Argelio Avila Moreno should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

991.

Plaintiff L.M.A.M. is a native of Cuba and minor child of Argelio Avila Moreno.

L.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Argelio Avila Moreno should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

992.

On May 7, 2019, Argelio Avila Moreno and their derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant

to their DV-2020 selection.

993.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Argelio Avila Moreno visa case number 2020SA2378.

994.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Argelio Avila Moreno submitted their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

995.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Barbara Magdiel Moreno Perez submitted their DS-

260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020

selection.

996.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff L.M.A.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

997.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff L.M.A.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

115

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 139 of 173

998.

Plaintiffs Argelio Avila Moreno, Barbara Magdiel Moreno Perez, L.M.A.M. and

L.M.A.M. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

999.

To date, Plaintiffs Argelio Avila Moreno, Barbara Magdiel Moreno Perez,

L.M.A.M. and L.M.A.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

1000. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Argelio Avila Moreno, Barbara Magdiel Moreno

Perez, L.M.A.M. and L.M.A.M.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to

the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of

immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Behrouz Khosravani Nazari

1001. Behrouz Khosravani Nazari is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

1002. Plaintiff Parisa Honarmand is a native of Iran and spouse of Behrouz Khosravani

Nazari. Parisa Honarmand is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Behrouz Khosravani Nazari should they be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

1003. On May 7, 2019, Behrouz Khosravani Nazari and their derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration

pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.

1004. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Behrouz Khosravani Nazari visa case number

2020AS7323.

116

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 140 of 173
1005. On October 27, 2019, Plaintiff Behrouz Khosravani Nazari submitted their DS260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1006. On October 27, 2019, Plaintiff Parisa Honarmand submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1007. Plaintiffs Behrouz Khosravani Nazari and Parisa Honarmand have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1008. To date, Plaintiffs Behrouz Khosravani Nazari and Parisa Honarmand have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1009. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Behrouz Khosravani Nazari and Parisa Honarmand’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Kidist Gebre Chegen 1010. Kidist Gebre Chegen is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee. 1011. On May 7, 2019, Kidist Gebre Chegen was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1012. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Kidist Gebre Chegen visa case number 2020AF00029983. 1013. On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff Kidist Gebre Chegen submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
117

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 141 of 173
1014. Plaintiff Kidist Gebre Chegen has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1015. To date, Plaintiff Kidist Gebre Chegen has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.
1016. The adjudication of Plaintiff Kidist Gebre Chegen immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Woldie Kidus Getahun 1017. Woldie Kidus Getahun is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee. 1018. On May 7, 2019, Woldie Kidus Getahun was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1019. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Woldie Kidus Getahun visa case number 2020AF62481. 1020. On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Woldie Kidus Getahun submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1021. Plaintiff Woldie Kidus Getahun has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1022. To date, Plaintiff Woldie Kidus Getahun has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application. 1023. The adjudication of Plaintiff Woldie Kidus Getahun immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia
118

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 142 of 173
1024. Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 1025. On May 7, 2019, Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1026. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia visa case number
2020SA2037. 1027. On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia submitted their DS-260,
Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1028. Plaintiff Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1029. To date, Plaintiff Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia has not been scheduled for an
interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application. 1030. The adjudication of Plaintiff Noelvis Rodriguez Iglesia immigrant visa application
is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Eber Betancourt Avalo 1031. Eber Betancourt Avalo is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 1032. Yenisley Ramos Alarcon is a native of Cuba and spouse of Eber Betancourt Avalo. Yenisley Ramos Alarcon is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Eber Betancourt Avalo should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1033. On May 7, 2019, Eber Betancourt Avalo and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
119

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 143 of 173
1034. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Eber Betancourt Avalo visa case number 2020SA00000800.
1035. On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff Eber Betancourt Avalo submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1036. On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff Yenisley Ramos Alarcon submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1037. Plaintiffs Eber Betancourt Avalo and Yenisley Ramos Alarcon have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1038. To date, Plaintiffs Eber Betancourt Avalo and Yenisley Ramos Alarcon have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1039. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Eber Betancourt Avalo and Yenisley Ramos Alarcon’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam 1040. Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam is a native of Egypt and Dv-2020 selectee. 1041. Plaintiff Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah Mohamed Ghanem is a native of Egypt and
spouse of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam. Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah Mohamed Ghanem is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
120

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 144 of 173
1042. Plaintiff Salma Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah is a native of Egypt and child of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam. Salma Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1043. Plaintiff J.M.G.A. is a native of Egypt and child of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam. J.M.G.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1044. Plaintiff Z.M.G.A. is a native of Egypt and child of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam. Z.M.G.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1045. On May 7, 2019, Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1046. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam visa case number 2020AF00035271.
1047. On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
121

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 145 of 173
1048. On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah Mohamed Ghanem submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1049. On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff Salma Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1050. On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff J.M.G.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1051. On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff Z.M.G.A. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1052. Plaintiffs Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam, Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah Mohamed Ghanem, Salma Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah, J.M.G.A. and Z.M.G.A. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1053. To date, Plaintiffs Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam, Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah Mohamed Ghanem, Salma Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah, J.M.G.A. and Z.M.G.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1054. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Nermeen Essam Eldin Ahmed Sallam, Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah Mohamed Ghanem, Salma Mohamed Ghanem Abdallah, J.M.G.A. and Z.M.G.A.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
122

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 146 of 173
Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi 1055. Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi is a native of the Democratic Republic of
Congo and DV-2020 selectee. 1056. On May 7, 2019, Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi was invited to submit a DS-
260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1057. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi visa case number 2020AF28236. 1058. On July 20, 2019, Plaintiff Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi submitted their DS260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1059. Plaintiff Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1060. To date, Plaintiff Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application. 1061. The adjudication of Plaintiff Marie Josée Mulamba Iowa Nsomi immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Francys Tellez Soto 1062. Francys Tellez Soto is a native of the Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.
123

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 147 of 173
1063. Plaintiff V.E.R.T. is a native of Iran and minor child of Francys Tellez Soto. V.E.R.T. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Francys Tellez Soto should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1064. On May 7, 2019, Francys Tellez Soto was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1065. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Francys Tellez Soto visa case number 2020SA00003118.
1066. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff Francys Tellez Soto submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1067. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff V.E.R.T. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1068. Plaintiffs Francys Tellez Soto and V.E.R.T. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1069. To date, Plaintiffs Francys Tellez Soto and V.E.R.T. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their application.
1070. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Francys Tellez Soto and V.E.R.T.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mahdi Moadab 1071. Mahdi Moadab is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.
124

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 148 of 173
1072. Plaintiff Elham Ebrahimi is a native of Iran and spouse of Mahdi Moadab. Elham Ebrahimi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mahdi Moadab should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1073. Plaintiff K.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mahdi Moadab. K.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mahdi Moadab should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1074. Plaintiff K.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mahdi Moadab. K.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mahdi Moadab should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
1075. On May 7, 2019, Mahdi Moadab and their derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV2020 selection.
1076. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mahdi Moadab visa case number 2020AS11830. 1077. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff Mahdi Moadab submitted their DS-260,
Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1078. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff Elham Ebrahimi submitted their DS-260,
Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1079. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff K.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa
Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1080. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff K.M. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa
Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
125

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 149 of 173
1081. Plaintiffs Mahdi Moadab, Elham Ebrahimi, K.M. and K.M. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1082. To date, Plaintiffs Mahdi Moadab, Elham Ebrahimi, K.M. and K.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1083. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mahdi Moadab, Elham Ebrahimi, K.M. and K.M.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Said Huseyn Sultanov 1084. Said Huseyn Sultanov is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee. 1085. On May 7, 2019, Said Huseyn Sultanov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1086. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Said Huseyn Sultanov visa case number
2020EU00025890. 1087. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff Said Huseyn Sultanov submitted their DS-260,
Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 1088. Plaintiff Said Huseyn Sultanov has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1089. To date, Plaintiff Said Huseyn Sultanov has not been scheduled for an interview
at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
126

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 150 of 173
1090. The adjudications of Plaintiff Said Huseyn Sultanov’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
DEFENDANTS 1091. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America. He is sued in his official capacity. 1092. Defendant Michael R. Pompeo is the Secretary of State for the United States of America. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he has the authority to issue regulations to implement the Diversity Visa Lottery Program. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 1154. He also prescribes the Visa Lottery fee, which is $330 per DV winner or derivative. C.F.R. § 42.33(h)(2)(i) He is sued in his official capacity. 1093. Defendant Michael R. Pompeo administers the Diversity Visa Lottery Program through the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Kentucky Consular Center (KCC), located in Williamsburg, Kentucky, which opened in 2000 to administer the program. As of May 2019, KCC had approximately 430 contract staff members working in two shifts and on weekends and 5 Bureau of Consular Affairs direct-hire employees, including a Foreign Service officer Director, all working under the direction of Defendant Michael R. Pompeo. Among those, 21 contract staff members in KCC’s DV unit handle inquiries about the program, process the electronic visa applications from DV selectees, schedule overseas interviews, and work with U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services to process selectees already in the United States.
127

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 151 of 173
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DIVERSITY VISA IMMIGRANT PROGRAM
1094. The Immigration Act of 1990 created a new immigration category, the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, to increase diversity in the U.S. immigrant population by providing 50,000 Diversity visas to nationals of countries that have had low immigration rates to the United States. Public Law 101-649; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)
1095. The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program has led to a broader mix of nationalities represented in the U.S. immigrant population, creating a U.S. better equipped to understand and relate to the diversity of the world abroad.
1096. The Congressionally mandated program issues visas specifically for immigrants who are natives of countries and regions from where fewer than 50,000 immigrants came to the United States over the previous five years.
1097. Each fiscal year, the Department grants approximately 50,000 diversity immigrant visas to individuals from countries underrepresented in the immigration process, which allow recipients who are granted admission to enter the country as lawful permanent residents who may live and work in the United States indefinitely. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(e), 1153(c)(1).
1098. Hopeful immigrants must submit entries during the application period. 1099. From those entries, the Department then chooses eligible selectees to apply for
immigrant visas. 1100. A diversity visa selectee is entitled to apply for an immigrant visa only during the
fiscal year for which the entry was submitted. See INA § 204(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II).
128

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 152 of 173
1101. The diversity visa program is administered at the Department’s KCC. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1)(a).
1102. After their selection, selectee receives a first notifications letter informing the selectee of their selection and visa number. Id.
1103. The visa number, assigned by the KCC, is an administrative device used by the State Department to ensure that it does not grant more than the statutorily allocated 50,000 visas per year.
1104. Selectees must then submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and various supporting documents. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(1)(a),(b).
1105. When a selectee submits the DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and supporting documentation, KCC considers the case documentarily qualified.
1106. Once the case is documentarily qualified, the Department must schedule the selectee for an immigrant visa interview at a United States Embassy or Consulate.
1107. The Foreign Affairs Manual and associated Handbooks (hereafter collectively referred to as the “FAM”) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM conveys codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive, and Department mandates.
129

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 153 of 173 1108. The FAM states that “KCC will schedule an appointment for a ‘documentarily
qualified’ applicant when his or her regional lottery rank number is about to become current.” 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2) (emphasis added). 1109. Each month, the Department publishes a Diversity Visa Bulletin summarizing the availability of immigrant visas for diversity visa selectees. 1110. Selectees with current visas numbers are entitled to an immigrant visa interview to make a formal application for an immigrant visa before a consular officer. 1111. All Plaintiffs have an available immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 program selection. 1112. The Department’s August 2020 Diversity Visa Bulletin demonstrates that all Plaintiffs have an available immigrant visa.
130

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 154 of 173

Visa Bulletin for August, Number 44, Volume X, Department of State, Washington, D.C.

available

at

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-

bulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-for-august-2020.html.

1113. As of August 2020, immigrant visas were available to all Plaintiffs.

1114. Because the Department must schedule immigrant visa interviews for DV-2020

selectees when their application is about to be current, the Department also publishes the

forthcoming months visa bulletin for DV-2020 selectees.

1115. The Department’s Visa Bulletin for August states that on September 1, 2020 all

DV-2020 selections will be current and eligible for immigrant visa interviews.

Id. 1116. The entitlement requires the Department to schedule the selectee for a mandatory
immigrant interview at a US Embassy or Consulate to determine the selectee’s qualifications for the diversity visa and admissibility into the United States pursuant to the laws of the United States of America. 1117. At the time of the interview, the consular officer must issue or refuse the immigrant visa application.
131

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 155 of 173 1118. If the selectee is admissible to the United States, the consular officer “shall” issue
the selectee an immigrant visa and may only refuse a visa “upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations.” See 22 C.F.R. § 40.6. 1119. Because the diversity visa program restarts each fiscal year, diversity visas may not be issued after midnight on September 30 of the fiscal year of the selection. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1)(d); see also 31 U.S.C. § 1102. 1120. If a selectee is not issued a visa prior to midnight on September 30 of the fiscal year of the selection, the selectee cannot be issued a visa based on his or her visa selection for that fiscal year. B. DIVERSITY VISA ANIMUS 1121. At 4:30 AM on November 1, 2017, President Donald J. Trump made clear on twitter his hostility towards the Diversity Visa Program.
132

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 156 of 173 1122. In a cabinet meeting later that day, the President stated that “I am today starting the
process of terminating the diversity lottery program.” Also stating, “Diversery [sic] and diversity lottery. Diversity lottery. Sounds nice. It's not nice. It's not good. It's not good. It hasn't been good. And we've been against it.”
Available at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926155393490878464). 1123. The next day, recognizing the President did not garner the legislative backing
necessary to end the Congressionally mandated program, the President stated “We're being stopped by Democrats because they're obstructionists. And, honestly, they don't want to do
133

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 157 of 173
what's right for our country. We need strength. We need resolve. We have to stop it. So, we're going to get rid of this lottery program as soon as possible.” 1124. On December 15, 2017, while speaking about the Diversity Visa Program the President stated, "They give us their worst people, they put 'em in a bin," Trump continued, making a lifting gesture from an imaginary bin. He went on to say, "But in his hand when he's picking these people, it's really the worst of the worst. 'Congratulations, you're going to the United States.' What a system." 1125. It is unclear if the President was referring to career State Department officials at the KCC or foreign services officers at the United States Embassies and Consulates who place both their and their families lives at risk serving the citizens of the United States and enforcing our immigration laws in his statement on giving the United States the “worst of the worst.” 1126. On December 29, 2017, the President made clear in a tweet that “there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.” 1127. On January 4, 2018, the President tweeted “We must BUILD THE WALL, stop illegal immigration, end chain migration & cancel the visa lottery. The current system is unsafe & unfair to the great people of our country – time for change!” He repeated this sentiment in tweets on January 9, 11, 12, 16, and two more on February 6. 1128. On February 8, 2018, the President tweeted “Time to end the visa lottery. Congress must secure the immigration system and protect Americans.”
134

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 158 of 173
1129. On February 10, 2018, the President again detailed his intention of ending the Diversity Visa Program, stating “My Administration has identified three major priorities for creating a safe, modern and lawful immigration system: fully securing the border, ending chain migration, and canceling the visa lottery.”
Available at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/962469767109009408. 135

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 159 of 173
1130. During the President’s 2018 State of the Union address, he reiterated his intention to gut the Diversity Visa Program as part of his immigration overhaul.
1131. In tweets sent on February 15, May 26, June 15, July 29, and July 30, 2018, the President continued to call for ending the DV Lottery program.
1132. In May of 2019, Trump unveiled an immigration proposal, drafted largely by the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Again, the President proposed to end the Diversity Visa Program.
1133. At a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2019, President Trump painted a wildly inaccurate picture of how the diversity visa program works to a ruckus group of his supporters.
1134. The President stated, “And you pick people out of the lottery,” gesturing as if he were picking names out of a hat. “Well let’s see, this one is a murderer, this one robbed four banks, this one I better not say, this one another murderer, ladies and gentlemen, another murderer.”
1135. The President also stated, “You think [countries] are going to put their great citizens [….] into the lottery? Look at the people they put into these lotteries.”
1136. Despite his tenacious twitter campaign, the President again failed to garner the legislative support for ending the Diversity Visa Program.
1137. The President’s longstanding animus towards the Diversity Visa Program and its immigrant participants, failed efforts to garner the Congressional support to end the Diversity Visa Program, and intent to unlawfully end the Congressional mandated program is the basis for the Defendant’s unlawful policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
136

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 160 of 173
1138. Defendants are now relying, in part, on the PP 10014 and PP 10052 to circumvent the Immigration and Nationality Act, federal regulations , preexisting Department policies, and the text of PP 10014 and PP 10052 to unlawfully suspend the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
1139. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices are a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act, federal regulations, existing Department policies, and the text of PP 10014 and 10052 governing the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for Diversity Visa Program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
C. DEFENDANTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW AND SUSPENDED THE ADJUDICATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR DV-2020 SELECTEES 1140. The Department has implemented policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees through the DV-2020 deadline – effectively ending the program. 1141. The graph below, prepared by Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares, of the Dr. Mohammed v Trump sister case, demonstrates the suspension of immigrant visa adjudication for the DV-2020 through the end of May in comparison to the DV-2019, DV2018, and DV-2017.
137

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 161 of 173
1142. The Department cannot rely upon any statutory authority, regulations, presidential proclamations, executive orders, or preexisting Department policies to support a lawful implementation of policies, procedures, and practices that suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for eligible DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
1143. The Department has suspended adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries at the KCC pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices.
1144. The KCC has suspended assigning visa numbers to DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
1145. The KCC has suspended transferring documentarily complete immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of 138

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 162 of 173
immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1146. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended conducting immigrant visa interviews for immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees pursuant to Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1147. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended accepting evidence in support of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1148. United States Embassies and Consulates have ended conducting security checks for immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1149. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended all adjudications for already interviewed immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1150. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended PP 10014 and PP 10052 exemption determination for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries
139

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 163 of 173
pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1151. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries will not restart adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries before October 1, 2020 effectively ending the DV-2020 program.
D. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY RELY ON PP 10014 AND PP 10052 TO SUSPEND THE ADJUDICATION AND ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS FOR DV-2020 PROGRAM SELECTEES AND THEIR DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES. 1152. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries relies in part on PP 10014 and PP 10052. 1153. The Department has adopted policies, procedures, and practices directing the KCC, United States Embassies and Consulates, and consular officers to suspend immigrant visas adjudications prior to a final decision to issue or refuse those immigrant visa applications pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052. 1154. PP 10014 and PP 10052 mandate that consular officers “shall determine, in his or her discretion, whether an immigrant has established his or her eligibility for an exception” to the proclamation. 1155. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices preclude consular officers from determining whether PP 10014 and PP 10052 is applicable to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
140

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 164 of 173
1156. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries also conflate the PP 10014 and PP 10052’s suspension of entry with a ban on visa issuance.
1157. PP 10014 and PP 10052 do not preclude the issuance of immigrant visas for DV2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
1158. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa adjudications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries violate statutes ,regulations, and preexisting Department policies requiring the issuance of immigrant visas to diversity visa lottery winners who are statutorily eligible.
1159. The Department has failed to adhere to and has implemented policies and procedures contrary to law, regulation, preexisting Department policies, and PP 10014 and PP 10052. CAUSES OF ACTION First Claim for Relief Agency Action That is Arbitrary and Capricious, An Abuse of Discretion, and Otherwise Not in Accordance with Law in Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
1160. Plaintiffs reallege the forgoing allegation as if set forth fully herein. 1161. The Department is an agency subject to the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (hereafter referred to as the “APA”). 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1). 1162. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), courts shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action
that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; or without observance of procedure required by law.
141

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 165 of 173
1163. The implementation of the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitutes a final agency action that is reviewable by this Court.
1164. The policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law because the Defendant lacked the statutory authority to unilaterally suspend the adjudications of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
1165. The policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries strips the Congressionally mandated entitlements of DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries and it does so by rewriting the immigration laws and contradicting the priorities adopted by Congress.
1166. Defendant also disregarded the serious reliance interests engendered by the DV2020 program. Defendants must, in addition to demonstrating that there are good reasons for the new policy, offer “a reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).
1167. Plaintiffs were harmed and continued to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
142

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 166 of 173
Second Claim for Relief Agency Action Without Observance of Procedure Required by Law
In Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)
1168. Plaintiffs reallege the forgoing allegation as if set forth fully herein. 1169. The APA requires administrative agencies to follow notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures to promulgate substantive rules. 5 U.S.C. § 553. 1170. The Administrative Procedures Act defines “rule” broadly to include “the whole or
part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). 1171. The Department promulgated and relied upon the policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries without authority and without notice-andcomment rulemaking. It is therefore unlawful. 1172. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitutes a substantive rule subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. 1173. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitute a substantive rule because it affirmatively circumscribes the Department’s Congressional mandate and nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate and issue decisions for immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees.
143

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 167 of 173
1174. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitute a substantive rule because it is a categorical rule, which applies to all DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
1175. In implementing the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for the DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries, Defendant impermissibly announced a new rule without undertaking noticeand-comment rulemaking.
1176. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
Third Claim Agency Action Not Concluded Within a Reasonable Time 5 U.S.C. § 555(b)
1177. Pursuant to the APA, the Defendant has a nondiscretionary duty “to conclude a matter presented to it” “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b),
1178. The Department has failed to adjudicate immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries within a reasonable time.
1179. The Department has implemented policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries since at least March 2020 – six months before the statutory conclusion of the DV-2020 program.
1180. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries is a final agency action. It is the consummation to the Department’s agency on this matter.
144

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 168 of 173
1181. The Department has nothing further to do to issue directions to its employees at the KCC or its consular officers at US Embassies and Consulates around the world regarding suspending adjudications of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
1182. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudications for and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries will have legal consequences.
1183. The Department will continue to refuse to adjudicate and issue immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries through September 30, 2020, effectively ending the DV-2020 program.
1184. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices directing employees at the KCC and the US Embassies and Consulates around the world to end the DV-2020 program are not authorized by any governing law, and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of law.
1185. Defendant administers the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the DV-2020 program.
1186. Pursuant to the APA, a court may compel agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
1187. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
145

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 169 of 173
Fourth Claim Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 1188. Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing allegation as set forth full herein. 1189. Defendants have a clear non-discretionary duty to adjudicate immigrant visa applications and issue visas to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries who are eligible to receive them and not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), so long as visas are remain available. 1190. PP 10014 and PP 10052 do no prohibit the issuance of diversity visas that must be issued by September 30. It simply issues a temporary bar on entry to the United States. 1191. Defendant have a mandatory duty to adjudicate diversity immigrant visa applications and issue diversity immigrant visas to statutorily eligible individuals, and there is no legal bar to doing so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have a clear and indisputable right to relief, and Defendants have clear, nondiscretionary duty to act. 1192. No alternative remedy exists to compel Defendants’ action.
Fifth Claim Violation of the Take Care Clause, Art. II, § 3, Cl. 5 1193. Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein. 1194. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices violate the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II § 3, cl. 5. 1195. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Take Care Clause is judicially enforceable against presidential invocations of dispensing power. See, e.g., Kendall v.
146

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 170 of 173 United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524m 612-13(1838); Angelus Milling CO. v. Comm’r Of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 293, 296 (1945). 1196. The Take Care Clause limits the President’s power and ensures that he will faithfully execute the Congress’s laws – no rewrite them under the guise of executive “discretion.” 1197. In this case, the President has taken action to end the law and its mandated administration Diversity Visa Program by suspending the Department’s adjudication and issuance of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 1198. The Defendant cannot faithfully execute the law by directly contravening Congress’s objectives. 1199. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
147

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 171 of 173
PRAYER FOR RELIEF “There is no better antidote to the challenges of globalization than to attract self-
selected strivers from every corner of the globe.” – Rep. Bruce A. Morrison, author of the House bill that became the Immigration Act of 1990, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session, June 15,
2005 . Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries;
B. Declare Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries void and without legal force or effect;
C. Declare that the Defendants’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706;
D. Declare the Defendants’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are in violation of the Constitution and contrary to the laws of the United States;
E. Preliminarily enjoin and restrain the Defendants to hold diversity visa numbers to process and issue Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications in the event the Court finds the
148

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 172 of 173
Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to be unlawful; F. Preliminarily enjoin and restrain the Defendants to hold diversity visa numbers beyond September 30, 2020 to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa application in the event the Court finds the Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to be unlawful; G. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants, the Department, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from implementing or enforcing the Departments’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to indefinitely suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees that is not in compliance with applicable law; H. Mandate Defendants fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, schedule Plaintiffs’ for immigrant visa interviews, and issue visas to eligible Plaintiffs; I. Retain jurisdiction over this action to monitor and enforce Defendants’ compliance with all orders of this Court; J. Award Plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other applicable law; and K. Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
149

Case 1:20-cv-02128 Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 173 of 173

Dated: August 4, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Curtis Lee Morrison
Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
* Pro hac vice application forthcoming

150

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 303

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DRS. MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDULBAGI MOHAMMED, ITIDAL MOHAMMEDSALIH TAGELSIR MAHJOUB, R.M.A.A. (A MINOR), A.M.A.A. (A MINOR), J.M.A.A. (A MINOR),
ALNOOR STREER 807 KHARTOUM SUDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
INNA ISHCHENKO, V YURII ISHCHENKO, E. I.,

Case No. 20-cv-1856
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

57 KOROLENKO ST. APT. 25, BROVARY, KIEV REGION, 07400 UKRAINE

PLAINTIFF(S),

PAWEL MIECZKOWSKI,

51 AYR RD., LANARK ML11 0SF UK

PLAINTIFF(S),

FARID KURBANOV,

SDT RAZLIV 18YA DOROZHKA 10A, ST. PETERSBURG, 197701 RUSSIA

PLAINTIFF(S),

GRAEME JOHN WARD,

960 THORN VALLEY ESTATE, 12 ROME AVENUE, GREENSTONE HILL

i

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 2 of 303
JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG, 1609 SOUTH AFRICA
PLAINTIFF(S),
DMITRII PAVLOVICH VELIKII, NINA KONSTANTINOVNA, M.D.V. (A MINOR),
MOLODEZHNAYA 12, APT. 91, DOLGOPRUDNY, 141707 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARCO PALANO,
VIA HONTE GRAPPA, APT. 4, HENAGGIO, COHO, 22017 ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARC CYRUS,
9595 ERICKSON DR, APT 1003, BURNABY BC V3J 7N9 CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RADU SEBE, MIRABELA MARIA SEBE,
STR. CLUJ, NR. 81, SC. 3, ET. 5, AP. 94, 011492, BUCHAREST, ROMANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
NASSIM BOUNOUA, NARIMANE FLICI, N.B. (A MINOR),
136 COP ELOMRANE BEAUSEJOUR, BOUZAREAH, ALGIERS 16340, ALGERIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 3 of 303
RAFIK BABACI, DR. YASMIN SEGHIER, A.M.B. (A MINOR),
46 COOP ERRAHMA DELY IBRAHIM, ALGIERS, 16320 ALGERIA PLAINTIFF(S), ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL RAHEEM M AYASH, ALBAWADI, JEDDAH, MAKKAH, 23531, SAUDI ARABIA PLAINTIFF(S), IGOR SHCHEGLOVITOV ELENA KADUSHKINA LENINGRADSKOE SH. 52, KV 223 MOSCOW 125212, RUSSIAN FEDERATION PLAINTIFF(S), KARINA OLEGOVNA SMITCHENKO, SERGEY VALERIEVICH DUNANOV, 1 RABFAKOVSKIY PER. 3 AP. 244 SAINT-PETERSBURG, 192012 RUSSIA PLAINTIFF(S), MARYAM MALEKZADEH, RASHAD RASHIDIAN, N.R. (A MINOR) UNIT 3, 3TH FLOOR, EAST 13, GOODARZI ST, SARVE AZAD, CHITGAR, TEHRAN, IRAN PLAINTIFF(S),
iii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 4 of 303
IREM GÜZEL, EREN GÜZEL,
EMEK MH. ORDUCD.KENTLIFE ST. H080, B12, NO.17, SANCAKTEPE, ISTANBUL, 34785, TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
ELHAM NIKJOUY TABRIZI, SOHRAB DAVARI CHEKAN,
NEW CITY, BUILDING 1, ENTRANCE 4, 2TH FLOOR, NO.58, DOOR NO.202, TBILISI, VARKETILI, HUALING GEORGIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
FABIEN RENE MICHEL PAROUTAUD SILVINA NANCY ASURMENDI, N.P. (A MINOR)
408285 AV. LAURIER EAST, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, H2T 3E7, CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
DR. TAL DROR,
HAHARUV RD. 11, GINATON, 7311000 ISRAEL
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHRISTELLE VIRGINIE AUDE MEDA
3ÈÙE ÉTAGE GAUCHE 3 RUE DU 4 SEPTEMBRE 93200 SAINT DENIS FRANCE
PLAINTIFF(S),
iv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 5 of 303
AKERKE URANGALIYEVA, HOANG ANH NGUYEN, R.N. (A MINOR),
10B, SAURAN STREET, APT 108, NUR-SULTAN, Z05T3G1 KAZAKHSTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
YUEN TING XENIA WONG, LAHIRU THILNA SAMARAKOON,
FLAT 4, 31/F, BLOCK C, NEW KWAI FONG GARDENS, 16 KWAI YI ROAD, KWAI CHUNG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
AINSLEA ANNE MADDISON CRAIN,
44 NELLINGS PLACE BRISBANE, QLD., 4034 AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
DAVID NATHAN TODMAN, CHLOE LEE TODMAN,
163 CHARLES ST SEDDON VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3011
PLAINTIFF(S),
DOBRIN GANCHEV GANEV, INEZ RADULOV, I.G. (A MINOR), O.G. (A MINOR)
90 SHERWOOD RD., CALGARY, AB, ALBERTA, T3RON8 CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
v

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 6 of 303
FRANCESCA SCORTI, SEBASTIANO MIDULLA, F.M (A MINOR),
VIA DEI GIGLI 35, OLGIATE OLONA, VARESE 21057 PLAINTIFF(S), MARIIA PISHKOVA, VADIM PISHKOV, 28-A LYZHNAYA STREET, TOKSOVO, LENINGRAD OBLAST RUSSIA, 188664 PLAINTIFF(S), SANTOSH KUMAR SAH, #15, KALPAVRUKSHA, SARJAPUR ROAD, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA INDIA-560103 PLAINTIFF(S), KRISTINA HOXHA, BESAR HOXHA, RR. 5 MAJ, ND 44, H 34 AP 7, 1012, TIRANA, ALBANIA, PLAINTIFF(S), AMIN BANIASADI ZAREE, SADAF ZAHEDI, A.B.Z. 1 (A MINOR), A.B.Z. 2 (A MINOR) NO 29 ABOTHAR 27 ALLEY, RAFSANJAN, KERMAN 35661, IRAN PLAINTIFF(S), WEN CHI HUANG, YUNG CHOU CHANG, P.Y.C. (A MINOR), J.Y.C. (A MINOR), 17F-1, NO.849, NANPING ROAD, GUSHAN DIST. KAOHSIUNG,
vi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 7 of 303
TAIWAN 80453 PLAINTIFF(S), SHIRLEY JOY LINDA
JOURI ANAS BUILDING NO. 23, STREET NO 920, ZIP 00000 DOHA, QATAR PLAINTIFF(S), IBRAHIM GOKHAN DOGAR, POLEN HAZEL DOGAR, A.D. (A MINOR) INCEK MAH 1061 KUME EVLERI T3-4 NO 25/29 KAT 5 ANKARA, GOLBASI 06830 TURKEY PLAINTIFF(S), VITALI KOROLEV 8 MIRA STREET, APT 71, NOVOKUZNETSK CITY, KEMEROVSKAYA OBLAST, RUSSIA 654054 PLAINTIFF(S), MICHAL SZYMCZAK, MONIKA PUL, 11 THE WILLOWS, 1025 HIGH ROAD, N20 0QE LONDON, ENGLAND PLAINTIFF(S), DIEGO BARCO CUERPO, 249 E 48TH ST 2F NEW YORK, NY 10017 PLAINTIFF(S), VALERIO PAGLIAROLI, ANNA CALICCHIA, VIA AONIO PALEARIO, 87,
vii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 8 of 303
VEROLI, FR, ITALY, 03029
PLAINTIFF(S),
NATALIA PAKULSKAIA, PETR PAKULSKII,
ULITSA ZATSEPSKIY VAL 4 KV 59, 115 054 RUSSIAN FEDERATION MOSCOW
PLAINTIFF(S),
TIAGO VAZ DUARTE SOARES,
ALAMEDA ANTÓNIO SÉRGIO 80 2, LINDA A VELHA LISBON, PORTUGAL, 2795-022,
PLAINTIFF(S),
TATIANA PETROSYAN-MKERVALI DAVID PETROSYAN-MKERVALI, I.P.M (A MINOR),
VIA ORELLI 8, BERGAMO BG 24128, ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
PERE CERVERO GREGORI,
CALLE BENICANENA 50, 1-1. GANDÍA (VALENCIA), 46702 ESPAÑA
PLAINTIFF(S),
HICHEM KRIAA, RADHIA BARHOUMI EP KRIAA,
ROAD KHELIFA KAROUI_RESIDENCE ANISSA_BLOC A_ FLOOR 3_APPARTMENT A3-1, SOUSSE, SAHLOUL 3, 4054 TUNISIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHANAD NADER FUAD BATARSEH,
viii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 9 of 303
AL YADOUDEH- PHARMACISTS HOUSING, NEAR ALI MANGO STREET- BLDG 11, AMMAN, JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MICHAEL MATTHEW CAMILLERI,
8 MARY, MILNER STREET, SLIEMA, MALTA, EUROPE, SLM 1727
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHEREEN ELSAID REZK ABDELAZIZ NAWARA, AHMED SOROUR AHMED AHMED, N.A.S.A.A. (A MINOR), A.A.S.A.A. (A MINOR),
AL SENIYAH ST., HOUSE 4 B, UMM AL QUWAIN, UMM AL QUWAIN U.A.E.
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHIARA ALUNNI RICCI, MARCO PENCHINI,
VIALE PERUGIA 18 MAGIONE (PG), 06063 ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHAHPOUR SAFAEI SEMNANI, HOMA SAFFARAN,
NO 3 EBNE SINA BLVD, ERAM BLVD, MEHRSHAHR, ALBORZ, IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
HABTAMU SISAY EYASU, BETELHAM CHALA, A.H.S. (A MINOR), M.H.S. (A MINOR),
ADDIS KETEMA SUB CITY, WEREDA 8,H.N 717
ix

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 10 of 303
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARINA UTKINA, ANDREI UTKIN,
LAZO STREET 15/1-49, PRYMORSKYI KRAI ARTEM-CITY RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
SEMA AYDIN, TANER AYDIN,
TAHTAKALE MAHALLESI AVRUPA KONUTLARI 3, NO 4 8 4B BLOK DAIRE 55 ISPARTAKULE, AVCILAR, ISTANBUL TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARIIA RELITSKA, VIKTOR RELITSKYI, N.R. (A MINOR),
LAZO STREET 15/1-49, PRYMORSKYI KRAI ARTEM-CITY, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ILONA SUSSNER, ALAURENZ LOYSIUS TENHUMBERG , J.S. (A MINOR),
BAHNPOSTEN 5, 52388 NOERVENICH GERMANY
PLAINTIFF(S),
INA BITRI, PERSID QALLIU, K.Q. (A MINOR)
RRUGA RIZA KAPOSHI, LAGJJA KADRI QYSTRI LUSHNJE, ALBANIA
x

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 11 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOZHGAN KARIMIAN KHORRAM, AMIR ELAYSI, B.E. (A MINOR),
UNIT 1422 ,14TH FLOOR , ARMAN TOWER 22 BAHMAN ST, ASHRAFI ESFAHANI BLVD TEHRAN , TEHRAN 1467864581 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
DR. MOHAMMED AWAD MOHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDEEN, HAGAR YOUSSEF AHMED SAKR, K.M.A.M.A. (A MINOR), A.M.A.M.A. (A MINOR), A.M.A.A. (A MINOR), H.M.A.M.I.A. (A MINOR),
3 DE HAVILLAND WALK, CHATHAM, KENT UK. ME46H
PLAINTIFF(S),
LIUDMILA KAIUMOVA, L.K. (A MINOR),
ULITSA MIRA, 140-46 TOLYATTI, SAMARSKAYA 445035 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
VELI BOZAN, FATMA BOZAN, Z.N.B. (A MINOR), I.A.B. (A MINOR)
SAHIN CD YUNUSEMRE SK NO 20 D 9 34315 AVCILAR-ISTANBUL TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
DR. SHOROQ QASEM SHATNAWI, ODAY ALI HUSSEN BANI AHMAD, A.O.A.B.A. (A MINOR)
VILLA 6, ALMAHABBAH ST., ALKHALIDIYAH, ABU DHABI
xi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 12 of 303
UAE
PLAINTIFF(S),
KONSTANTIN SHABALIN, ANASTASIA MALTSEVA,
PERERVA 52, APT 87, POSTAL CODE 109341, MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALAA R D HABEEB , HEBAH H. H. HABEEB, R.A.R.H. (A MINOR), M.A.R.H. (A MINOR), J.A.R.H. (A MINOR), A.A.R.H (A MINOR), Q.A.R.H. (A MINOR),
AL-SAMER 21452 JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AYMEN BEN YOUSSEF, MIRIAM OUERGHI, Y.B.Y. (A MINOR), M.B.Y. (A MINOR),
ZONE 61 STREET 875 BUILDING 20, 4TH FLOOR AL FAISAL TOWER WESTBAY, 22188 DOHA, QATAR
PLAINTIFF(S),
GIORGI TSIKARISHVILI
GLDANI/3DISTRICT/FLAT.14, BUILDING.88 TBILISI, GE 0167 GEORGIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RIZIKI BLANDINE BIKALI, ROBERT BYAMUNGU BURAGA, N.A.B. (A MINOR), D.N.B. (A MINOR), J.I.B. (A MINOR),
177, AVENUE MAKANZA QUARTIER 24 NOVEMBRE, COMMUNNE NGIRINGIRI VILLE/PROVINCE DE KINSHASA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
xii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 13 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
ZELJONA SHAHINAS,
VIA XX SEPTEMBRE 73 VERONA, 37123 VERONA, ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAL KUMAR ADHIKARI,
WARD 4, PRAGATI TOLE DHUMBARAHI, KATHMANDU NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
OSAMA SAID AHMED AL-NAJJAR, MAIS NAWAF ALI S AL MOMANI, SO.S.J. (A MINOR), N.O.S.J. (A MINOR), A.O.S.N. (A MINOR),
5 ABU AL-ATAHEYA ST. AMMAN, JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHI WAI CHEUNG, SUK KEI KU, O.Y.C. (A MINOR), Y.M.C. (A MINOR),
ROOM26, 4/F, MAN KING BUILDING 26 MAN WUI STREET, FERRY POINT, JORDAN HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
NICOLE MELINDA STEPAN,
12/22-28 WELLINGTON STREET BONDI NSW 2026, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
IAROSLAV KULAGIN,
xiii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 14 of 303
4 ILINSKOE SHOSSE APP 22 KRASNOGORSK MOSCOW REGION RUSSIA 143405 PLAINTIFF(S), MINA MAGDY MICHEL MORCOS, IRENY MOUNIR SAAD YOUSSEF, 7 HAMID BASHA FAHMY ST, HELIOPOLIS, CAIRO EGYPT PLAINTIFF(S), TIZIANO MAMMANA, ANGELA DE CRISTOFARO, 1005 - 1960 ALBERNI ST VANCOUVER, BC V6G 1B4 PLAINTIFF(S), ORNELA FEZA, RR. VENECIANE 50, KENETE, 2007 DURRES, ALBANIA PLAINTIFF(S), MIKITA VARONIN, TOMSKIY LANE 35, APT. 65 MINSK, 220137 BELARUS PLAINTIFF(S), MONIKA OZLEVI, EROL OZLEVI D.O. (A MINOR), S.K.O. (A MINOR), MUSTAFA IZZET EFENDI SOK. MEDIKO 1 SITE A14 D8, BALMUMCU BESIKTAS ISTANBUL, TURKEY
xiv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 15 of 303
DR. ASHRAF AHMED FATHI FAHMI MOHAMED, AMANY MOHAMED MOUSSA ABDELLATIF TAHON, F.F.A.F.F.M. (A MINOR)
7083 MAHMUD AL HALI, AL MALAZ DISTRICT RIYADH, AR RIYADH 12629 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
YASSER AHMED ELNOUR MOHAMED ZAID, DOAA HOHAMED ALI MOHAMED ALI, R.Y.A.E.M.Z. (A MINOR), M.Y.A.E.M.Z. (A MINOR),
IMAM FAISAL BIN TURKEY STREET, OM SELIM DISTRICT, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
GERGANA KOSTOVA IVANOVA, GEORGI NIKOLOV IVANOV, G.A.I. (A MINOR), B.G.I. (A MINOR),
37 MORDEN ROAD, MITCHAM, SURREY, CR4 4DE UK
PLAINTIFF(S),
SERGEY BELOUSOV,
LADOZHSKAYA STR. 8-52 POST CODE- 105005 MOSCOW, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
YAT LUNG CHU, NGAN CHING YU, C.H.C. (A MINOR),
FLAT C, 8/F, BLOCK 1, KENSWOOD COURT, KINGSWOOD VILLAS, TIN SHUI WAI, HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
xv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 16 of 303
IVI HAXHAJ, ANISA LILA,
HENRIK LACAJ, BLDG 2 FLR 3 APT 4 , CITY TIRANE, ALBANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
BEHRANG GHABCHI,
KAZIMDIREK MAH. SANAYI CAD. NO.31 B. BLOK NO.622 MYVIA 414 BORNOVA IZMIR TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
VISAR MUSLIU, ARTA SEJDIU MUSLIU,M.M. (A MINOR), E.M. (A MINOR),
STR.NAK BERISHA NR.9, PRISTINA, 10000 KOSOVO
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARYAM HASSAN ALI SULIMAN, MOHAMED ALI MOHAMED FARAH, M.M.A.M. (A MINOR),
PO BOX 1093, POST CODE 211, AL-WADI, AL-MARHOON VILLA COMPLEX, VILLA NO. EAST 3, SALALAH, SULTANATE OF OMAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMED ALLY MSABAHA, A.M.M. (A MINOR),
MUHEZA STREET 14, KARIAKOO, DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
xvi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 17 of 303
ARI ADIL KADIR
BADINAN 58, 16, SULAYMANEYAH, AL SULAYMANEYAH, IRAQ 46001
PLAINTIFF(S),
UMMAN ORUJOVA (HUSEYNLI), ZAUR ORUJOV K.O. (A MINOR)
KHATAI DISTRICT, S..A.SHIRVANI STR. 23/19 , AP.81 BAKU CITY, AZERBAIJAN AZ1142
PLAINTIFF(S),
ISABELLA RACHEL JUDITH KEARNEY-NURSE
125 BRIDGE ROAD, GLEBE, 2037 SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ENAS FATHY AHMED EISSA, KHALED ELGHANDOUR, S.E., M.E.
UNIT 127, BUILDING 19, STREET 755, ZONE 51 DOHA, QATAR
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLEG SOROKIN, SVETLANA SOROKINA, V.S. (A MINOR), D.S. (A MINOR), I.S. (A MINOR),
25 OREKHOVAYA STREET, TYUMEN, TYUMENSKAYA OBL, 625043 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AHMET ER,
7 OCEANVIEW ROAD MOUNT MAUNGANUI, TAURANGA 3116
xvii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 18 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
ZAHEERUDDIN NAEABKHAIL TAMANNA NAEBKHAIL, B.N. (A MINOR), S.N. (A MINOR)
APARTMENT 16, BLOCK C-49, SHAHRAK ARIA, DISTRICT 10, KABUL AFGHANISTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMAD MUJALLI MOHAMMAD ABUJABER NOOR NIMER MOHAMMAD, Z.M.M.A. (A MINOR)
FLAT 03, BUILDING 785 MOHAMMAD SHATTA STREET AL NAEEM DISTRICT, JEDDAH SAUDI ARABIA 21435
PLAINTIFF(S),
KHALIL YEHYA AL HARIRI, REINE OUDAY ASSAAD, Y.K.A. (A MINOR), R.J.A.H. (A MINOR)
SARI STREET, SARI PALMS VILLA 26, JEDDAH 21248 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANASTASIA VICTOROVNA VEDENINA, ALEXANDER YEVGENYEVICH KORNEEV, P.A.K. (A MINOR),
POTAPOVSKY LANE, 9/11, APT.6 MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION 101000
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLEG POTANIN, OXANA POTANINA,
344112, APT.14, 6/3 NOVOLESNAIA STR. ROSTOV-NA-DONU, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
xviii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 19 of 303
MOHAMMAD HAMMAD ABED ABUZNEIMAH,
RAS ALKHAIMAH ALMUNTASIR ST FAB BUILDING
PLAINTIFF(S),
FATHI MUFTAH M EJGANDI, ALAA SALEH ALI AJAJ, M.F.E. (A MINOR)
SALAH EDDIN TRIPOLI, LIBYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RAZMIK MKRTCHYAN, ANAHIT TOROSYAN, D.M. (A MINOR),
TUMANYAN 5/3, APT 11 NOR HACHN, KOTAYK ARMENIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
SIN YI VENUS LO, S.W.S.T. (A MINOR),
FLAT 702, BLOCK B, THE DAHFULDY 21 HO MAN TIN HILL ROAD, HO MAN TIN HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
MAHSA TAGHI ZADEH
52 ALF NEELY WAY, NEWMARKET, L3Y 0C6 ONTARIO, CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAWRENCE SAMUEL SIVA, YUEHUA PAN,
1D GREEN LANE SINGAPORE 438890 SINGAPORE
xix

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 20 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S), NASSIM BOUKRAA,
21 STREET PIERRE JOSEPH PROUDHON 69100 VILLEURBANNE, FRANCE PLAINTIFF(S), JANAYA LEE NELSON, PO BOX 62, WINDANG, NEW SOUTH WALES, 2528 AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF(S), FARSHAD HESAMI, FATEMEH AHMADZADEHLAYEGHLASHEH 6TH FLOOR,ELYSIUM TOWER, KUHSAR ST, TEHRAN, SHAHRAN SQ, TEHRAN, 148883619 IRAN PLAINTIFF(S), NIKOLETTA LATOS SZEDRESKERTI LAKÓNEGYED 18. 3/1. 8000 SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR HUNGARY PLAINTIFF(S), SANDOR MAJOR, AGNES IDA HUSZTI, HUNGARY, 1101 BUDAPEST, SALGOTARJANI UTCA 16/C PLAINTIFF(S), PETER MATTHIAS SCHULZ, WIESENDAMM 55 A 22305 HAMBURG
xx

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 21 of 303
GERMANY
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALEKSANDAR DORDEVIC, MARIJA DORDEVIC,
BOLNICKA 44, 23000 ZRENJANIN SERBIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ESRAA NABIL ALI MOHAMED, AHMED HATEM AHMED MOHAMED, O.A.H.M.,
SHIHAB IBN MALIK STREET JAREER DISTRICT-RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA 12836
PLAINTIFF(S),
EDOUARD DOUGLAS CHARLES DE RIEDMATTEN VALENTINE LOUISE MARIE HERMANCE BERREUR
34 RUE PERRONET NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE 92200 FRANCE
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHIRIN HASHEMIAN,
JAFARI STREET DAREHSHAHR, ILAM, 6961714554 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MANAL SALAH GHARZEDDINE, FADEL WAHAB ZAHREDDINE, A.F.Z. (A MINOR), A.F.Z. (A MINOR), T.F.Z. (A MINOR),
MAIN STREET KFARFAKOUDEL SHOUF LEBANON
xxi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 22 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHANIN SALIMBAYOV,
AZERBAIJAN, BAKU, SABUNCHI REGION, ZABRAT 2 DISTRICT, TRAMVAY STREET #7A
PLAINTIFF(S),
ASKAR ALIYEV, A.J., (A MINOR), A.A. (A MINOR) , A.A. (A MINOR),
24A SULEYMENOVA STR. APT.56
PLAINTIFF(S),
NOURREDINE NASRI,
CALLE POETA CARMELO CALVO 14, 4 ALICANTE 03004 SPAIN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABBAS VAHDATI PANAH,
NO35 BAHARESTAL 1ST STREET, KHORASAN RAZAVI MASHHAD, IRAN, 91877444
PLAINTIFF(S),
NADEEKA CHANDANI EKANAYAKE EKANAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE, MAHESH INDRAJITH VITHARANA PATHIRANA, V.M.V.P (A MINOR) ,
184/C/4/01 WEBODA SOUTH WEBODA, WESTERN PROVINCE, 11858 SRI LANKA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AGUSTIN SASTRE PEREZ MIREN ELIXABETE UGALDE IBERO
xxii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 23 of 303
C/ ARETXAGA 8, 5 IZQ BILBAO, 48003, BIZKAIA, SPAIN
PLAINTIFF(S),
AHMED SOBHY ELSEBAIE MOHAMED SOLIMAN,
16 EL QUDS ST, HADAYEK EL KOBBA, 11331 CAIRO, EGYPT.
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANU REGMI,
4-AFALDOLE, DHOBIGHAT PATAN, LALITPUR NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
VAIDAS BUDRYS, KAROLINA BUDRE,
SAULETEKIO ST 49 VILNIUS, LITHUANIA, 10228
PLAINTIFF(S),
VITALII SAMSONENKO, ZHANNA SYRAEVA, V.S. (A MINOR),
65 WILGENSTRAAT HAARLEM, NORTH HOLLAND, 2023 NN NETHERLANDS
PLAINTIFF(S),
RUBEN SANCHEZ APARICIO,
PASEO DE LA CHOPERA 329, 3A, ALCOBENDAS, MADRID SPAIN
PLAINTIFF(S),
REENU MAHAT,
xxiii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 24 of 303
KATHMANDU, NAGARJUN, SYUCHATAR NEPAL PLAINTIFF(S), DR. MINA REMON EL SHAHAT TAWFEK, 23 ST MOKWKS MIT GHAMR, ELDAKAHLIA EGYPT PLAINTIFF(S), DAVID PRAKASH MUKHIYA, NAYA NAIKAP, KATHMANDU, BAGMATI, ,44600 NEPAL PLAINTIFF(S), DHIAEDDINE KARA, CITY 338 N APT 76 BOUIRA, BOUIRA, ALGERIA, 10 000 PLAINTIFF(S), JEEVAN POUDEL, SUJYANA KARKI, DUWAKDT-1, BHAKTAPUR, 44800 PROVINCE-3 NEPAL PLAINTIFF(S), RAEFA SUFIAN IBRAHIM GHANAYEM, AHMAD S D SALAMA, 10828 GREEN MOUNTAIN CIRCLE COLUMBIA, MD 21044 PLAINTIFF(S),
xxiv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 25 of 303
MALINDA PRASAD RATHNAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE,
GEMUNU PLACE, ALUTH MALKADUWAWA, APT. 162, KURUNEGALA, 60000, NORTHWESTERN, SRI LANKA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANONG SAENGRIT, JARUS SOONTORNSING, T.S. (A MINOR),
14 SOI SAI NAM PHUENG, SIRI MANGKALAJARN RD., TAMBON SU THEP, MUEANG CHIANG MAI, CHIANG MAI, 50200 THAILAND
PLAINTIFF(S),
AMMAR S ASHRAF HASHEMI,
UTHMAN AL AKBARI ST RIYADH, RIYADH 12832 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ELITSA STOYANOVA YORDANOVA SPASOVA, VALENTIN BOGDANOV SPASOV,
BULGARIA, TOWN OF PERNIK, P.C.2304, 5, LENINSKI PROSPEKT STR., ENTR. A, APP. 9
PLAINTIFF(S),
BIJOUX YVETTE NSANG TITABONG, KOME IVO EJELLE, M.P.D.K. (A MINOR), B.L.F.K. (A MINOR), E.P.C.K. (A MINOR),
CARREFOUR TASI, BEPELLE BLOCK 5 NDOBO - BONABERI, DOUALA CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
xxv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 26 of 303
ISSA BOUBACAR HASSANE, RUTH IBRAHIM YAHAYA, L.N.B.H. (A MINOR CHILD),
BOULEVARD DE LA LIBERTÉ, PO BOX 13804 NIAMEY, NIGER
PLAINTIFF(S),
JEN-CHIEH CHANG, YIJUE ZHANG,
46 WALKER ST., UNIT 1101, RHODES, NSW, 2138 AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
HLEB LITVINOV,
YUBILEYNIY 42, APT. 125 KHARKIV, UKRAINE
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARINA OPOLSKAIA, ANATOLII OPOLSKII,
16/10 PROFSOUZNAIA STREET, APT 55 MOSCOW, RUSSIA 117292
PLAINTIFF(S),
TSZ HIM FONG,
ROOM 1918, WAH PING HOUSE LONG PING ESTATE, YUEN LONG, N.T. HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
IRYNA MOLOKOPOI, SERHII RYZHOV, M.R. (A MINOR),
APP.189 STR. 30-13 RAKHMANINOVA, KYIV 03164 UKRAINE
PLAINTIFF(S),
xxvi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 27 of 303
BIJAYANDRA BASTOLA,
DO CHA MARG, MAHARAJGUNJ, KATHMANDU, NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHUNG TING AMY LEUNG, HON CHOR LEE, W.Y.L. (A MINOR), C.H.L. (A MINOR),
FLAT G, 15/F, BLOCK 2, SITE 9, WHAMPOA GARDEN, HUNG HOM HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
VADIM GONTARI, D.G. (A MINOR CHILD),
62 PANDURILOR STREET APARTMENT 40, CHISINAU, MD-2015, MOLDOVA REPUBLIC
PLAINTIFF(S),
DUAA ABDULRAHMAN H ALGHAMDI,
8113 AQBAH IBN KUDAYIM ST., APT. 3 AZ ZAHRA DISTRICT, JEDDAH 23522 MAKKAH PROVINCE SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHSEN SALEHKERMANI,
UNIT 3, NO. 3, KHORDAD ALLEY MIRESMAEILI AV, DARAKEH ST. TEHRAN 1984155361 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ MENDOZA, ZURAYMIS PEREZ VILCHES,
xxvii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 28 of 303
CATANZARO Y BOLONIA, LA MILAGROSA BARRIO SAN FRANCISCO, MALDONADO URUGUAY
PLAINTIFF(S),
TEMESGEN HUNIE GELAW, YIDENEKU ABINEH YITAYEW,
BICHENA TOWN EAST GOJJAM, ETHIOPIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
EDVARD MATTIAS STEFAN GEZIN, JULIENE MIDORI FUJIMOTO,
ÄRTHOLMSVÄGEN 206 21620 MALMÖ, SKÅNE, SWEDEN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANDREI SAVENKOV,
117525, 23 CHERTANOVSKAYA, BLD. 2, APT. 41 MOSCOW, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AHMAD FAHIM NOUMAN, ELAHA NOUMAN, A.R.N (A MINOR),
SHAHRE NEW, KABUL DISTRICT 10 KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMADREZA GHAFFAR, LEILA TALEI, A.G. (A MINOR),
NO.1, SABA BUILDING, DOWN THE BAHARSHIRAZ STREET, SHARIATI AVE., TEHRAN, IRAN 1564916639
PLAINTIFF(S),
xxviii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 29 of 303
MOHAMMED ANSARI, NABILA IMTIYAZ AHMED QURESHI,
5, 3566 IBN AL UQAYL ST., AR RAWDAH DIST., JEDDAH, 23435-8338 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
PEDRO KIALA NANJUNJO GONCALVES, CELMIRA DE FATIMA DOMINGOS MANUEL GONCALVES, Y.G.M.G (A MINOR), D.R.M.G. (A MINOR),
RUA 165, PRD E204, 3 APT NOVA VIDA, LUANDA ANGOLA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MUHAMMAD ADIL TANVEER,
SAJIR STREET, RAWDAH RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
WILLEM JACOB VERHEUL,
DRAAISTOK 46, BOSKOOP, 2771MW ZUID-HOLLAND THE NETHERLANDS
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAL BAHADUR MAGAR, SANJU THAPA MAGAR,
JIWANPUR, 04, DHUNBESHI, DHADING, PROVINCE THREE NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLIMZHON KURBANOV, MUNISA KURBANOVA, A.K. (A MINOR), F.K. (A MINOR),
xxix

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 30 of 303
TAJIKISTAN, KHATLON REGION SHAHRITUZ DISTRICT SANOEV ST
PLAINTIFF(S),
NATALIA MUKHAMETDINOVA,
15/8 BAZOVSKAYA STREET, APT. 190, MOSCOW, 125635 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AYAAD ALKURDI, DUAA IBRAHIM YOUSEF ABU ALWAFA, A.R.M.I.A. (A MINOR CHILD), S.M.I.A. (A MINOR CHILD), M.M.I.A. (A MINOR CHILD),
ALBNYAT ALJANOBI ST., AMMAN, 11623 JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
HAWRE MOHAMMED HASSAN, ZHILAN MUSTAFA RASUL,
RAPARIN QUARTE-RANYA SULAYMANIYAH IRAQ
PLAINTIFF(S),
BARISCAN DEMIRCI,
SUSAM SK. IZZETPASA MAH APT. 10/14, SISLI, 34381, ISTANBUL, TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
OXANA CONDUR, EUGEN BRAILA,
3 1 LIVIU DELEANU STR APT 21 CHISINAU 2071, MOLDOVA
xxx

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 31 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S), NAIRA SAMVELOVNA OGANISYAN, SERGEI VLADIMIROVICH RUDENKO, M.S.R. (A MINOR),
CALLE FELIP II, 50, AT 2, BADALONA, BARCELONA, SPAIN 08917 PLAINTIFF(S), NDE KILEAN FRU, AYABA STREET BIG MANKON CATHEDRAL BAMENDA PLAINTIFF(S), ANA GRAMA, VASILE TATARU, 142 SOS HINCESTI APT 56 CHISINAU 2070 MOLDOVA PLAINTIFF(S), INA CUCEREANU, ANDREI BADURA, 40 MIHAIL SADOVEANU STR APT 16 CHISINAU 2044 MOLDOVA PLAINTIFF(S), DIANA GRABCIUC, EUGENIU MOGIDEA, 12 2 GINTA LATINA STR APR 87 MOLDOVA PLAINTIFF(S), STANISLAV LIAPTCEV, MARIIA LIAPTCEVA, 111033, RUSSIA, MOSCOW, 8 ZOLOTOROZHSKIY VAL, APT 40 PLAINTIFF(S),
xxxi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 32 of 303
ANITA NISTREAN, ARTIOM GOLOGAN, 3 STEFAN CEL MARE STR, VADUL LUI VODA 2046 MOLDOVA
PLAINTIFF(S), KENICHI MIYAGI,
1143 YANOMACHI HACHIOJI-SHI TOKYO JAPAN 192-0016 PLAINTIFF(S), ALISSA AFIZA DEAN, 27 RATU SUKUNA ROAD SUVA FIJI PLAINTIFF(S), MEI-EN HUANG, CHINGYEN LIN, X.L. (A MINOR), 4F, NO. 6, ALLEY 31, LANE 265, SEC. 4, XINYI RD., DA-AN DISTRICT, TAIPEI CITY TAIWAN 106 PLAINTIFF(S), IBRAHIM MASOUD DOWAH, 445 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TAJURA, TRIPOLI, LIBYA PLAINTIFF(S), ASKADIROU GBETNKOM YOUMAPOURE, DEIDO RUEDE PAVEE, DOULA, LITTORAL CAMEROON PLAINTIFF(S),
xxxii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 33 of 303
HONEY MARJAN KHAN, RAUF AHMAD RAJPUT, GUSTAF DALENSGATAN 3C, 417 22 GOTHENBURG, SWEDEN
PLAINTIFF(S), HAMISH CHARLES EGAN,
881 NORTH BRIDGE ROAD 17-06 SINGAPORE 198784 PLAINTIFF(S), AILYN CABALLERO ACEVEDO, CALLE 2DA #20 ENTRE CENTRAL Y MORFFI REPARTO OSVALDO HERRERA SANTA CLARA VILLA CLARACUBA PLAINTIFF(S), MAHTA GOUDARZI, MOHSEN VOSUGHIFAR, UNIT 13- NO.1, ROHANI AL- MEHRMOHAMMADI AL.-ANDARZGOO BLV. QEYTARIEH, TEHRAN IRAN PLAINTIFF(S), ALICE KANNEH BILITY, SEDEKIE S. BILITY, NEW VOINJAMA COMMUNITY, VOINJAMA CITY, LOFA COUNTY LIBERIA PLAINTIFF(S), DIANA NERY BRANA DIAZ, ABEL LORENZO MORERA, D.L.B. (A MINOR CHILD),
xxxiii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 34 of 303
CALLE LAWTON NO. 1114 ALTOS APTO 2 ENTRE POCITO Y BELLAVISTA, REPARTO LAWTON, DIEZ DE OCTUBRE LA HABANA CUBA 10700
PLAINTIFF(S),
FRANK AKOMEAH ADDAE,
P.O. BOX KIA 9737 AIRPORT ACCRA GHANA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMAD NAVIDI, AZAM EMAMI GHALEGHASEMI, S.N. (A MINOR) , Y.N. (A MINOR),
NO. 23, ESTEGHAMAT ALLEY, EMAM STREET GHODS CROSS RASHT CITY, GUILAN PROVINCE IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMED MUHUMED HASSAN,
BOLE MICHAEL ADDIS ABUBA ETHIOPIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RAMIN YOUSOFI, SADAF YOUSOFI, M.Y.Y (A MINOR), Y.Y. (A MINOR),
THIRD MICRORAYON BLOCK #21, APT. 12 KABUL, 21000 AFGHANISTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALLAN GEORGE STEVE, EUNICE AWINO OGUTU, A.C.S. (A MINOR),
xxxiv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 35 of 303
P.O BOX 19478- 00100 GPO NAIROBI KENYA STREET: SAVANNAH ROAD, DONHOLM PHASE 8, OPPOSITE GREENSPAN MALL RACOTTO PROPERTIES
PLAINTIFF(S),
ROSE ATIENO OWITI, RAYMOND OMONDI OSANYA, S.A.O. (A MINOR CHILD), G.V.O. (A MINOR CHILD), M.T.A.O (A MINOR CHILD),
FAHARI ESTATE-BAMBURI HOUSE NO.43 MOMBASA KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
BAHAREH HEMMASSIAN ETEFAGH, SAMAN SINAYIFARD,
NO 64,POOYAN BLIND ALLEY HEZAR JERIB ST, DARVAZE SHIRAZ ISFAHAN, ISFAHAN 8168643331 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MEHDI EMAMIFAR, MARYAM KHORSAND, R.Y. (A MINOR), R.Y. (A MINOR),
3RD PARSA ST., BAHARESTAN ST, NASR BLVD, KERMAN, IRAN, POSTAL CODE: 7618693199
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHAHRAM DAVOUDI, NEGAR ZARRINFAM,
NO. 63, FLOOR 15, APARTMENT 13, 60M STREET ERBIL IRAQ
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOUAD ZITOUNI,
xxxv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 36 of 303
HAY ERRAHMA 04, AV ADARISSA N° 27 DAKHLA 73000 MOROCCO
PLAINTIFF(S),
NASRIN RAEISIDEHKORDI,
MOALLEM AVE, ALLEY 16, HOUSE NR 78, APT 6 SHAHREKORD IRAN 88148-54573
PLAINTIFF(S),
AMAL ABDELMESSIH FAWZY ATALLAH.
HAWALLY , BLOCK 11 , 49 BUILDING , 176 STREET 3 FLOOR , APARTMENT 11 , KUWAIT
PLAINTIFF(S),
EMADRASMY IBRAHIM ATIA, FADY EMAD RASMY IBRAHIM ATIA, P.E.R.I.A. (A MINOR), O.E.R.I.A. (A MINOR),
P.O. BOX 08 NAIROBI, GARISSA 701 KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDIKADIR JELE IDRIS,
LENIN STR 179, 11 KHUJAND, TAJIKISTAN 735700
PLAINTIFF(S),
FARANGIS KURBONOVA, SOBIRJON KURBONOV, S.K. (A MINOR), M.K. (A MINOR), A.K. (A MINOR),
LENIN STR 179, 11. KHUJAND TAJIKISTAN 735700
xxxvi

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 37 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
VICTORIA YURYEVNA GOLUBEVA,
15 MYTNINSKAYA STREET, APARTMENT 47, SAINT PETERSBURG, 191144, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
PLAINTIFF(S),
DIPA KHATRI, MAHESH BISTA,
BARBARDIYA, 10 BARDIYA, NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
DÁNIEL KOVATS, KITTY ÁGNES KOVATS-KANTOR, M.K. (A MINOR),
KIKÖTŐ UTCA 40 BUDAPEST, HUNGARY 1212
PLAINTIFF(S),
CAMILLE DJIOMEGNI MBAKOP,
ETOUG-EBE YAOUNDÉ
PLAINTIFF(S),
BABAK EBADIAN, MOHAMMAD TAHERI, R.E. (A MINOR),
UNIT 17, NO 19, 20TH GALESTANSI, KARAJ, ALLOURZ, 3147893811 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
HAMID ULLAH ANSARI,
FLAT NO.08, BLOCK NO.38, PHA-E-TYPE FLATS, ST.118, G-11/4, ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
xxxvii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 38 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S), HOSSAMELDINE BABIKER MARGANI JUBARAH,
SUDAN, KHARTOUM ,ELSHAHEED TAHA ELMAHI,SHOUHADA PROVINCE, 11111 SUDAN PLAINTIFF(S), JOSESE TULELE LAWANIYASANA, LITIANA BUADROMO, LOT 11 NATUVUKICA ROAD, KHALSA ROAD, SUVA, NAITASIRI, FIJI
PLAINTIFF(S), YAYRA BENJAMIN AGNESSILIME,
ADETIKOPÉ, AGNESSILIME'S HOUSE, LOME- TOGO PLAINTIFF(S), DIEUDONNE HAKIZIMANA, VIRGINIE UWINGABIRE, R.W.S. (A MINOR), KK 634 KIGALI KICUKIRO PO BOX 6955 KIGALI - RWANDA PLAINTIFF(S), HASHIM MOHAMUD MAALIM, PO BOX 485 70-200 WAJIR.STREET MANYALO NAIROBI,WAJIR KENYA PLAINTIFF(S),
xxxviii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 39 of 303
AKMAL WASSEF ABDALLA, DOROTHEA STUETTGEN-ABDALLA, A.S.A. (A MINOR), M.M.A. (A MINOR), M.M.A.(2) (A MINOR),
SCHMIEDMATTE 1B CH- 6207 NOTTWIL SWITZERLAND
PLAINTIFF(S),
HERVE GIRESSE TCHACOUNTE NOUQUE,
DOUALA IN BEPANDA CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
RAKIATOU JAMYLA IBRAHIM
CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDIAZIZ MAHAT ADAN,
222 OFF SANKURI ROAD, GARISSA NORTH EASTERN, 70105 KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
SABIR SHRESTHA,
AMARCHITRAKAR MARG, DALLU-15 HOUSE NO-120, KATHMANDU, NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
NARGES AZAR,
UNIT 1, FLOOR 1, NO 171, 13 ST., ZANBAGH ST. FARHANGSHAHR BLVD. SHIRAZ FARS 7187953341 IRAN
xxxix

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 40 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
SAHAR HAJIRAHIMI SICHANI,
NO136, LAHOR ST, JEY ST, ESFAHAN IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOKRANE KHELIFI, OURIDA CHAIB, I.K. (A MINOR), Y.K. (A MINOR),
POSTE DE BOUFHAIMA, DRAA EL MIZAN, TIZI OUZOU, 15000 ALGERIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
HEND AHMED ABDELMAKSOUD GOUDA, OSSAMA MUHAMED RABIE SOUFI, M.O.M.R. (A MINOR), M.O.M.R. (A MINOR), M.O.M.R.S. (A MINOR),
9 AN NASR ST., MISHRIFA 6 JEDDAH, SAUDIA ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ISMAIL ADAN ABDULLAHI,
MURATINA ROAD NAIROBI KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ZHANNA SAMSONENKA,
UL. VLADIMIROVA 31/46, GOMEL, BELARUS 246034
PLAINTIFF(S),
AMMAR A ABDUL HUSSEIN ALKHUDHIR,
AL HUSSEIN DISTRICT
xl

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 41 of 303
AL FAISAL APARTMENTS APT 10 AMMAN JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MICHEL DIVINE POUNDEU HAPPI,
LOGPON DOULA LITTORAL CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
GABRIEL ALEXANDRU STOITA MIHAELA STOITA, BOGDAN IONUT STOITA,
901-2333 TAUNTON ROAD, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO L6H0N5
PLAINTIFF(S),
FATMA IBRAHIM ELSHAARAWY, MOHAMED HATEM SWILAM, S.M.H.S. (A MINOR),
47, MOHAMED IBRAHIM ST. APT 16 MANSHEYAT AL MESRI, THAKANAT ELMAADI. CAIRO, EGYPT
PLAINTIFF(S),
HESHAM TAWFIK AHMED AL-ABSI,
HAYEL STREET ALWAHDAH DISTRICT SANAA, YEMEN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDULLAH MOHAMMED MOHAMMED ALNADARI,
ALMOHAFADHAH STREET, ALDHEHAR, IBB YEMEN
xli

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 42 of 303
PLAINTIFF(S),
FERDOWS JAMALI, ALI MOKHTARABADI, A.M. (A MINOR),
NO. 82, 4TH ALLEY, ABOLKALAM SQUARE, JOMHURI ST. SHIRAZ, FARS IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
KHAMISS RAJI,
LOTISSEMENT HIND NR102 QRT AIT MOU MRIRT MOROCCO
PLAINTIFF(S),
NGATCHA YOSSE BRIGITTE NADEGE,
NORTH CAMEROON FIGUL CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
SAMI BEN ALI SAHBOUN, HOUDA BENT ALI LAKHRACH, Z.B.S.S. (A MINOR),
ALDANA BUILDING 326 AL WARQA 1 DUBAI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
PLAINTIFF(S),
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
SERVE: DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
xlii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 43 of 303
WASHINGTON, DC 20500 DEFENDANT, MICHAEL R. POMPEO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE,
SERVE: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER SUITE 5.600 600 19TH ST. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20522
DEFENDANT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3 PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................................4 DEFENDANTS ...............................................................................................................238 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 239
DIVERSITY VISA IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.......................................................239 THE PRESIDENT’S DIVERSITY VISA ANIMUS ................................................243 DEFENDANTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW AND SUSPENDED THE ADJUDICATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR DV-2020 SELECTEES ........................................................................248 DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY RELY ON PP 10014 TO SUSPEND THE ADJUDICATION AND ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATION FOR DV-2020 PROGRAM SELECTEES AND THEIR DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES ................................................................251 CAUSES OF ACTION ..............................................................................................252 RELIEF REQUESTED..............................................................................................257
xliii

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 44 of 303 Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application forthcoming
xliv

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 45 of 303
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are 226 Diversity Visa program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries from
over 65 countries. Plaintiffs include doctors and nurses with experience treating COVID19, successful businesspeople intent on creating jobs in the United States, a veterinarian, people fleeing conflicts and persecution, and children with limitless potential. Plaintiffs all yearn for a life in the shining city upon a hill and its beacon of hope – the American Dream. 2. Plaintiffs hereby challenge the United States Department of State’s (hereafter referred to as the “Department”) adoption of policies, practices, and procedures suspending the processing of immigrant visas to individuals selected in the fiscal year 2020 Diversity Visa Program (hereafter referred to as “DV-2020 program”) and the unlawful withholdings thereby caused. 3. All Plaintiffs, either as DV-2020 selectees or as derivative spouses or children, have been invited by the Department to apply for the DV-2020 program. 4. All Plaintiffs have submitted immigrant visa applications pursuant to their DV-2020 program selection, and submitted all required documents to the Department’s Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”). 5. Plaintiffs hereby seek an order requiring Defendant President Trump, Secretary Michael Pompeo, and the Department to set aside the Department’s unlawful policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications and issue decisions on their applications in a reasonable time.
1

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 46 of 303
6. For Plaintiffs, the stakes are high and a matter of extreme urgency. By statute, DV-2020 program selectees must have their visas adjudicated and issued before midnight on September 30, 2020.
7. Should the Plaintiffs not have their visas issued before midnight on September 30, 2020, barring a protective order from this Court, Plaintiffs, as a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, will lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States of America through the DV-2020 program.
8. With over 23 million entrants a year, a diversity visa entrant has less than a one percent chance to be selected to apply for the visa. The probability of being selected twice is .00025%.
9. Defendants have suspended the DV-2020 program through policies, procedures, and practices that are contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and federal regulations governing the adjudication of the program.
10. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspend the (1) processing of applications for the DV-2020 program at the KCC; (2) scheduling of mandatory immigrant visa interviews for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries at United States Embassies and Consulates; and (3) adjudications for already submitted applications pending decisions by consular officers.
11. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices will remain in place through September 30, 2020 and effectively end the DV-2020 program.
12. Defendants policies, procedures, and practices suspending the Diversity Visa Program rests, in part, on the President’s Executive Order 10014, Proclamation Suspending Entry
2

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 47 of 303
of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak (hereafter referred to as “PP 10014”). 13. Plaintiffs have received emails from U.S. Embassies and Consulates stating: “Unfortunately, Diversity Visa applicants are not exempt of the current Travel Ban and there are [sic] no waiver eligible. Hence, the Embassy is putting all Diversity Visa applications on hold until the Travel Ban is lifted.” 14. The Department’s practices, policies, and procedures refusing to adjudicate immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries is unlawful and violates its non-discretionary duty to adjudicate immigrant visa applications. 15. Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court mandate Defendants to fully adjudicate their diversity visas before the expiration date. If Plaintiffs receive their visas, Plaintiffs request their visas be preserved until the suspension is lifted and they are permitted to enter the United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Declaratory relief is authorized by Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has remedial authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702. 17. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1)(A) because Defendant Pompeo, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, resides in the District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, namely, the formulation and promulgation of the challenged
3

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 48 of 303
policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigration visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed
18. Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed was born in Saudi Arabia, but is a citizen of Sudan, and DV-2020 selectee.
19. Plaintiff Dr. Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub was born in Saudi Arabia and is a citizen of Sudan, and the spouse of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Dr. Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
20. Drs. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed and Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub are both medical doctors in Sudan.
21. Plaintiff R.M.A.A. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Plaintiff R.M.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
22. Plaintiff A.M.A.A. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Plaintiff A.M.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
4

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 49 of 303
23. Plaintiff J.M.A.A. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Plaintiff J.M.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
24. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
25. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed visa case number 2020AS12673.
26. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
27. On June 2, 2019 Plaintiff Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
28. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff R.M.A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
29. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
30. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff J.M.A.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.
5

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 50 of 303
31. To date, Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed, Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub, R.M.A.A., A.M.A.A. and J.M.A.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
32. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed, Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub, R.M.A.A., A.M.A.A. and J.M.A.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Inna Ishchenko and Family 33. Plaintiff Inna Ishchenko is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee. 34. Plaintiff Yurii Ishchenko is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Inna Ischenko. Yurii Ishchenko is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Inna Ischenko should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to the DV-2020 selection. 35. Plaintiff E.I. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Inna Ischenko. E.I. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneificiary of Inna Ischenko should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 36. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Inna Ischenko and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 37. The KCC assigned Inna Ischenko visa case number 2020EU27918. 38. On July 26, 2019 Plaintiff Inna Ischenko submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 39. Plaintiffs Inna Ischenko, Yurii Ischenko, and E.I. submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
6

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 51 of 303
40. To date, Plaintiffs Inna Ischenko, Yurii Ischenko, and E.I. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
41. The adjudication of Inna Ischenko, Yurii Ischenko, and E.I.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Pawel Mieczkowski 42. Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski is a native of Poland and DV-2020 selectee. 43. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 44. The KCC assigned him visa case number 2020EU33272. 45. On September 16, 2019 Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 46. Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 47. To date, Plainiff Pawel Mieczkowski has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate. 48. The adjudication of Plaintiff’s Pawel Mieczkowski’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees
Farid Kurbanov 49. Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee. 50. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
7

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 52 of 303
51. The KCC assigned him visa case number 2020EU32239. 52. On February 24, 2020 Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 53. Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of
their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 54. To date, Farid Kurbanov has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or
Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 55. The adjudication of Farid Kurbanov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to
the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Graeme John Ward 56. Plaintiff Graeme John Ward is a native of South Africa and DV-2020 selectee. 57. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Graeme John Ward was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 58. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020AF30202. 59. On July 28, 2019 Plaintiff Graeme John Ward submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 60. On February 6, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Graeme John Ward that his case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview. 61. To date, Graeme John Ward has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
8

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 53 of 303
62. The adjudication of Graeme John Ward’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii Family 63. Plaintiff Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 64. Plaintiff Nina Konstantinovna (Velikaia), a native of Russia and spouse of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii. Nina Konstantinovna, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 65. Plaintiff M.D.V. is a native of Russia and son of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii. M.D.V. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 66. On May 7, 2019, Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 67. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU38872. 68. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 69. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Nina Konstantinovna submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 70. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff M.D.V. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
9

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 54 of 303
71. Plaintiffs Dmitrii Pavalovich Velikii, Nina Konstantinovna, and M.D.V. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
72. To date, Plaintiffs Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii, Nina Konstantinova, and M.D.V. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
73. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii, Nina Konstantinova, and M.D.V.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Marco Palano and Family 74. Plaintiff Marco Palano is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee. 75. Plaintiff Hevelin Simonetta is a native of Italy and spouse of Marco Palano. Hevelin Simonetta is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Marco Palano should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 76. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marco Palano was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 77. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU14905. 78. On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Marco Palano submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 79. On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Hevelin Simonetta submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
10

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 55 of 303
80. On January 14, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Marco Palano that his case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.
81. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff Marco Palano was scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on April 15, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
82. To date, Plaintiff Marco Palano and Hevelin Simonetta has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
83. The adjudication of Plaintiff Marco Palano and Hevelin Simonetta’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Marc Cyrus 84. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus is a native of Iran and citizen of Canada, and the derivative spouse of a DV-2020 selectee, who has already been issued a visa eight months ago. 85. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marc Cyrus was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 86. The KCC assigned Marc Cyrus visa case number 2020AS1202. 87. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 88. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 89. On December 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Marc Cyrus attended an immigrant visa interview. 90. To date, Plaintiff Marc Cyrus has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
11

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 56 of 303

91. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus is an essential worker, a truck driver, and now works everyday

delivering goods from Canada to the United States.

92. The adjudication of Plaintiff Marc Cyrus’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Radu Sebe

93. Plaintiff Radu Sebe is a native of Romania and DV-2020 selectee.

94. Plaintiff Mirabela Maria Sebeis a native of Romania and spouse of Radu Sebe. Mirabela

Maria Sebeis eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Radu

Sebe should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

95. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Radu Sebe was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

96. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU00032614.

97. On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff Radu Sebe submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. On January 29, 2020, he re-

opened the DS-260 to update the newly added questions.

98. On July 3, 2019, 2020 Plaintiff Mirabela Sebe submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. On January

29, 2020, he re-opened the DS-260 to update the newly added questions.

99. On June 5, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Redu Sebe that his case was documentarily

complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

100.

To date, Plaintiff Redu and Mirabela Sebe has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

12

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 57 of 303

101.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Redu and Mirabela Sebe’s immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Nassim Bounoua and Family

102.

Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee.

103.

Plaintiff Dr. Narimane Flici is a native of Algeria, and spouse of Nassim Bounoua.

Narimane Flici is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Nassim Bounoua should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

104.

Plaintiff N.B. is a native of Algeria and minor child of Nassim Bounoua. N.B. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nassim Bounoua

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

105.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

106.

The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020AF55102.

107.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

108.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Nariman Flici submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

109.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff N.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

110.

On March 19, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua that his case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

13

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 58 of 303

111.

To date, Plaintiffs Nassim Bounoua, Narimane Flici, and N.B. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

112.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua, Nariman Flici, and N.B.’s

immigrant visa application are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Rafik Babaci and Family

113.

Plaintiff Rafik Babaci is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee.

114.

Plaintiff Dr. Yasmin Seghier is a native of Algeria, a medical doctor and spouse of

Rafik Babaci. Dr. Yasmin Seghier is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Rafik Babaci should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

115.

Plaintiff A.M.B. is a native of Algeria and daughter of Rafik Babaci. A.M.B. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rafik Babaci should

he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

116.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Rafik Babaci was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

117.

The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020AF57218.

118.

On November 8, 2019 Plaintiff Rafik Babaci submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration.

119.

On November 8, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Yasmin Seghier submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

14

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 59 of 303

120.

On November 8, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

121.

Plaintiffs Rafik Babaci, Yasmin Seghier, and A.M.B. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

122.

To date, Plaintiff Rafik Babaci, Dr. Yasmin Seghier, and A.M.B. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

123.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Rafik Babaci, Dr. Yasmin Seghier, and A.M.B.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash

124.

Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash is a native of Jordan and DV-

2020 selectee.

125.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash was invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

126.

The KCC assigned him visa case number 2020AS22351.

127.

On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash submitted his

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

15

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 60 of 303

128.

Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

129.

On March 25, 2020, KCC sent Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash

confirmation that all necessary documents were received.

130.

To date, Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash has not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

131.

Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash has a U.S. citizen sister who

resides in Houston, Texas and who is waiting for him and worried for him.

132.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Ayash’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Igor Shcheglovitov and Family

133.

Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

134.

Plaintiff Elena Kadushkina is a native of Russia and spouse of Igor Shcheglovitov.

Elena Kadushkina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

Igor Schheglovitov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

135.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

136.

The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU28377.

137.

On July 28, 2019 Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

16

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 61 of 303

138.

On July 28, 2019 Plaintiff Elena Kadushkina submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

139.

On March 9, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov that his case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview

140.

To date, Plaintiffs Igor Shcheglovitov and Elena Kadushkina have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

141.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Igor Shcheglovitov and Elena Kadushkina’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Karina Olegovna Smitchenko

142.

Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

143.

Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of

Karnia Olegovna Smitchenko. Sergey Valerievich Dunanov is eligible to immigrate to the

United States as a derivative beneficiary Karina Olegovna Smitchenko should he be issued

an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

144.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

145.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko visa case number

2020EU43232.

146.

On October 9, 2019 Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

17

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 62 of 303

147.

On February 7, 2020 Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

148.

Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich Dunanov have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

149.

On Febrary 4, 2020, Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov attended an interview

where everything was fine except for his medical examination. He has since completed it

and sent to embassy on June 11, 2020.

150.

To date, Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich Dunanov

have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

151.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich

Dunanov’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Maryam Malekzadeh

152.

Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

153.

Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov is a native of Russia and spouse of Karnia

Olegovna Smitchenko. Sergey Valerievich Dunanov is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary Karina Olegovna Smitchenko should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

18

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 63 of 303

154.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

155.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko visa case number

2020EU49567.

156.

On February 7, 2020 Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

157.

On February 7, 2020 Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

158.

Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich Dunanov

159.

To date, Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich Dunanov

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

160.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich

Dunanov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Irem Guzel and Family

161.

Plaintiff Irem Guzel is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

162.

Plaintiff Eren Guzel is a native of Turkey and spouse of Irem Guzel. Eren Guzel is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Irem Guzel should she

be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

163.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Irem Guzel was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

19

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 64 of 303

164.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Irem Guzel visa case number 2020EU49567.

165.

On May 14, 2020 Plaintiff Irem Guzel submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

166.

On May 14, 2020 Plaintiff Eren Guzel submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

167.

Plaintiffs Irem Guzel and Eren Guzel have submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

168.

To date, Plaintiffs Eren Guzel and Irem Guzel have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

169.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Eren Guzel and Irem Guzel immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Family

170.

Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

171.

Plaintiff Sohrab Davari Chekan is a native of Iran and spouse Elham Nikjouy

Tabrizi. Sohrab Davari Chekan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

172.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

173.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi visa case number 2020AS3145.

20

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 65 of 303

174.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

175.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Sohrab Davari Chekan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection

176.

Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari Chekan have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

177.

On January 8, 2020, Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari Chekan

attended an immigrant visa interview.

178.

To date, Plaintiffs Elham Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari

Chekan have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or

issued a decision on their applications.

179.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari Chekan

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud and Family

180.

Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee.

181.

Plaintiff Silvina Nancy Asurmendi is a native of Argentina and spouse Fabien Rene

Michel Paroutaud. Silvina Nancy Asurmendi is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

21

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 66 of 303

182.

Plaintiff N.P. is a native of Canada and minor son Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud.

N.P. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Fabien Rene

Michel Paroutaud should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection

183.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

184.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud visa case number

2020EU19512.

185.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

186.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Silvina Nancy Asurmendi submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

187.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff N.P. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

188.

Plaintiffs Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy Asurmendi, and N.P. have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

Application and Alien Registration.

189.

On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud was scheduled for

an immigrant visa interview on April 3, 2020.

190.

On March 19, 2020, Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy Asurmendi, and

N.P. received notice from the US Embassy in Montreal that their immigrant visa interview

was cancelled.

22

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 67 of 303

191.

To date, Plaintiffs Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy Asurmendi, and

N.P. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

192.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy

Asurmendi, and N.P. immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dr. Tal Dror

193.

Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror is a native of Israel and DV-2020 selectee.

194.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

195.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror visa case number 2020AS29898.

196.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. He re-submitted the

form on February 6, 2020.

197.

Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

198.

To date, Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

199.

Dr. Tal Dror is a veterinarian.

200.

Dr. Tal Dror is gay, and looks forward to living in the U.S. where he is free to

marry, as he is not in his native country.

23

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 68 of 303

201.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Christelle Virginie Aude Meda

202.

Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee.

203.

On May 7, 2019, Christelle Virginie Aude Meda was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

204.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda visa case number

2020EU51569.

205.

On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

206.

Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

207.

To date, Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

208.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Akerke Urangaliyeva and Family

209.

Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.

210.

Plaintiff Hoang Anh Nguyen is a native of Ukraine and spouse Akerke

Urangaliyeva. Hoang Anh Nguyen is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

24

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 69 of 303

derivative beneficiary of Akerke Urangaliyeva should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

211.

Plaintiff R.N. is a citizen of Kazakhstan and minor son Akerke Urangaliyeva. N.P.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akerke

Urangaliyeva should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection

212.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

213.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva visa case number

2020EU00026428.

214.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration.

215.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Hoang Anh Nguyen submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration.

216.

Plaintiff R.N. was born in November, and his parents submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application two months later.

217.

Plaintiffs Hoang Anh Nguyen, Akerke Urganliyeva, and R.N. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

218.

To date, Plaintiffs Hoang Anh Nguyen, Akerke Urganliyeva, and R.N. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

25

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 70 of 303

219.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Hoang Anh Nguyen, Akerke Urganliyeva, and R.N.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Yuen Ting Xenia Wong

220.

Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

221.

Plaintiff Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon is a native of Sri Lanka and spouse of Yuen

Ting Xenia Wong. Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Yuen Ting Xenia Wong should he be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.

222.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and her derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

223.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong visa case number

2020AS29398.

224.

On August 24, 2019 Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

225.

On August 24, 2019 Plaintiff Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

226.

Plaintiffs Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

26

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 71 of 303

227.

To date, Plaintiffs Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

228.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and Lahiru Thilina

Samarakoon immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain

229.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain is a native of Australia and DV-2020

selectee.

230.

On May 7, 2019, Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

231.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain visa case number

2020OC697.

232.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

233.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

234.

To date, Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

235.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees

27

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 72 of 303

David Nathan Todman and Family

236.

Plaintiff David Nathan Todman is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee.

237.

Plaintiff Chloe Lee Todman is a native of Australia and spouse of David Nathan

Todman. Chloe Lee Todman is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of David Nathan Todman should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV2020 selection

238.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff David Nathan Todman was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

239.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff David Nathan Todman visa case number 2020OC1074.

240.

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff David Nathan Todman submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

241.

Plaintiffs David Nathan Todman and Chloe Lee Todman have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

242.

To date, Plaintiffs David Nathan Todman and Chloe Lee Todman have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued decisions on their

application.

243.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs David Nathan Todman and Chloe Lee Todman’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Dobrin Ganchev Ganev and Family

244.

Plaintiff Dobrin Ganchev Ganev is a native of Bulgaria and DV-2020 selectee.

28

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 73 of 303

245.

Plaintiff Inez Radulov is a native of Hungary and spouse of Dobrin Ganchev Ganev.

Inez Radulov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Dobrin Ganchev Ganev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020

selection.

246.

Plaintiff I.G. is a native of Canada and minor child of Dobrin Ganchev Ganev. I.G.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dobrin Ganchev

Ganev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection.

247.

Plaintiff O.G. is a native of Canada and minor child of Dobrin Ganchev Ganev.

O.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dobrin

Ganchev Ganev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection.

248.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dobrin Ganchev Ganev was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

249.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dobrin Ganchev Ganev visa case number

2020EU20220.

250.

Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and O.G. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

251.

Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and O.G. were scheduled for

an interview for April 3, 2020 but it was cancelled by the embassy.

252.

To date, Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and O.G. have not

been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

29

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 74 of 303

253.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and

O.G.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees

Francesca Scorti and Family

254.

Plaintiff Francesca Scorti is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

255.

Plaintiff Sebastiano Midulla is a native of Italy and spouse of Francesca Scorti.

Sebastiano Midulla is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Francesca Scorti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020

selection.

256.

Plaintiff F.M. is a native of Italy and minor child of Francesca Scorti. F.M. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Francesca Scorti

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.

257.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Francesca Scorti and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

258.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Francesca Scorti visa case number 2020EU28949.

259.

On January 24, 2020 Plaintiff Francesca Scorti submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

260.

On January 24, 2020 Plaintiff Sebastiano Midulla submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

261.

On January 24, 2020 Plaintiff F.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

30

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 75 of 303

262.

Plaintiffs Francesca Scorti, Sebastiano Midulla, and F.M. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

263.

On March 12, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Francesca Scorti that her case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview”.

264.

To date, Plaintiffs Francesca Scorti, Sebastiano Midulla, and F.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

265.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Francesca Scorti, Sebastiano Midulla, and F.M.

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Mariia Pishkova and Family

266.

Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

267.

Plaintiff Vadim Pishkov is a native of Russia and spouse of Mariia Pishkova.

Vadim Pishkov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Mariia Pishkova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

268.

On May 7, 2019, Mariia Pishkova and her derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

269.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova visa case number 2020EU00053170.

31

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 76 of 303

270.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

271.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Vadim Pishkov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

272.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Mariia Pishkova and Vadim Pishkov have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

273.

On July 22, 2019, KCC notified Plaintiff Vadim Pishkov that her case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview

274.

To date, Plaintiffs Mariia Pishkova and Vadim Pishkov have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

275.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mariia Pishkova and Vadim Pishkov’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Santosh Kumar Sah

276.

Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

277.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

278.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah visa case number 2020AS12259.

279.

On February 17, 2020, Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

32

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 77 of 303

280.

Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

281.

To date, Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

282.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah’s immigrant visa applications are

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Kristina Hoxha and Family

283.

Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

284.

Plaintiff Besar Hoxha is a native of Albania and spouse of Kristina Hoxha. Besar

Hoxha is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Kristina

Hoxha should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

285.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

286.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha visa case number 2020EU00019519.

287.

On June 9, 2019 Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

288.

On June 9, 2019 Plaintiff Besar Hoxha submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

289.

Plaintiffs Besar Hoxha have submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

33

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 78 of 303

290.

Plaintiffs Kristina Hoxha and Besar Hoxha were scheduled for an interview on

April 23, 2020 but that interview was cancelled.

291.

To date, Plaintiffs Kristina Hoxha and Besar Hoxha have not been re-scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

292.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Kristina Hoxha and Besar Hoxha’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Amin Baniasadi Zaree and Family

293.

Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

294.

Plaintiff Sadaf Zahedi is a native of Iran and spouse of Amin Baniasadi

Zaree. Sadaf Zahedi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Amin Baniasadi Zaree should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

295.

Plaintiff A.Z. 1 is a native of Iran and minor child of Amin Baniasadi

Zaree. Plaintiff A.Z. 1 is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Amin Baniasadi Zaree should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

296.

Plaintiff A.Z. 2 is a native of Iran and minor child of Amin Baniasadi

Zaree. Plaintiff A.Z. 2 is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Amin Baniasadi Zaree should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

34

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 79 of 303

297.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

298.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree visa case number 2020AS7701.

299.

Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

300.

Plaintiff Sadaf Zahedi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

301.

Plaintiff A.Z. 1 submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

302.

Plaintiff A.Z. 2 submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

303.

To date, Plaintiffs Amin Baniasadi Zaree, Sadaf Zahedi, A.Z. 1 and A.Z. 2 have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

304.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Amin Baniasadi Zaree, Sadaf Zahedi, A.Z. 1 and A.Z.

2’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Wen Chi Huang and Family

305.

Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang is a native of Taiwan and DV-2020 selectee.

306.

Plaintiff Yung Chou Chang is a native of Taiwan and spouse of Wen Chi

Huang. Yung Chou Chang is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

35

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 80 of 303

beneficiary of Wen Chi Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

307.

Plaintiff P.Y.C. is a native of Taiwan and minor child of Wen Chi Huang. Plaintiff

P.Y.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Wen Chi

Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

308.

Plaintiff J.Y.C. is a native of Taiwan and minor child of Wen Chi Huang. Plaintiff

J.Y.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Wen Chi

Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

309.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

310.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang visa case number 2020AS00025701.

311.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

312.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff Yung Chou Chang submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

313.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff P.Y.C. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

314.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff J.Y.C. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

315.

Plaintiffs Wen Chi Huang, Yung Chou Chang, P.Y.C. and J.Y.C. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

36

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 81 of 303

316.

To date, Plaintiffs Wen Chi Huang, Yung Chou Chang, P.Y.C. and J.Y.C. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

317.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Wen Chi Huang, Yung Chou Chang, P.Y.C. and

J.Y.C.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Shirley Joy Linda

318.

Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee.

319.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

320.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda visa case number 2020AF00035716.

321.

On January 27, 2020 Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

322.

Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

323.

To date, Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

324.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar Family

325.

Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

37

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 82 of 303

326.

Plaintiff Polen Hazel Dogar is a native of Turkey and spouse of Ibrahim Gokhan

Dogar. Polen Hazel Dogar is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

327.

Plaintiff A.D. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Ibrahim Gokhan

Dogar. Plaintiff A.D. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

328.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

329.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar visa case number

2020EU00036330.

330.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

331.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Polen Hazel Dogar submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

332.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff A.D. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

333.

To date, Plaintiffs Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar, Polen Hazel Dogar and A.D. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

38

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 83 of 303

334.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar, Polen Hazel Dogar and

A.D.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Vitalii Korolev

335.

Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

336.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

337.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev visa case number 2020EU00014974.

338.

On June 5, 2019 Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

339.

Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev was scheduled for an interview on April 28, 2020, but it

was cancelled.

340.

To date, Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

341.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Vitali Korolev’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Michal Szymczak

342.

Plaintiff Monika Pul is a native of Poland and spouse of Michal Szymczak. Monika

Pul is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Michal

Szymczak should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

39

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 84 of 303

343.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Michal Szymczak and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

344.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Michal Szymczak visa case number 2020EU00049396.

345.

On June 10, 2019 Plaintiff Michal Szymczak submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

346.

On June 11, 2019 Plaintiff Monika Pul submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

347.

Plaintiffs Michal Szymczak and Monika Pul have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

348.

To date, Plaintiffs Michal Szymczak and Monika Pul have not been scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

349.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Michal Szymczak and Monika Pul’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

350.

Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee.

351.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

352.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo visa case number 2020EU26743.

353.

On April 16, 2020 Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

40

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 85 of 303

354.

To date, Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

355.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Valerio Pagliaroli Family

356.

Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

357.

Plaintiff Anna Calicchia is a native of Italy and spouse of Valerio Pagliaroli. Anna

Calicchia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Valerio

Pagliaroli should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

358.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

359.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli visa case number 2020EU00027013.

360.

On October 30, 2019 Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

361.

On October 30, 2019 Plaintiff Anna Calicchia submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

362.

Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia submitted all the required

documentation to KCC on November 11, 2019.

363.

On March 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia

that their documents were processed and they were ready to be scheduled for an interview.

41

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 86 of 303

364.

To date, Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

365.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Natalia Pakulskaia

366.

Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

367.

Plaintiff Petr Pakulskii is a native of Russia and spouse of Natalia Pakulskaia. Petr

Pakulskii is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Natalia

Pakulskaia should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

368.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

369.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia visa case number

2020EU00026229.

370.

On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

371.

On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff Petr Pakulskii submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

372.

On March 10, 2020 KCC sent notice to Plaintiffs Natalia Pakulskaia and Petr

Pakulskii confirming all necessary documents were received and they were ready to be

scheduled for an interview.

42

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 87 of 303

373.

To date, Plaintiffs Natalia Pakulskaia and Petr Pakulskii have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

374.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Natalia Pakulskaia and Petr Pakulskii’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares

375.

Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares is a native of Portugal and DV-2020 selectee.

376.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

377.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares visa case number

2020EU00033454.

378.

On October 1, 2019 Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

379.

To date, Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

380.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares’ immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali

381.

Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

43

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 88 of 303

382.

Plaintiff David Petrosyan-Mkervali is a native of Russia and spouse of Tatiana

Petrosyan-Mkervali. David Petrosyan-Mkervali is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali should she be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

383.

Plaintiff I.P.M. is a native of Russia and minor child of Tatiana Petrosyan-

Mkervali. Plaintiff I.P.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

384.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

385.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali visa case number

2020EU00025411.

386.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

387.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff David Petrosyan-Mkervali submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

388.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff I.P.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

389.

On March 11, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali that her

case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

44

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 89 of 303

390.

To date, Plaintiffs Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali, David Petrosyan-Mkervali and

I.P.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

391.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali, David

Petrosyan-Mkervali and I.P.M.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Pere Cervero Gregori

392.

Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee.

393.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

394.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori visa case number 2020EU31033.

395.

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

396.

Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

397.

To date, Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

398.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori’s immigrant visa applications

are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Hichem Kriaa

399.

Plaintiff Hichem Kriaa is a native of Tunisia and DV-2020 selectee.

45

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 90 of 303

400.

Plaintiff Radhia Barhoumi Kriaa is a native of Tunisia and spouse of Hichem Kriaa.

Radhia Barhoumi Kriaa is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Hichem Kriaa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

401.

On May 7, 2019, Hichem Kriaa and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

402.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hichem Kriaa visa case number 2020AF49793.

403.

On January 19, 2020, Plaintiff Hichem Kriaa submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

404.

On January 19, 2020, Plaintiff Radhia Barhoumi Kriaa submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

405.

Plaintiffs Hichem Kriaa and Radhia Barhoumi Kiraa have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

406.

To date, Plaintiffs Hichem Kriaa and Radhia Barhoumi Kiraa have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

407.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Hichem Kriaa and Radhia Barhoumi Kiraa

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

46

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 91 of 303

Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh

408.

Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh is a native of Jordan and DV-2020 selectee.

409.

On May 7, 2019, Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

410.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh visa case number

2020AS16267.

411.

On October 5, 2019, Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

412.

Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

413.

To date, Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. `

414.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Michael Matthew Camilleri

415.

Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri is a native of Malta and DV-2020 selectee.

416.

On May 7, 2019, Michael Matthew Camilleri was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

417.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri visa case number

2020EU35883.

47

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 92 of 303

418.

On May 2, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

419.

Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

420.

To date, Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. `

421.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Michael Matthew Camilleri immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara Family

422.

Plaintiff Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara is a native of Egypt and DV-2020

selectee.

423.

Plaintiff Ahmed Sorour Ahmed Ahmed is a native of Egypt and spouse of Shereen

Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara. Ahmed Sorour Ahmed Ahmed is eligible to immigrate to

the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

424.

Plaintiff N.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Shereen Elsaid Rezk

Abdelaziz Nawara. N.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara should she be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

425.

Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Shereen Elsaid Rezk

Abdelaziz Nawara. A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

48

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 93 of 303

beneficiary of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara should she be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

426.

On May 7, 2019, Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

427.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara visa case

number 2020AF38549.

428.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara submitted

her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

429.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Ahmed Sorour Ahmed Ahmed submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

430.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff N.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

431.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

432.

Plaintiffs Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her derivative beneficiaries

have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa Application and Alien Registration.

433.

To date, Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her derivative beneficiaries

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

49

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 94 of 303

434.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her

derivative beneficiaries’ immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees

Chiara Alunni Ricci

435.

Plaintiff Chiara Alunni Ricci is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

436.

Plaintiff Marco Penchini is a native of Italy and spouse of Chiara Alunni Ricci.

Marco Penchini is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Chiara Alunni Ricci should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

437.

On May 7, 2019, Chiara Alunni Ricci and her derivative beneficiary were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

438.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Chiara Alunni Ricci visa case number 2020EU39710.

439.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff Chiara Alunni Ricci submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

440.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marco Penchini submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

441.

Plaintiffs Chiara Aluni Ricci and her derivative beneficiary have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

442.

To date, Chiara Alunni Ricci and Marco Penchini have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

50

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 95 of 303

443.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Chiara Alunni and Marco Penchini’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees

Shahpour Safaei Semnani

444.

Plaintiff Shahpour Safaei Semnani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

445.

Plaintiff Homa Saffaran is a native of Iran and spouse of Shahpour Safaei Semnani.

Homa Saffaran is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Shahpour Safaei Semnani should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

446.

On May 7, 2019, Shahpour Safaei Semnani and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

447.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahpour Safaei Semnani visa case number

2020AS8043.

448.

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Shahpour Safaei Semnani submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

449.

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Homa Saffaran submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

450.

Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

451.

Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran were scheduled for an

interview on April 8, 2020, but the embassy cancelled it.

51

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 96 of 303

452.

To date, Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran have not been re-

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

453.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees

Habtamu Sisay Eyasu

454.

Plaintiff Habtamu Sisay Eyasu is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee.

455.

Plaintiff Beteleham Chala is a native of Ethiopia and spouse of Habtamu Sisay

Eyasu. Beteleham Chala is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Habtamu Sisay Eyasu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

456.

Plaintiff A.S. is a native of Ethiopia and minor child of Habtamu Sisay Eyasu. A.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Habtamu Sisay

Eyasu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

457.

Plaintiff M.S. is a native of Ethiopia and minor child of Habtamu Sisay Eyasu. M.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Habtamu Sisay

Eyasu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

458.

On May 7, 2019, Habtamu Sisay Eyasu and her derivative beneficiary were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

459.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Habtamu Sisay Eyasu visa case number 2020AF68135.

52

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 97 of 303

460.

On November 4, 2019 Plaintiff Habtamu Sisay submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

461.

On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff Beteleham Chala submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

462.

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff A.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

463.

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff M.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

464.

Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu, Beteleham Chala, M.S., and A.S. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

465.

To date, Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu, Beteleham Chala, M.S., and A.S. have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

466.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu, Beteleham Chala, M.S., and

A.S.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Marina Utkina

467.

Plaintiff Marina Utkina is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

468.

Plaintiff Andrei Utkin is a native of Russia and spouse of Marina Utkina. Andrei

Utkin is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Marina

Utkina should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

53

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 98 of 303

469.

On May 7, 2019, Marina Utkina and her derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

470.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marina Utkina visa case number 2020EU26632.

471.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marina Utkina submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

472.

On June 7, Plaintiff Andrei Utkin submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

473.

Plaintiffs Marina Utkina and Andrei Utkin have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

474.

To date, Plaintiffs Marina Utkina and Andrei Utkin have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

475.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Marina Utkina and Andrei Utkin’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Sema Aydin

476.

Plaintiff Sema Aydin is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

477.

Plaintiff Taner Aydin is a native of Turkey and spouse of Sema Aydin. Taner Aydin

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sema Aydin

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

54

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 99 of 303

478.

On May 7, 2019, Sema Aydin and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit

a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

479.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sema Aydin visa case number 2020EU36675.

480.

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Sema Aydin submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

481.

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Taner Aydin submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

482.

Plaintiffs Sema Aydin and Taner Aydin have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

483.

To date, Plaintiffs Sema Aydin and Taner Aydin have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

484.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Sema Aydin and Taner Aydin’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mariia Relitska

485.

Plaintiff Mariia Relitska is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee.

486.

Plaintiff Victor Relitskyi is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Mariia Relitska.

Victor Relitskyi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Mariia Relitska should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

55

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 100 of 303

487.

Plaintiff N.R. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Mariia Relitska. N.R. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mariia Relitska

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

488.

On May 7, 2019, Mariia Relitska and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

489.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mariia Relitska visa case number 2020EU20389.

490.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Mariia Relitska submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

491.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Victor Relitskyi. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

492.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff N..R. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

493.

Plaintiffs Mariia Relitska, Victor Relitskyi, and N.R. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

494.

KCC sent Plaintiff Mariia Relitska confirmation that all the documentation was

received and they were ready for an interview, .

495.

To date, Plaintiffs Mariia Relitska, Victor Relitskyi, and N.R. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

496.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mariia Relitska, Victor Relitskyi, and N.R.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

56

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 101 of 303

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Ilona Sussner

497.

Plaintiff Ilona Sussner is a native of Germany, a psychologist and licensed

psychotherapist, and DV-2020 selectee.

498.

Plaintiff Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg is a native of Germany and spouse of Ilona

Sussner. Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Ilona Sussner should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

499.

Plaintiff J.S. is a native of Germany and minor son of Ilona Sussner. J.S. is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ilona Sussner should she

be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

500.

On May 7, 2019, Ilona Sussner and her derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

501.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ilona Sussner visa case number 2020EU43401.

502.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff Ilona Sussner submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

503.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

504.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff J.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

57

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 102 of 303

505.

Plaintiffs Ilona Sussner, Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg, and J.S. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application

and Alien Registration.

506.

To date, Plaintiffs Ilona Sussner and Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

507.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ilona Sussner, Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg, and

J.S.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Ina Bitri

508.

Plaintiff Ina Bitri is a native of Albania, a pharmacist, and DV-2020 selectee.

509.

Plaintiff Persid Qalliu is a native of Albania and spouse of Ina Bitri. Persid Qalliu

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ina Bitri should

she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

510.

Plaintiff K.Q. is a native of Albania and minor child of Ina Bitri. K.Q. is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ina Bitri should she be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

511.

On May 7, 2019, Ina Bitri and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

512.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ina Bitri visa case number 2020EU24569.

58

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 103 of 303

513.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Ina Bitri submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

514.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Persid Qalliu submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

515.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff K.Q. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

516.

Plaintiffs Ina Bitri, Persid Qalliu, and K.Q. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

517.

On March 10, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiffs Ina Bitri that the documents had been

processed and that the family was ready for an interview. On the phone, KCC told Plaintiff

Ina Bitri that interview would be scheduled for March 10, 2020, but it was never scheduled.

518.

To date, Plaintiffs Ina Bitri, Persid Qalliu, and K.Q. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

519.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ina Bitri and Persid Qalliu’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mozhgan Karimian Khorram

520.

Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

521.

Plaintiff Amir Elaysi is a native of Iran and spouse of Mozhgan Karimian

Khorram. Amir Elaysi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mozhgan Karimian Khorram should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

59

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 104 of 303

522.

Plaintiff B.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mozhgan Karimian

Khorram. Plaintiff B.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mozhgan Karimian Khorram should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

523.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

524.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram visa case number

2020AS00007932.

525.

Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

526.

Plaintiff Amir Elyasi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

527.

Plaintiff B.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

528.

Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram was notified that her family was scheduled

for an interview for April 1, 2020, but that interview was cancelled.

529.

To date, Plaintiffs Mozhgan Karimian Khorram, Amir Elyasi and B.E. have not

been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

530.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mozhgan Karimian Khorram, Amir Elyasi and B.E.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

60

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 105 of 303

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen Family

531.

Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen was born in Saudi

Arabia, is a citizen of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

532.

Plaintiff Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr is a native of Egypt and spouse of Dr.

Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

533.

Plaintiff K.M.A.M.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff K.M.A.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

534.

Plaintiff A.M.A.M.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff A.M.A.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

535.

Plaintiff A.M.A.A. was born in Saudi Arabia, a citizen of Egypt, and minor child

of Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff A.M.A.A. is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

61

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 106 of 303

536.

Plaintiff H.M.A.M.I.A. is a native of Great Britain and minor child of Dr.

Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff H.M.A.M.I.A. is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

537.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen and

his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

538.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen

visa case number 2020AS00022943.

539.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim

Abdeen submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

540.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

541.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff K.M.A.M.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

542.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.A.M.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

543.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.A.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

62

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 107 of 303

544.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff H.M.A.M.I.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

545.

To date, Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen, Hagar

Youssef Ahmed Sakr, K.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.A. and H.M.A.M.I.A. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

546.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen,

Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr, K.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.A. and H.M.A.M.I.A.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Liudmila Kaiumova

547.

Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

548.

Plaintiff L.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Liudmila Kaiumova. Plaintiff

L.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Liudmila

Kaiumova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

549.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

550.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova visa case number

2020EU00030194.

551.

On May 21, 2019 Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

63

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 108 of 303

552.

On May 21, 2019 Plaintiff L.K. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

553.

To date, Plaintiffs Liudmila Kaiumova and L.K. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

554.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Liudmila Kaiumova and L.K.’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Veli Bozan

555.

Plaintiff Veli Bozan is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

556.

Plaintiff Fatma Bozan is a native of Turkey and spouse of Veli Bozan. Fatma

Bozan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Veli Bozan

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

557.

Plaintiff Z.N.B. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Veli Bozan. Plaintiff

Z.N.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Veli

Bozan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

558.

Plaintiff I.A.B. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Veli Bozan. Plaintiff I.A.B.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Veli Bozan

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

559.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Veli Bozan and his derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

560.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Veli Bozan visa case number 2020EU46514.

64

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 109 of 303

561.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Veli Bozan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

562.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Fatma Bozan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

563.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Z.N.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

564.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff I.A.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

565.

To date, Plaintiffs Veli Bozan, Fatma Bozan, Z.N.B., and I.A.B. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

566.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Veli Bozan, Fatma Bozan, their two daughters

Z.N.B., and I.A.B.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi

567.

Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi is a native of Jordan and DV-

2020 selectee.

568.

Plaintiff Oday Ali Hussen Bani Ahmad is a native of Jordan and spouse of Dr.

Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi. Oday Ali Hussen Bani Ahmad is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Shoroq Qasem

Mohammad Shatnawi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

65

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 110 of 303

569.

Plaintiff A.O.A.B.A. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Dr. Shoroq Qasem

Mohammad Shatnawi. Plaintiff A.O.A.B.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi should she be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

570.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi and her

derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

571.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi visa case

number 2020AS00016647.

572.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi submitted her

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

573.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Oday Ali Hussen Bani Ahmad submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

574.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff A.O.A.B.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

575.

To date, Plaintiffs Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi, Oday Ali Hussen Bani

Ahmad and A.O.A.B.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

576.

Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi has been admitted to the PhD program

in veterinary school in Oklahoma state university for the fall of 2020.

66

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 111 of 303

577.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi, Oday Ali

Hussen Bani Ahmad and A.O.A.B.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant

to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of

immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Konstantin Shabalin

578.

Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

579.

Plaintiff Anastasia Maltseva is a native of Russia and spouse of Konstantin

Shabalin. Anastasia Maltseva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Konstantin Shabalin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

580.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

581.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin visa case number

2020EU00031533.

582.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin originally submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

583.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Anastasia Maltseva originally submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

584.

To date, Plaintiffs Konstantin Shabalin and Anastasia Maltseva have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

67

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 112 of 303

585.

The adjudication of Konstantin Shabalin and Anastasia Maltseva’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Alaa R. D. Habeeb

586.

Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb is a native of Palestine and DV-2020 selectee.

587.

Plaintiff Hebah H. H. Habeeb is a native of Palestine and spouse of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Hebah H. H. Habeeb is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

588.

Plaintiff R.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff R.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

589.

Plaintiff M.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff M.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

590.

Plaintiff J.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff J.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

591.

Plaintiff A.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff A.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

68

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 113 of 303

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

592.

Plaintiff Q.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff Q.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

593.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

594.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb visa case number

2020AS00022253.

595.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

596.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff Hebah H. H. Habeeb submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

597.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff R.A.R.H. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

598.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff M.A.R.H. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

599.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff J.A.R.H. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

69

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 114 of 303

600.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff A.A.R.H. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

601.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff Q.A.R.H. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

602.

To date, Plaintiffs Alaa R. D. Habeeb, Hebah H. H. Habeeb, R.A.R.H., M.A.R.H.,

J.A.R.H., A.A.R.H. and Q.A.R.H. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

603.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Alaa R. D. Habeeb, Hebah H. H. Habeeb, R.A.R.H.,

M.A.R.H., J.A.R.H., A.A.R.H. and Q.A.R.H.’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Aymen Ben Youssef

604.

Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef is a native of Tunisia and DV-2020 selectee.

605.

Plaintiff Miriam Ouerghi is a native of Tunisia and spouse of Aymen Ben

Youssef. Miriam Ouerghi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Aymen Ben Youssef should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

606.

Plaintiff Y.B.Y. is a native of Tunisia and minor child of Aymen Ben

Youssef. Plaintiff Y.B.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Aymen Ben Youssef should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

607.

Plaintiff M.B.Y. is a native of Qatar and minor child of Aymen Ben

Youssef. Plaintiff M.B.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

70

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 115 of 303

beneficiary of Aymen Ben Youssef should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

608.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

609.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef visa case number 2020AF25152.

610.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

611.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff Miriam Ouerghi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

612.

On October 9, 2019 Plaintiff Y.B.Y. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

613.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff M.B.Y. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

614.

Plaintiffs Aymen Ben Youssef, Miriam Ouerghi, Y.B.Y. and M.B.Y. were invited

for an interview on March 25, 2020 but it was cancelled on March 17, 2020.

615.

To date, Plaintiffs Aymen Ben Youssef, Miriam Ouerghi, Y.B.Y. and M.B.Y. have

not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

616.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Aymen Ben Youssef, Miriam Ouerghi, Y.B.Y. and

M.B.Y.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

71

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 116 of 303

Giorgi Tsikarishvili

617.

Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili is a native of Georgia and DV-2020 selectee.

618.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

619.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili visa case number

2020EU00026161.

620.

On June 23, 2019 Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

621.

To date, Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

622.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Blandine Riziki Bikali

623.

Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and DV-2020

selectee.

624.

Plaintiff Robert Byamungu Buraga is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and spouse of

Blandine Riziki Bikali. Robert Byamungu Buraga is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

625.

Plaintiff N.A.B. is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and minor child of Blandine Riziki

Bikali. Plaintiff N.A.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

72

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 117 of 303

beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

626.

Plaintiff D.N.B. is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and minor child of Blandine Riziki

Bikali. Plaintiff D.N.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

627.

Plaintiff J.I.Y.M.B. is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and minor child of Blandine

Riziki Bikali. Plaintiff J.I.Y.M.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

628.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali and her derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

629.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali visa case number

2020AF00023040.

630.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

631.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Robert Byamungu Buraga submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

632.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff N.A.B. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

73

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 118 of 303

633.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff D.N.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

634.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff J.I.Y.M.B. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

635.

To date, Plaintiffs Blandine Riziki Bikali, Robert Byamungu Buraga, N.A.B.,

D.N.B. and J.I.Y.M.B. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

636.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Blandine Riziki Bikali, Robert Byamungu Buraga,

N.A.B., D.N.B. and J.I.Y.M.B.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Zeljona Shahinas

637.

Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

638.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

639.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas visa case number 2020EU00035330.

640.

Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

641.

To date, Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

642.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

74

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 119 of 303

Lal Kumar Adhikari

643.

Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

644.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

645.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari visa case number 2020AS12729.

646.

On May 14, 2019 Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

647.

To date, Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

648.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar Family

649.

Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar is a native of Jordan and DV-2020 selectee.

650.

Plaintiff Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani is a native of Jordan and spouse of Osama

Said Ahmed Al-Najjar. Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani is eligible to immigrate to the

United States as a derivative beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

651.

Plaintiff S.O.S.N. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Osama Said Ahmed Al-

Najjar. Plaintiff S.O.S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

75

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 120 of 303

652.

Plaintiff N.O.S.N. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Osama Said Ahmed Al-

Najjar. Plaintiff N.O.S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

653.

Plaintiff A.O.S.N. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Osama Said Ahmed Al-

Najjar. Plaintiff A.O.S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

654.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

655.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar visa case number

2020EU00040919.

656.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

657.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

658.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff S.O.S.N. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

659.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff N.O.S.N. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

76

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 121 of 303

660.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff A.O.S.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

661.

To date, Plaintiffs Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar, Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani,

S.O.S.N., N.O.S.N. and A.O.S.N. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

662.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar, Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al

Momani, S.O.S.N., N.O.S.N. and A.O.S.N.’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Chi Wai Cheung

663.

Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

664.

Plaintiff Suk Kei Ku is a native of Hong Kong and spouse of Chi Wai Cheung. Suk

Kei Ku is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Chi Wai

Cheung should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

665.

Plaintiff O.Y.C. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Chi Wai

Cheung. Plaintiff O.Y.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Chi Wai Cheung should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

666.

Plaintiff Y.M.C. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Chi Wai

Cheung. Plaintiff Y.M.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Chi Wai Cheung should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

77

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 122 of 303

667.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

668.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung visa case number 2020AS00022275.

669.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

670.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Suk Kei Ku submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

671.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff O.Y.C. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

672.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff Y.M.C. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

673.

To date, Plaintiffs Chi Wai Cheung, Suk Kei Ku, O.Y.C. and Y.M.C. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

674.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Chi Wai Cheung, Suk Kei Ku, O.Y.C. and Y.M.C.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Nicole Melinda Stephan

675.

Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee.

676.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

78

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 123 of 303

677.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan visa case number

2020OC00002069.

678.

On November 30, 2019 Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

679.

To date, Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

680.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan’s immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Iaroslav Kulagin

681.

Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

682.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

683.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin visa case number 2020EU33603.

684.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

685.

To date, Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

686.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mina Magdy Michel Morcos

687.

Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

79

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 124 of 303

688.

Plaintiff Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef is a native of Egypt and spouse of Mina Magdy

Michel Morcos. Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Mina Magdy Michel Morcos should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

689.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

690.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos visa case number

2020AF44957.

691.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

692.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

693.

On November 29, 2019, Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos submitted all the

documents required by KCC and received a confirmation that they were processed.

694.

To date, Plaintiffs Mina Magdy Michel Morcos and Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

695.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mina Magdy Michel Morcos and Ireny Mounir Saad

Youssef’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

80

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 125 of 303

Tiziano Mammana

696.

Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

697.

Plaintiff Angela De Cristofaro is a native of Italy and spouse of Tiziano

Mammana. Angela De Cristofaro is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Tiziano Mammana should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

698.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

699.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana visa case number

2020EU00032463.

700.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

701.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Angela De Cristofaro submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

702.

On March 20, 2020, KCC sent an email to Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana letting him

know their documents were received and they were ready to be scheduled for an interview.

703.

To date, Plaintiffs Tiziano Mammana and Angela De Cristofaro have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

704.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Tiziano Mammana and Angela De Cristofaro’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

81

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 126 of 303

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Ornela Feza

705.

Plaintiff Ornela Feza is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

706.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ornela Feza was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

707.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ornela Feza visa case number 2020EU19506.

708.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Ornela Feza submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

709.

Plaintiff Ornela Feza was scheduled for an interview for April 21, 2020 but the

interview was cancelled.

710.

To date, Plaintiff Ornela Feza has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

711.

Plaintiff Ornela Feza is a registered nurse where works as a nurse in center of

persons with disabilities otherwise. Ministry of Health and Social Services in Albania.

712.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ornela Feza’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mikita Varonin

713.

Plaintiff Mikita Varonin is a native of Belarus and DV-2020 selectee.

714.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mikita Varonin was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

715.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mikita Varonin visa case number 2020EU00030258.

82

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 127 of 303

716.

On February 11, 2020 Plaintiff Mikita Varonin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

717.

To date, Plaintiff Mikita Varonin has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

718.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Mikita Varonin’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Monika Ozlevi

719.

Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

720.

Plaintiff Erol Ozlevi is a native of Czech Republic and spouse of Monika

Ozlevi. Erol Ozlevi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Monika Ozlevi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

721.

Plaintiff D.O. is a native of Czech Republic and minor child of Monika

Ozlevi. Plaintiff D.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Monika Ozlevi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

722.

Plaintiff S.K.O. is a native of Czech Republic and minor child of Monika

Ozlevi. Plaintiff S.K.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Monika Ozlevi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

83

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 128 of 303

723.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

724.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi visa case number 2020EU33740.

725.

On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

726.

On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Erol Ozlevi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

727.

On September 18, 2019 Plaintiff D.O. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

728.

On September 18, 2019 Plaintiff S.K.O. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

729.

To date, Plaintiffs Monika Ozlevi, Erol Ozlevi, D.O. and S.K.O. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

730.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Monika Ozlevi, Erol Ozlevi, D.O. and S.K.O.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed

731.

Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed is a native of Egypt and DV-2020

selectee.

84

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 129 of 303

732.

Plaintiff Amany Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif Tahon is a native of Egypt and

spouse of Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed. Amany Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif

Tahon is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ashraf

Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

733.

Plaintiff F.A.A.F.F.M. is a citizen of Egypt, born in Saudi Arabia, and minor child

of Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed. Plaintiff F.A.A.F.F.M. is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

734.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

735.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed visa case

number 2020AF00018959.

736.

On August 13, 2019 Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed submitted his

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

737.

On August 13,2019 Plaintiff Amany Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif Tahon submitted

her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s

DV-2020 selection.

738.

On August 13,2019 Plaintiff F.A.A.F.F.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

85

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 130 of 303

739.

To date, Plaintiffs Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed, Amany Mohamed

Moussa Abdellatif Tahon and F.A.A.F.F.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

740.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed, Amany

Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif Tahon and F.A.A.F.F.M.’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid Family

741.

Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid is a native of Saudi Arabia, a citizen

of Egypt, and DV-2020 selectee.

742.

Plaintiff Doaa Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali is a native of Egypt and spouse of

Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid. Doaa Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yasser Ahmed Elnour

Mohamed Zaid should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

743.

Plaintiff R.Y.A.E.M.Z. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Yasser Ahmed

Elnour Mohamed Zaid. Plaintiff R.Y.A.E.M.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

744.

Plaintiff M.Y.A.E.M.Z. is a citizen of Egypt, born in Saudi Arabia, and minor child

of Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid. Plaintiff M.Y.A.E.M.Z. is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

86

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 131 of 303

745.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

746.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid visa case

number 2020AS8266.

747.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid submitted his

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

748.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff Doaa Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

749.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff R.Y.A.E.M.Z. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

750.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff M.Y.A.E.M.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

751.

On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid and his

family attended an interview at US Embassy Riyad, and the case went into administrative

processing. To this date, the embassy still has the families passports.

752.

To date, Plaintiffs Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid, Doaa Mohamed Ali

Mohamed Ali, R.Y.A.E.M.Z. and M.Y.A.E.M.Z. have not been scheduled for a re-

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

753.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid, Doaa

Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali, R.Y.A.E.M.Z. and M.Y.A.E.M.Z.’s immigrant visa

87

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 132 of 303

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Gergana Kostova Ivanova Family

754.

Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova is a native of Bulgaria, a speech and language

therapist, and DV-2020 selectee.

755.

Plaintiff Georgi Nikolov Ivanov is a native of Bulgaria and spouse of Gergana

Kostova Ivanova. Georgi Nikolov Ivanov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as

a derivative beneficiary of Gergana Kostova Ivanova should she be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

756.

Plaintiff G.G.I. is a native of Bulgaria and minor child of Gergana Kostova

Ivanova. Plaintiff G.G.I. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Gergana Kostova Ivanova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

757.

Plaintiff B.G.I. is a native of Bulgaria and minor child of Gergana Kostova

Ivanova. Plaintiff B.G.I. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Gergana Kostova Ivanova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

758.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

759.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova visa case number

2020EU00032385.

88

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 133 of 303

760.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

761.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Georgi Nikolov Ivanov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

762.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff G.G.I. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

763.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff B.G.I. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

764.

To date, Plaintiffs Gergana Kostova Ivanova, Georgi Nikolov Ivanov, G.G.I. and

B.G.I. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

765.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Gergana Kostova Ivanova, Georgi Nikolov Ivanov,

G.G.I. and B.G.I.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Sergey Belousov

766.

Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

767.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

768.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov visa case number

2020EU11592.

89

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 134 of 303

769.

On October 2, 2019 Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

770.

To date, Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

771.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Yat Lung Chu

772.

Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

773.

Plaintiff Ngan Ching Yu is a native of Hong Kong and spouse of Yat Lung

Chu. Ngan Ching Yu is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Yat Lung Chu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

774.

Plaintiff C.H.C. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Yat Lung

Chu. Plaintiff C.H.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Yat Lung Chu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

775.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

776.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu visa case number 2020AS30587.

777.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

90

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 135 of 303

778.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Ngan Ching Yu submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

779.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff C.H.C. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

780.

To date, Plaintiffs Yat Lung Chu, Ngan Ching Yu and C.H.C. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

781.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Yat Lung Chu, Ngan Ching Yu and C.H.C.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Ivi Haxhaj

782.

Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

783.

Plaintiff Anisa Lila is a native of Albania and spouse of Ivi Haxhaj. Anisa Lila is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ivi Haxhaj should

he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

784.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj and his derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

785.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj visa case number 2020EU30240.

786.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

91

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 136 of 303

787.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Anisa Lila submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

788.

On March 9, 2020 KCC notified Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj that her documents were

processed and she was ready for an interview to be scheduled.

789.

To date, Plaintiffs Ivi Haxhaj and Anisa Lila have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

790.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Ivi Haxhaj and Anisa Lila’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Behrang Ghabchi

791.

Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

792.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

793.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi visa case number 2020AS5563.

794.

On September 1, 2019 Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

795.

Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi was scheduled for an interview on February 17 in Abu

Dhabi, but he asked to change it since he lives in Turkey. He was waiting to be rescheduled

but that has never happened.

796.

To date, Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi has not been re-scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

92

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 137 of 303

797.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Visar Musliu

798.

Plaintiff Visar Musliu is a native of Kosovo and DV-2020 selectee.

799.

Plaintiff Arta Sejdiu Musliu is a native of Kosovo and spouse of Visar Musliu. Arta

Sejdiu Musliu is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Visar Musliu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

800.

Plaintiff M.M. is a native of Kosovo and minor child of Visar Musliu. Plaintiff

M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Visar

Musliu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

801.

Plaintiff E.M. is a native of Kosovo and minor child of Visar Musliu. Plaintiff E.M.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Visar Musliu

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

802.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Visar Musliu and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

803.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Visar Musliu visa case number 2020EU53075.

804.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff Visar Musliu submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

805.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff Arta Sejdiu Musliu submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

93

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 138 of 303

806.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff M.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

807.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff E.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

808.

To date, Plaintiffs Visar Musliu, Arta Sejdiu Musliu, M.M. and E.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

809.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Visar Musliu, Arta Sejdiu Musliu, M.M. and E.M.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman Family

810.

Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman is a native of Sudan, a dentist, and DV-

2020 selectee.

811.

Plaintiff Dr. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Farah is a native of Sudan, a dental surgeon,

and spouse of Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman. Dr. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Farah is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Maryam Hassan

Ali Suliman should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

812.

Plaintiff M.M.A.M. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Maryam Hassan Ali

Suliman. Plaintiff M.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

94

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 139 of 303

813.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

814.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman visa case number

2020AS12212.

815.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

816.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Farah submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

817.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff M.M.A.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

818.

Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman was scheduled for an interview on March

10, 2020. She and her family prepared by paying for the medical checkups and

vaccinations, as instructed by the US Embassy Muscat. They arrived at the interview and

submitted the required documents, paid the $990 in fees.

819.

To date, Plaintiffs Drs. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman and Mohamed Ali Mohamed

Farah, and M.M.A.M. have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

820.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Drs. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman, and Mohamed Ali

Mohamed Farah, and M.M.A.M.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

95

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 140 of 303

Mohamed Ally Msabaha

821.

Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha is a native of Tanzania and DV-2020 selectee.

822.

Plaintiff A.M.M. is a native of Tanzania and minor son of Mohamed Ally

Msabaha. Plaintiff A.M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mohamed Ally Msabaha should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

823.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha and his derivative son A.M.M.

were invited to submit DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

824.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha visa case number

2021AF00017353.

825.

Plaintiff Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha and his derivative son A.M.M.

submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Applications pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

826.

To date, Plaintiffs Mohamed Ally Msabaha and A.M.M. have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

827.

Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha’s wife is a U.S. citizen, who came to America as

a refugee years ago. She resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.

828.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mohamed Ally Msabaha and A.M.M.’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

96

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 141 of 303

Ari Adil Kadir

829.

Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir is a native of Iraq and DV-2020 selectee.

830.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

831.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir visa case number 2020AS29769.

832.

On November 6, 2019 Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

833.

To date, Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

834.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Umman Orujova

835.

Plaintiff Umman Orujova is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee.

836.

Plaintiff Zaur Orujov is a native of Azerbaijan and spouse of Umman

Orujova. Zaur Orujov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Umman Orujova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

837.

Plaintiff K.O. is a native of Azerbaijan and minor child of Umman

Orujova. Plaintiff K.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Umman Orujova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

97

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 142 of 303

838.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Umman Orujova and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

839.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Umman Orujova visa case number 2020EU00026692.

840.

On September 26, 2019 Plaintiff Umman Orujova submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

841.

On September 26, 2019 Plaintiff Zaur Orujov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

842.

On July 26, 2019 Plaintiff K.O. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

843.

To date, Plaintiffs Umman Orujova, Zaur Orujov, and K.O. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

844.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Umman Orujova, Zaur Orujov, and K.O.’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse

845.

Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse is a native of Australia and DV-

2020 selectee.

846.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse was invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection. 98

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 143 of 303

847.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse visa case

number 2020OC1859.

848.

On October 18, 2019 Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse submitted her

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

849.

Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse was scheduled for an interview on

April 21, 2020, but it was cancelled.

850.

To date, Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse has not been re-scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

851.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa

852.

Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

853.

Plaintiff Khaled Elghandour is a native of Egypt and spouse of Enas Fathy Ahmed

Eissa. Khaled Elghandour is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

854.

Plaintiff S.E. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Enas Fathy Ahmed

Eissa. Plaintiff S.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

99

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 144 of 303

of Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

855.

Plaintiff M.E. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Enas Fathy Ahmed

Eissa. Plaintiff M.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

856.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa and her derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

857.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa visa case number

2020AF21483.

858.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

859.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Khaled Elghandour submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020

selection.

860.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff S.E. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

861.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff M.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

862.

Plaintiffs Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa, Khaled Elghandour, S.E. and M.E. were

scheduled for an interview on March 18, 2020.

100

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 145 of 303

863.

To date, Plaintiffs Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa, Khaled Elghandour, S.E. and M.E.

have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

864.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa, Khaled Elghandour, S.E.

and M.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Oleg Sorokin

865.

Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

866.

Plaintiff Svetlana Sorokina is a native of Russia and spouse of Oleg

Sorokin. Svetlana Sorokina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

867.

Plaintiff V.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Oleg Sorokin. Plaintiff V.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

868.

Plaintiff D.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Oleg Sorokin. Plaintiff D.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

869.

Plaintiff I.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Oleg Sorokin. Plaintiff I.S. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

101

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 146 of 303

870.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

871.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin visa case number 2020EU00023874.

872.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

873.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Svetlana Sorokina submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

874.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff V.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

875.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff D.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

876.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff I.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

877.

To date, Plaintiffs Oleg Sorokin, Svetlana Sorokina, V.S., D.S. and I.S. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

878.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Oleg Sorokin, Svetlana Sorokina, V.S., D.S. and

I.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Ahmet Er

879.

Plaintiff Ahmet Er is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

102

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 147 of 303

880.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmet Er was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

881.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ahmet Er visa case number 2020EU44987.

882.

On May 15, 2019 Plaintiff Ahmet Er submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. On May 19, 2019, he

re-submitted the DS-260 to change his interview location from Ankara to Auckland.

883.

To date, Plaintiff Ahmet Er has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

884.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ahmet Er’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail Family

885.

Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail is a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee.

886.

Plaintiff Tamanna Naeabkhail is a native of Afghanistan and spouse of Zaheeruddin

Naeabkhail. Tamanna Naeabkhail is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

887.

Plaintiff B.N. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Zaheeruddin

Naeabkhail. Plaintiff B.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

888.

Plaintiff S.N. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Zaheeruddin

Naeabkhail. Plaintiff S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative 103

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 148 of 303

beneficiary of Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

889.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

890.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail visa case number

2020AS1565.

891.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

892.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Tamanna Naeabkhail submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

893.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff B.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

894.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff S.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

895.

Plaintiffs Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail, Tamanna Naeabkhail, and B.N. were

scheduled for and attended an interview on November 7, 2019.

896.

To date, Plaintiffs Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail, Tamanna Naeabkhail, and B.N. have

not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

897.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail, Tamanna Naeabkhail, and

B.N.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

104

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 149 of 303

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber Family

898.

Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber is a native of Jordan and DV-

2020 selectee.

899.

Plaintiff Noor Nimer Mohammad Abujaber is a native of Jordan and spouse of

Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber. Noor Nimer Mohammad Abujaber is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Mujalli

Mohammad Abujaber should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

900.

Plaintiff Z.M.M.A. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Mohammad Mujalli

Mohammad Abujaber. Plaintiff Z.M.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as

a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber should he be issued

an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

901.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber and his

derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

902.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber visa case

number 2020AS00021360.

903.

On September 7, 2019 Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber

submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

105

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 150 of 303

904.

On September 7, 2019 Plaintiff Noor Nimer Mohammad Abujaber submitted her

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-

2020 selection.

905.

On September 7, 2019 Plaintiff Z.M.M.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

906.

KCC sent confirmation to Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber that

his family was ready to be scheduled for an interview.

907.

To date, Plaintiffs Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber, Noor Nimer

Mohammad Abujaber, and Z.M.M.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

908.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber, Noor

Nimer Mohammad Abujaber, and Z.M.M.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Khalil Yehya Al Hariri Family

909.

Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri is a native of Lebanon and DV-2020 selectee.

910.

Plaintiff Reine Ouday Assaad is a native of Lebanon and spouse of Khalil Yehya

Al Hariri. Reine Ouday Assaad is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Khalil Yehya Al Hariri should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

911.

Plaintiff Y.K.A. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Khalil Yehya Al

Hariri. Plaintiff Y.K.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

106

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 151 of 303

beneficiary of Khalil Yehya Al Hariri should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

912.

Plaintiff R.K.A. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Khalil Yehya Al

Hariri. Plaintiff R.K.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Khalil Yehya Al Hariri should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

913.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

914.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri visa case number

2020AS21782.

915.

On November 19, 2019 Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

916.

On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff Reine Ouday Assaad submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection.

917.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Y.K.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

918.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff R.K.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

919.

Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri submitted all the required documents to KCC for

his family on Nov 19, 2019 and on March 19, 2020 he received an official email from KCC

congratulating him and confirming that the required documents had been processed and

that he was ready to be scheduled for an interview.

107

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 152 of 303

920.

To date, Plaintiffs Khalil Yehya Al Hariri, Reine Ouday Assaad, Y.K.A. and

R.K.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

921.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Khalil Yehya Al Hariri, Reine Ouday Assaad, Y.K.A.

and R.K.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Anastasia Vedenina

922.

Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina is a native of Russia and DV-2020

selectee.

923.

Plaintiff Alexander Yevgenyevich Korneev is a native of Russia and spouse of

Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina. Alexander Yevgenyevich Korneev is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Anastasia Viktorovna

Vedenina should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

924.

Plaintiff P.A.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Anastasia Viktorovna

Vedenina. Plaintiff P.A.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

925.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

926.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina visa case number

2020EU241665. 108

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 153 of 303

927.

On October 12, 2019 Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

928.

On October 12, 2019 Plaintiff Alexander Yevgenyevich Korneev submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

929.

On October 13, 2019 Plaintiff P.A.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

930.

To date, Plaintiffs Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina, Alexander Yevgenyevich

Korneev, and P.A.K. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

931.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina, Alexander

Yevgenyevich Korneev, and P.A.K.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to

the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of

immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Oleg Potanin

932.

Plaintiff Oleg Potanin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

933.

Plaintiff Oxana Potanina is a native of Russia and spouse of Oleg Potanin. Oxana

Potanina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg

Potanin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

934.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Oleg Potanin and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection. 109

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 154 of 303

935.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Oleg Potanin visa case number 2020EU15330.

936.

On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff Oleg Potanin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

937.

On June 26, 2019 Plaintiff Oxana Potanina submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

938.

Plaintiffs Oleg Potanin and Oxana Potanina were scheduled for an interview on

April 2, 2020.

939.

To date, Plaintiffs Oleg Potanin and Oxana Potanina have not been rescheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

940.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Oleg Potanin and Oxana Potanina’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mohammad Hamad Abed Abuznimah

941.

Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah is a native of Jordan and DV-2020

selectee.

942.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah was invited to submit

a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

943.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah visa case number

2020AS14168.

944.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

110

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 155 of 303

945.

Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah was scheduled for an interview on April

1, 2020 but it was cancelled. He had already incurred the expense and trouble of the medical

exam on March 22, 2020.

946.

To date, Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah has not been re-scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

947.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Fathi Muftah M Ejgandi

948.

Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi is a native of Libya and DV-2020 selectee.

949.

Plaintiff Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj is a native of Libya and spouse of Fathi Muftah M.

Ejgandi. Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

950.

Plaintiff M.F.E. is a native of Libya and minor child of Fathi Muftah M.

Ejgandi. Plaintiff M.F.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

951.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

952.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi visa case number

2020AF00046798. 111

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 156 of 303

953.

Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

954.

Plaintiff Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

955.

Plaintiff M.F.E. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

956.

To date, Plaintiffs Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi, Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj, and M.F.E. have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

957.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi, Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj, and

M.F.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Razmik Mkrtchyan

958.

Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan is a native of Armenia and DV-2020 selectee.

959.

Plaintiff Anahit Torosyan is a native of Armenia and spouse of Razmik

Mkrtchyan. Anahit Torosyan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Razmik Mkrtchyan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

960.

Plaintiff D.M. is a native of Armenia and minor child of Razmik

Mkrtchyan. Plaintiff D.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Razmik Mkrtchyan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection. 112

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 157 of 303

961.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

962.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan visa case number

2020EU00033316.

963.

On August 14, 2019 Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

964.

On August 14, 2019 Plaintiff Anahit Torosyan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

965.

On August 14, 2019 Plaintiff D.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

966.

Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan and his family have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien

Registration.

967.

To date, Plaintiffs Razmik Mkrtchyan, Anahit Torosyan, and D.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

968.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Razmik Mkrtchyan, Anahit Torosyan, and D.M.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Sin Yi Venus Lo

969.

Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

113

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 158 of 303

970.

Plaintiff S.W.S.T. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Sin Yi Venus

Lo. Plaintiff S.W.S.T. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Sin Yi Venus Lo should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

971.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

972.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo visa case number 2020AS23276.

973.

On February 23, 2020 Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

974.

On February 23, 2020 Plaintiff S.W.S.T. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

975.

Plaintiffs Sin Yi Venus Lo and S.W.S.T. submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS260, and KCC sent them confirmation they were complete.

976.

To date, Plaintiffs Sin Yi Venus Lo and S.W.S.T. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

977.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Sin Yi Venus Lo and S.W.S.T.’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh

978.

Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh is a native of Canada, born in Iran, and DV-2020

selectee.

114

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 159 of 303

979.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

980.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh visa case number

2020AS8565.

981.

On January 30, 2020 Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

982.

Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.

983.

On February 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh, that her case

was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

984.

To date, Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

985.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh’s immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Lawrence Siva

986.

Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva is a native of Singapore and DV-2020 selectee.

987.

Plaintiff Yuehua Pan is a native of China and spouse of Lawrence Samuel

Siva. Yuehua Pan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Lawrence Samuel Siva should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

115

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 160 of 303

988.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

989.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva visa case number

2020AS19181.

990.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

991.

On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff Yuehua Pan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

992.

To date, Plaintiffs Lawrence Samuel Siva and Yuehua Pan have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

993.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Lawrence Samuel Siva and Yuehua Pan’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Nassim Boukraa

994.

Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee.

995.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

996.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa visa case number 2020EU00020569.

997.

On September 20, 2019 Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

116

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 161 of 303

998.

Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa was scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020 that

was cancelled. Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa scheduled an interview for July 7, 2020 online,

but when he arrived, US Embassy Paris turned him away.

999.

To date, Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

1000. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Janaya Lee Nelson

1001. Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee. 1002. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1003. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson visa case number 2020OC1848. 1004. On May 8, 2019 Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1005. Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson was scheduled for an interview on April 14, 2020 that
was cancelled by consulate on March 24, 2020. 1006. To date, Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson has not been re-scheduled for an interview at
an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1007. The adjudication of Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

117

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 162 of 303
Farshad Hesami Family
1008. Plaintiff Farshad Hesami is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1009. Plaintiff Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh is a native of Iran and spouse of
Farshad Hesami. Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farshad Hesami should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1010. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Farshad Hesami and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1011. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Farshad Hesami visa case number 2021AS1767 . 1012. On June 16, 2020 Plaintiff Farshad Hesami submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1013. On June 16, 2020 Plaintiff Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV2020 selection. 1014. To date, Plaintiffs Farshad Hesami and Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1015. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Farshad Hesami and Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Nikoletta Latos 118

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 163 of 303
1016. Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos is a native of Hungary and DV-2020 selectee. 1017. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1018. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos visa case number 2020EU44843. 1019. On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1020. To date, Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1021. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sandor Major
1022. Plaintiff Sandor Major is a native of Hungary and DV-2020 selectee. 1023. Plaintiff Agnes Ida Huszti is a native of Hungary and spouse of Sandor
Major. Agnes Ida Huszti is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sandor Major should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1024. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sandor Major and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1025. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sandor Major visa case number 2020EU45464.
119

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 164 of 303
1026. On July 7, 2019 Plaintiff Sandor Major submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1027. On July 7, 2019 Plaintiff Agnes Ida Huszti submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1028. To date, Plaintiffs Sandor Major and Agnes Ida Huszti have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1029. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Sandor Major and Agnes Ida Huszti’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Peter Mattias Schulz
1030. Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz is a native of Poland, citizen of Germany and Poland, and DV-2020 selectee.
1031. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1032. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz visa case number 2020EU28924. 1033. On January 12, 2020 Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. He originally submitted the DS-260 on May 9, 2019, but this date reflects when he made changes. 1034. On March 12, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz that his was ready to be scheduled for an interview. 1035. To date, Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
120

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 165 of 303
1036. The adjudication of Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Aleksandar Dordevic
1037. Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic is a native of Serbia and DV-2020 selectee. 1038. Plaintiff Marija Dordevic is a native of Serbia and spouse of Aleksandar
Dordevic. Marija Dordevic is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Aleksandar Dordevic should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1039. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1040. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic visa case number 2020EU13683. 1041. On February 26, 2020 Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1042. On February 26, 2020 Plaintiff Marija Dordevic submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1043. Plaintiffs Aleksandar Dordevic and Marija Dordevic were scheduled for an interview on March 3, 2020.
1044. To date, Plaintiffs Aleksandar Dordevic and Marija Dordevic have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
121

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 166 of 303
1045. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Aleksandar Dordevic and Marija Dordevic’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed
1046. Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed is a native of Egypt, a pharmacist, and DV-2020 selectee.
1047. Plaintiff Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed is a native of Egypt, a pharmacist, and spouse of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed. Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1048. Plaintiff O.A.H.A.M. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed. Plaintiff O.A.H.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1049. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1050. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed visa case number 2020AF22676.
1051. On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
122

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 167 of 303
1052. On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV2020 selection.
1053. On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff O.A.H.A.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1054. Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed’s family was scheduled for interview on April 19, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
1055. To date, Plaintiffs Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed, Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed, and O.A.H.A.M. have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1056. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed, Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed, and O.A.H.A.M.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten Family
1057. Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten is a native of France and DV2020 selectee.
1058. Plaintiff Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur is a native of France and spouse of Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten. Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
123

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 168 of 303
1059. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1060. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten visa case number 2020EU16888.
1061. On June 13, 2019 Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1062. On July 16, 2019 Plaintiff Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1063. Plaintiffs Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur were scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020.
1064. To date, Plaintiffs Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1065. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Shirin Hashemian
1066. Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.
124

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 169 of 303
1067. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1068. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian visa case number 2020AS11507. 1069. On October 4, 2019 Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1070. To date, Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian has not been scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1071. The adjudication of Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Manal Salah Gharzeddine Family
1072. Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine is a native of Lebanon and DV-2020 selectee. 1073. Plaintiff Fadel Wahab Zahreddine is a native of Lebanon and spouse of Manal Salah
Gharzeddine. Fadel Wahab Zahreddine is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1074. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1075. Plaintiff Ad.F.Z. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative
125

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 170 of 303
beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1076. Plaintiff T.F.Z. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1077. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1078. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine visa case number 2020AS00025981. 1079. Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1080. Plaintiff Fadel Wahab Zahreddine submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1081. Plaintiff A.F.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1082. Plaintiff Ad.F.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1083. Plaintiff T.F.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.
126

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 171 of 303
1084. To date, Plaintiffs Manal Salah Gharzeddine, Fadel Wahab Zahreddine, A.F.Z., Ad.F.Z. and T.F.Z. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1085. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Manal Salah Gharzeddine, Fadel Wahab Zahreddine, A.F.Z., Ad.F.Z. and T.F.Z.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Shahin Salimbayov
1086. Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee. 1087. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1088. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov visa case number 2020EU17505. 1089. On May 28, 2019 Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1090. To date, Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov has not been scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1091. The adjudication of Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Askar Aliyev Family
1092. Plaintiff Askar Aliyev is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.
127

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 172 of 303
1093. Plaintiff Alua Janbauliyeva is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of Askar Aliyev. Alua Janbauliyeva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Askar Aliyev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
1094. Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Kazakhstan and minor child of Askar Aliyev. Plaintiff A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Askar Aliyev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1095. Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Kazakhstan and minor child of Askar Aliyev. Plaintiff An.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Askar Aliyev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1096. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Askar Aliyev and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1097. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Askar Aliyev visa case number 2020EU13577. 1098. On September 14, 2019 Plaintiff Askar Aliyev submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1099. On September 14, 2019 Plaintiff Alua Janbauliyeva submitted her DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1100. On July 20, 2019 Plaintiff A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection 1101. On July 20, 2019 Plaintiff A.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.
128

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 173 of 303
1102. Plaintiffs Askar Aliyev, Alua Janbauliyeva, A.A. and A.A. were scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020.
1103. To date, Plaintiffs Askar Aliyev, Alua Janbauliyeva, A.A. and A.A. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1104. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Askar Aliyev, Alua Janbauliyeva, A.A. and A.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Nourredine Nasri
1105. Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee. 1106. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1107. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri visa case number 2020AF30266. 1108. On May 25, 2019 Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1109. Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri was scheduled for an interview on April 13, 2020. 1110. To date, Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri has not been rescheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1111. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
129

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 174 of 303
Abbas Vahdati Panah 1112. Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah is a native of Iran and spouse of Sharareh Ziaee. Abbas Vahdati Panah is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sharareh Ziaee as she was issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1113. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to Sharareh Ziaee’s DV-2020 selection. 1114. The KCC assigned Sharareh Ziaee visa case number 2020AS4173. 1115. On June 16, 2019 Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1116. Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah was scheduled for an interview on January 29, 2020. 1117. To date, Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1118. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Abbas Vahdati Panah’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage
1119. Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage is a native of Sri Lanka and DV-2020 selectee.
1120. Plaintiff Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana is a native of Sri Lanka and spouse of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage. Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana 130

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 175 of 303
Pathirana is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1121. Plaintiff V.M.V.P. is a native of Sri Lanka and minor child of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage. Plaintiff V.M.V.P. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1122. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1123. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage visa case number 2020AS14036. 1124. On July 4, 2019 Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1125. Plaintiff Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1126. Plaintiff V.M.V.P. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1127. Plaintiffs were scheduled for an interview on April 9, 2020 that was cancelled. 1128. To date, Plaintiffs Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage, Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana, and V.M.V.P. have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
131

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 176 of 303
1129. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage, Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana, and V.M.V.P.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Agustin Sastre Perez
1130. Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee. 1131. Plaintiff Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero is a native of Spain and spouse of Agustin
Sastre Perez. Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Agustin Sastre Perez should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1132. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1133. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez visa case number 2020EU31904. 1134. On June 2, 2020 Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1135. On June 2, 2020 Plaintiff Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1136. Plaintiffs Agustin Sastre Perez and Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero have submitted all necessary documentation for adjucation of their DS-260, Inmigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
132

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 177 of 303
1137. To date, Plaintiffs Agustin Sastre Perez and Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1138. Agustin Sastre Perez is a nurse with 30 years of experience as a healthcare professional. This year, his unit was converted to a Covid-19 unit for over three months.
1139. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Agustin Sastre Perez and Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman
1140. Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman is a native of Egypt and DV2020 selectee.
1141. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1142. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman visa case number 2020AS15772.
1143. On June 17, 2019 Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1144. Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman was scheduled for an interview on April 21, 2020.
133

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 178 of 303
1145. To date, Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1146. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Anu Regmi
1147. Plaintiff Anu Regmi is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1148. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Anu Regmi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1149. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anu Regmi visa case number 2020AS00012901. 1150. On Plaintiff Anu Regmi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1151. To date, Plaintiff Anu Regmi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1152. The adjudication of Plaintiff Anu Regmi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Vaidas Budrys
1153. Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys is a native of Lithuania and DV-2020 selectee.
134

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 179 of 303
1154. Plaintiff Karolina Budre is a native of Lithuania and spouse of Vaidas Budrys. Karolina Budre is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Vaidas Budrys should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
1155. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1156. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys visa case number 2020EU14730. 1157. On September 6, 2019 Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1158. On September 6, 2019 Plaintiff Karolina Budre submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1159. Plaintiffs Vaidas Budrys and Karolina Budre were scheduled for an interview on
April 21, 2020. 1160. To date, Plaintiffs Vaidas Budrys and Karolina Budre have not been rescheduled
for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1161. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Vaidas Budrys and Karolina Budre’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Vitalii Samsonenko
1162. Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1163. Plaintiff Zhanna Syraeva is a native of Russia and spouse of Vitalii
Samsonenko. Zhanna Syraeva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative 135

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 180 of 303
beneficiary of Vitalii Samsonenko should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1164. Plaintiff V.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Vitalii Samsonenko. Plaintiff V.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Vitalii Samsonenko should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1165. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1166. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko visa case number 2020EU16430. 1167. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1168. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Zhanna Syraeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1169. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff V.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1170. Plaintiffs Vitalii Samsonenko, Zhanna Syraeva, and V.S. were scheduled for an interview on April 28, 2020. 1171. To date, Plaintiffs Vitalii Samsonenko, Zhanna Syraeva, and V.S. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1172. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Vitalii Samsonenko, Zhanna Syraeva, and V.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,
136

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 181 of 303
and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ruben Sanchez Aparicio
1173. Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee. 1174. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio was invited to submit a DS-
260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1175. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio visa case number 2020EU00027364. 1176. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1177. To date, Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1178. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Reenu Mahat
1179. Plaintiff Reenu Mahat is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1180. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Reenu Mahat was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1181. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Reenu Mahat visa case number 2020AS10031.
137

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 182 of 303
1182. On July 26, 2019 Plaintiff Reenu Mahat submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1183. To date, Plaintiff Reenu Mahat has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1184. The adjudication of Plaintiff Reenu Mahat’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dr. Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat
1185. Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat is a native of Egypt, a doctor and pharmacist, and DV-2020 selectee.
1186. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1187. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat visa case number 2020AF52219.
1188. On December 26, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1189. KCC has notified Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat that his processing is complete.
1190. To date, Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
138

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 183 of 303
1191. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
David Prakash Mukhiya
1192. Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1193. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1194. The KCC assigned Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya visa case number
2020AS8869. 1195. On May 28, 2019 Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1196. Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya was scheduled for an interview for April 20, 2020
but that interview was cancelled. 1197. To date, Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya has not been re-scheduled for an
interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1198. The adjudication of Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya’s immigrant visa application
is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dhiaeddine Kara
1199. Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee. 1200. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 139

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 184 of 303
1201. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara visa case number 2020AF20117. 1202. On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1203. Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara was scheduled for an interview on March 23, 2020. 1204. To date, Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara has not been rescheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1205. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Jeevan Poudel
1206. Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1207. Plaintiff Sujyana Karki is a native of Nepal and spouse of Jeevan Poudel. Sujyana
Karki is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Jeevan Poudel should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1208. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1209. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel visa case number 2020AS00003306. 1210. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1211. On January 20, 2020 Plaintiff Sujyana Karki submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1212. Plaintiffs Jeevan Poudel and Sujyana Karki were scheduled for an interview on January 20, 2020.
140

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 185 of 303
1213. To date, Plaintiffs Jeevan Poudel and Sujyana Karki have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1214. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Jeevan Poudel and Sujyana Karki’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem Family 1215. Plaintiff Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem is a native of Jordan and DV-2020 selectee. 1216. Plaintiff Ahmad S D Salama is a native of Palestine and spouse of Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem. Ahmad S D Salama is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem of should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1217. On May 7, 2019, Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1218. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem visa case number 2020AS13653. 1219. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1220. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmad S D Salama submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
141

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 186 of 303
1221. To date, Plaintiffs Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem, and Ahmad S D Salama have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1222. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem and Ahmad S D Salama’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage 1223. Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage is a native of Sri Lanka and DV-2020 selectee. 1224. On May 7, 2019, Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselagewas invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1225. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage visa case number 2020AS00015874. 1226. On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1227. Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage was scheduled for an interview on May 14, 2020 but the interview was cancelled. 1228. To date, Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
142

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 187 of 303
1229. The adjudication of Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Anong Saengrit 1230. Plaintiff Anong Saengrit is a native of Thailand and DV-2020 selectee. 1231. Plaintiff Jarus Soontornsing is a native of Thailand and spouse of Anong Saengrit. Jarus Soontornsing is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Anong Saengrit of should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1232. Plaintiff T.S. is a native of Thailand and minor child of Anong Saengrit. T.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Anong Saengrit should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1233. On May 7, 2019, Anong Saengrit and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1234. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anong Saengrit visa case number 2020AS9914. 1235. On October 20, 2019, Plaintiff Anong Saengrit submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1236. On October 20, 2019, Plaintiff Jarus Soontornsing submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
143

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 188 of 303
1237. On October 20, 2019, the DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application for three-year-old Plaintiff T.S. was submitted by his parent pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1238. Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1239. Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S. were scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.
1240. To date, Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1241. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi 1242. Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi is a native of Afghanistan by citizenship, but was born in Saudi Arabia, an intern doctor, and DV-2020 selectee. 1243. On May 7, 2019, Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1244. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi visa case number 2020AS00006784.
144

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 189 of 303
1245. On February 1, 2020, Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1246. Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1247. To date, Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1248. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova 1249. Plaintiff Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova is a native of Bulgaria and DV-2020 selectee. 1250. Valentin Bogdanov Spasova is a native of Bulgaria and spouse of Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova. Valentin Bogdanov Spasov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1251. On May 7, 2019, Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1252. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova visa case number 2020EU00051489.
145

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 190 of 303
1253. On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1254. Plaintiffs Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1255. To date, Plaintiffs Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1256. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong Family 1257. Plaintiff Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1258. Plaintiff Kome Ivo Ejelle is a native of Cameroon and spouse of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. Kome Ivo Ejelle is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1259. Plaintiff M.P.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. M.P.K is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.
146

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 191 of 303
1260. Plaintiff B.L.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. B.L.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.
1261. Plaintiff E.P.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. E.P.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.
1262. On May 7, 2019, Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1263. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong visa case number 2020AF00010824.
1264. On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong submitted her DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1265. Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong, Kome Ivo Ejelle, M.P.K., B.L.K., and E.P.K. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1266. Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong, Kome Ivo Ejelle, M.P.K., B.L.K., and E.P.K. had an interview on January 21, 2020.
1267. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong, Kome Ivo Ejelle, M.P.K., B.L.K., and E.P.K.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the
147

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 192 of 303
Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Issa Boubacar Hassane 1268. Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane is a native of Niger and DV-2020 selectee. 1269. Plaintiff Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya is a native of Niger and spouse of Issa Boubacar Hassane is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Issa Boubacar Hassane should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1270. Plaintiff L.N.B.H. is a native of Niger and minor child of Issa Boubacar Hassane . L.N.B.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Issa Boubacar Hassane should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1271. On May 7, 2019, Issa Boubacar Hassane was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1272. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane visa case number 2020AF68714. 1273. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1274. Plaintiffs Issa Boubacar Hassane , Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya, and L.N.B. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
148

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 193 of 303
1275. To date, Plaintiffs Issa Boubacar Hassane , Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya, and L.N.B.H. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1276. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Issa Boubacar Hassane , Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya, and L.N.B.H.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Jen-Chieh Chang 1277. Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang is a native of Taiwan and DV-2020 selectee. 1278. .Plaintiff Yijue Zhang is a native of China and spouse of Jen-Chieh Chang. Yijue Zhang is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Jen-Chieh Chang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1279. On May 7, 2019, Jen-Chieh Chang was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1280. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang visa case number 2020AS00017840. 1281. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1282. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Yijue Zhang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1283. Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1284. On 19 March, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Jen-Chieh that his case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.
149

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 194 of 303
1285. To date, Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1286. The adjudication of Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang Yijue Zhang’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hlib Litvinov 1287. Hlib Litvinov is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee. 1288. On May 7, 2019, Hlib Litvinov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1289. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov visa case number 2020EU00023342. 1290. On November 9, 2019, Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1291. Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1292. To date, Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1293. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Marina Opolskaia 1294. Marina Opolskaia is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.
150

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 195 of 303
1295. Plaintiff Anatolii Opolskii is a native of Russia and spouse of Marina Opolskaia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Marina Opolskaia should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1296. On May 7, 2019, Marina Opolskaia was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1297. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marina Opolskaia visa case number 2020EU00018333. 1298. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff Marina Opolskaia submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1299. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff Anatolii Opolskii submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1300. Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia, and Anatolii Opolskii have submitted all necessary
documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1301. Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia, and Anatolii Opolskii have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1302. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia, and Anatolii Opolskii immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Tsz Him Fong 1303. Tsz Him Fong is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee. 1304. On May 7, 2019, Tsz Him Fong was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
151

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 196 of 303
1305. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong visa case number 2020AS16278. 1306. On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1307. Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication
of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1308. Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong had an interview on May 6, 2020 that was cancelled. 1309. To date, Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1310. The adjudication of Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Iryna Molokopoi 1. Iryna Molokopoi is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee. 2. Plaintiff Serhii Ryzhov is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Iryna Molokopoi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Iryna Molokopoi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 3. Plaintiff M.R. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Iryna Molokopoi. M.R. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Iryna Molokopoi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 4. On May 7, 2019, Iryna Molokopoi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 5. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi visa case number 2020EU14951.
152

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 197 of 303
6. On August 18, 2019, Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
7. Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
8. Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi had an interview scheduled for April 24, 2020 that was cancelled.
9. To date, Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
10. The adjudication of Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Bijayandra Bastola 1. Bijayandra Bastola is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 2. On May 7, 2019, Bijayandra Bastola was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 3. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola visa case number 2020AS13351. 4. On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 5. Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 6. To date, Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
153

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 198 of 303
7. The adjudication of Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Chung Ting Amy Leung 1. Chung Ting Amy Leung is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee. 2. Plaintiff Hon Chor Lee, a native of Hong Kong and spouse of Chung Ting Amy Leung, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Chung Ting Amy Leung should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 3. Plaintiffs W.Y.L. and C.H.L. are natives of Hong Kong and minor children of Chung Ting Amy Leung. W.YL. and C.H.L. are eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Chung Ting Amy Leung should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 4. On May 7, 2019, Chung Ting Amy Leung was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 5. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung visa case number 2020AS21446. 6. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 7. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hon Chor Lee submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 8. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff W.Y.L. submitted DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their mother’s DV-2020 selection. 9. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff C.H.L. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their mother’s DV-2020 selection.
154

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 199 of 303
10. Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
11. To date, Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
12. The adjudication of Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung’s and her family’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Vadim Gontari 1. Vadim Gontari is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 2. Plaintiff D.G. is a native of Moldova and 15-year-old minor child of Vadim Gontari. D.G.. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Vadim Gontari should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 3. On May 7, 2019, Vadim Gontari was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 4. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vadim Gontari visa case number 2020EU00027641. 5. Plaintiff Vadim Gontari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 6. Plaintiff Vadim Gontari has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 7. To date, Plaintiff Vadim Gontari has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
155

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 200 of 303
8. The adjudication of Plaintiff Vadim Gontari’s and son D.G.’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi 1. Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi is a native of Saudi Arabia and DV-2020 selectee. 2. On May 7, 2019, Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 3. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi visa case number 2020AS00022999. 4. On Feb. 3, 2020 Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 5. Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 6. To date, Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi has not been scheduled for an interview at a US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 7. The adjudication of Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohsen Salehkermani 1. Mohsen Salehkermani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 2. On May 7, 2019, Mohsen Salehkermani was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 3. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani visa case number 2020EU14951.
156

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 201 of 303
4. On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
5. Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
6. Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani had an interview scheduled for January 5, 2020. 7. To date, Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani has not been re-scheduled for another interview at
an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 8. The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza 1. Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 2. Plaintiff Zuraymis Perez Vilches, a native of Cuba and spouse of Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 3. On May 7, 2019, Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 4. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza visa case number 2020SA00002001. 5. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
157

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 202 of 303
6. Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
7. To date, Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
8. The adjudication of Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Temesgen Hunie Gelaw 1. Temesgen Hunie Gelaw is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee. 2. Plaintiff Yideneku Abineh Yitayew, a native of Ethiopia and spouse of Temesgen Hunie Gelaw, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Temesgen Hunie Gelaw should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 3. On May 7, 2019, Temesgen Hunie Gelaw was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 4. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Temesgen Hunie Gelaw visa case number 2020AF64279. 5. Temesgen Hunie Gelaw submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 6. Plaintiff Temesgen Hunie Gelaw has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 7. To date, Plaintiff Temesgen Hunie Gelaw has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
158

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 203 of 303
8. The adjudication of Plaintiff Temesgen Hunie Gelaw’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin Family 1. Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin is a native of Sweden and DV-2020 selectee. 2. Plaintiff Juliene Midori Fujimoto, a native of Sweden and spouse of Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 3. On May 7, 2019, Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 4. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen visa case number 2020EU00017107. 5. On August 18, 2019, Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 6. Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 7. Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen had an interview scheduled for April 6, 2020 that was cancelled. 8. To date, Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
159

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 204 of 303
9. The adjudication of Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezen’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Andrei Savenkov 1311. Plaintiff Andrei Savenkov is a native of Russia and a derivative beneficiary of DV2020 selectee already issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1312. On May 7, 2019, Andrei Savenkov and his spouse were invited to submit DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1313. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Andrei Savenkov visa case number 2020EU1426. 1314. Andrei Savenkov’s spouse was issued a visa and entered the United States of America pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1315. To date, Andrei Savenkov has not been scheduled for a re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1316. The adjudication of Andrei Savenkov’s’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ahmad Fahim Nouman and Family 1317. Plaintiff Ahmad Fahim Nouman a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1318. Plaintiff Elaha Nouman is a native of Afghanistan and spouse of Ahmad Fahim Nouman. Elaha Nouman is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ahmad Fahim Nouman should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
160

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 205 of 303
1319. Plaintiff A.R.N. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Ahmad Fahim Nouman. A.R.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ahmad Fahim Nouman should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1320. On May 7, 2019, Ahmad Fahim Nouman and his derivative beneficiaries wer invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1321. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ahmad Fahim Nouman visa case number 2020AS28293.
1322. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmad Fahim Nouman submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1323. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Elaha Nouman submitted her D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1324. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff A.R.N. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1325. Plaintiffs Ahmad Fahim Nouman, Elaha Nouman, and A.N. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1326. To date, Plaintiffs Ahmad Fahim Nouman, Elaha Nouman, and A.N. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1327. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Elaha Nouman and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,
161

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 206 of 303
procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Mohammadreza Ghaffar and Family 1328. Plaintiff Mohammadreza Ghaffar a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1329. Plaintiff Leila Talei is a native of Iran and spouse of Mohammadreza Ghaffar. Leila Talei is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammadreza Ghaffar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1330. Plaintiff A.G. is a native of Iran and minor son of Mohammadreza Ghaffar. A.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammadreza Ghaffar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1331. On May 7, 2019, Mohammadreza Ghaffar and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1332. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammadreza Ghaffar visa case number 2020AS1431. 1333. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammadreza Ghaffar submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1334. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Leila Talei submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection 1335. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff A.G. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection
162

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 207 of 303
1336. Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1337. Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G. attended an interview, but after the interview they went to administrative processing.
1338. To date, Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1339. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Mohammed Ansari and Family 1340. Plaintiff Mohammed Ansari a native of Saudi Arabia and DV-2020 selectee. 1341. Plaintiff Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi is a native of Saudi Arabia and spouse of Mohammed Ansari. Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammed Ansari should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1342. On May 7, 2019, Mohammed Ansari and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1343. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammed Ansari visa case number 2020AS18392.
163

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 208 of 303
1344. On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Mohammed Ansari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1345. On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1346. Plaintiffs Mohammed Ansari and Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1347. To date, Plaintiffs Mohammed Ansari and Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1348. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohammed Ansari and Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves and Family 1349. Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves a native of Angola and DV-2020 selectee. 1350. Plaintiff Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves is a native of Angola and spouse of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves. Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
164

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 209 of 303
1351. Plaintiff Y.G. is a native of Angola and minor child of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves. Y.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1352. Plaintiff D.G. is a native of Angola and minor child of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves. D.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1353. On May 7, 2019, Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1354. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves visa case number 2020AF35213.
1355. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves submitted his D260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1356. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1357. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Y.G. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1358. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff D.G. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
165

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 210 of 303
1359. Plaintiffs Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves, Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves, Y.G., and D.G. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1360. On February 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves that all of his documents had been received and his family was ready for interview.
1361. To date, Plaintiffs Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves, Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves, Y.G., and D.G. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1362. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves, Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves, Y.G., and D.G.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Muhammad Adil Tanveer 1363. Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer is a native of Saudi Arabia and DV-2020 selectee. 1364. On May 7, 2019, Muhammad Adil Tanveer was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1365. The KCC assigned Muhammad Adil Tanveer visa case number 2020AS24041. 1366. Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1367. Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1368. To date, Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
166

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 211 of 303
1369. The adjudication of Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Willem Jacob Verheul 1370. Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul is a native of the Netherlands and DV-2020 selectee. 1371. On May 7, 2019, Willem Jacob Verheul was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1372. The KCC assigned Willem Jacob Verheul visa case number 2020EU00031613. 1373. Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1374. Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1375. To date, Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1376. The adjudication of Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sanju Thapa Magar 1377. Plaintiff Sanju Thapa Magar a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1378. Plaintiff Lal Bahadur Magar is a native of Nepal and spouse of Sanju Thapa Magar. Lal Bahadur Magar is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sanju Thapa Magar should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
167

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 212 of 303
1379. On May 7, 2019, Sanju Thapa Magar and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1380. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sanju Thapa Magar visa case number 2020AS2922. 1381. Plaintiff Sanju Thapa Magar submitted her D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1382. Plaintiff Lal Bahadur Magar submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1383. Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar have submitted all necessary
documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1384. Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar attended an interview on December 23, 2019, but were not issued visas, and remain in administrative processing. 1385. To date, Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1386. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Olimzhon Kurbanov and Family 1387. Plaintiff Olimzhon Kurbanov a native of Tajikistan and DV-2020 selectee.
168

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 213 of 303
1388. Plaintiff Munisa Kurbanova is a native of Tajikistan and spouse of Olimzhon Kurbanov. Munisa Kurbanova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Olimzhon Kurbanov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1389. Plaintiff A.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Olimzhon Kurbano. A.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Olimzhon Kurbanov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1390. Plaintiff F.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Olimzhon Kurbanov. F.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Olimzhon Kurbanov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1391. On May 7, 2019, Olimzhon Kurbanov and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1392. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Olimzhon Kurbanov visa case number 2020EU21668. 1393. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Olimzhon Kurbanov submitted his D-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1394. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Munisa Kurbanova submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1395. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff A.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1396. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff F.K. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
169

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 214 of 303
1397. Plaintiffs Olimzhon Kurbanov, Munisa Kurbanov, A.K., and F.K. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1398. To date, Olimzhon Kurbanov, Munisa Kurbanov, A.K, and F.K. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1399. The adjudications of Olimzhon Kurbanov, Munisa Kurbanov, A.K., and F.K’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Natalia Mukhametdinova 1400. Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova is a native of the Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1401. On May 7, 2019, Natalia Mukhametdinova was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1402. The KCC assigned Natalia Mukhametdinova visa case number 2020EU28726. 1403. Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1404. Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1405. To date, Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
170

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 215 of 303
1406. The adjudication of Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi and Family 1407. Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi is a stateless Palestinian refugee with residence in Jordan, born in Saudi Arabia, and DV-2020 selectee
1408. Plaintiff Duaa Ibrahim Yousef Abu Alwafa is a native of Jordan and spouse of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Duaa Ibrahim Yousef Abu Alwafa is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1409. Plaintiff A.R.M.I.A. is stateless and minor child of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Plaintiff A.R.M.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1410. Plaintiff S.M.I.A. is stateless and minor child of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Plaintiff S.M.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1411. Plaintiff M.M.I.A. is stateless and minor child of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Plaintiff M.M.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
171

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 216 of 303
1412. On May 7, 2019, Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1413. The KCC assigned Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi visa case number 2020AS00016733.
1414. On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1415. Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1416. To date, Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1417. The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hawre Mohammed Hassan Family 1418. Hawre Mohammed Hassan is a native of Iraq and DV-2020 selectee. 1419. Plaintiff Zhilan Mustafa Rasul is a native of Iraq and spouse of Hawre Mohammed Hassan. Zhilan Mustafa Rasul is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hawre Mohammed Hassan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
172

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 217 of 303
1420. On May 7, 2019, Hawre Mohammed Hassan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1421. The KCC assigned Hawre Mohammed Hassan visa case number 2020AS00010287.
1422. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1423. Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1424. On February 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan his documents were processed and he was ready to be scheduled for an interview.
1425. Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan was verbally told on the phone by KCC that he would be scheduled for an interview in May 2020, but that never happened.
1426. To date, Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1427. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan’s and his spouse’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Barışcan Demirci 1428. Barışcan Demirci is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee. 1429. On May 7, 2019, Barışcan Demirci was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1430. The KCC assigned Barışcan Demirci visa case number 2020EU00036805.
173

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 218 of 303
1431. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1432. Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1433. To date, Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1434. The adjudication of Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Oxana Condur Family 1435. Oxana Condur is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1436. Plaintiff Eugen Braila is a native of Moldova and spouse of Oxana Condur. Eugen Braila is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oxana Condur should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1437. On May 7, 2019, Oxana Condur was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1438. The KCC assigned Oxana Condur visa case number 20202EU00043961. 1439. On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff Oxana Condur submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1440. Plaintiff Oxana Condur has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1441. To date, Plaintiff Oxana Condur has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
174

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 219 of 303
1442. The adjudication of Plaintiff Oxana Condur’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan 1443. Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan is a native of Armenia and DV-2020 selectee. She is a medical professional, with a doctorate in heart diseases. 1444. Plaintiff Sergei Vladimirovich Rudenko is a native of Russia and spouse of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan. Sergei Vladimirovich Rudenko is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1445. Plaintiff M.S.R. is a native of Armenia and minor child of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan. Plaintiff M.S.R. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1446. On May 7, 2019, Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1447. The KCC assigned Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan visa case number 2020EU00040406. 1448. On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan submitted her DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1449. Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
175

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 220 of 303
1450. To date, Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1451. The adjudication of Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Nde Kilean Fru 1452. Nde Kilean Fru is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1453. On May 7, 2019, Nde Kilean Fru was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1454. The KCC assigned Nde Kilean Fru visa case number 2020Af00033364. 1455. On October 5, 2019, Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1456. Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1457. To date, Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1458. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ana Grama 1459. Ana Grama a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee.
176

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 221 of 303
1460. Plaintiff Vasile Tataru is a native of Moldova and spouse of Ana Grama. Vasile Tataru is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ana Grama should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1461. On May 7, 2019, Ana Grama was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1462. The KCC assigned Ana Grama visa case number 20202EU00049022. 1463. On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff Ana Grama submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1464. Plaintiff Ana Grama has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of
her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1465. To date, Plaintiff Ana Grama has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1466. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ana Grama’ immigrant visa application is suspended
pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ina Cucereanu 1467. Ina Cucereanu is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1468. Plaintiff Andrei Badura is a native of Moldova and spouse of Ina Cucereanu. Andrei Badura is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ina Cucereanu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1469. On May 7, 2019, Ina Cucereanu was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
177

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 222 of 303
1470. The KCC assigned Ina Cucereanu visa case number 20202EU00025441. 1471. On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1472. Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication
of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1473. To date, Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1474. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Diana Grabciuc 1475. Diana Grabciuc is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1476. Plaintiff Eugeniu Mogildea is a native of Moldova and spouse of Diana Grabciuc. Eugeniu Mogildea is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Diana Grabciuc should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1477. On May 7, 2019, Diana Grabciuc was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1478. The KCC assigned Diana Grabciuc visa case number 20202EU00004835. 1479. On February 17, 2020, Plaintiff Diana Grabciuc submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1480. Plaintiff Diana Grabciuc has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
178

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 223 of 303
1481. To date, Plaintiffs Diana Grabciuc and Eugeniu Mogildea have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1482. The adjudication of Plaintiff Diana Grabciuc’s family’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Stanislav Liaptcev 1483. Stanislav Liaptcev is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1484. Plaintiff Mariia Liaptceva is a native of Russia and spouse of Stanislav Liaptcev. Mariia Liaptceva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Stanislav Liaptcev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1485. On May 7, 2019, Stanislav Liaptcev was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1486. The KCC assigned Stanislav Liaptcev visa case number 2020EU21454. 1487. On May 19, 2019, Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1488. Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1489. Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev was scheduled for an interview on May 18, 2020 but it was cancelled. 1490. To date, Stanislav Liaptcev has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
179

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 224 of 303
1491. The adjudication of Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Anita Nistrean 1492. Anita Nistrean is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1493. Plaintiff Artiom Gologan is a native of Moldova and spouse of Anita Nistrean. Artiom Gologan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Anita Nistrean should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1494. On May 7, 2019, Anita Nistrean was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1495. The KCC assigned Anita Nistrean visa case number 20202EU00033229. 1496. On May 19, 2019, Plaintiff Anita Nistrean submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1497. Plaintiff Anita Nistrean has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1498. To date, Anita Nistrean has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1499. The adjudication of Plaintiff Anita Nistrean’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Kenichi Miyagi 1500. Kenichi Miyagi is a native of Japan and DV-2020 selectee.
180

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 225 of 303
1501. On May 7, 2019, Kenichi Miyagi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1502. The KCC assigned Kenichi Miyagi visa case number 2020AS20306. 1503. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Kenichi Miyagi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1504. Plaintiff Kenichi Miyagi has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1505. To date, Kenichi Miyagi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy
or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1506. The adjudication of Plaintiff Kenichi Miyagi’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Alissa Afiza Dean 1507. Alissa Afiza Dean is a native of Fiji and DV-2020 selectee. 1508. On May 7, 2019, Alissa Afiza Dean was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1509. The KCC assigned Alissa Afiza Dean visa case number 2020OC00001710. 1510. On March 1, 2020, Plaintiff Alissa Afiza Dean submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1511. Plaintiff Alissa Afiza Dean has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1512. To date, Alissa Afiza Dean has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
181

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 226 of 303
1513. The adjudication of Plaintiff Alissa Afiza Dean’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Meien Huang 1514. Meien Huang is a native of Taiwan and DV-2020 selectee. 1515. Plaintiff Chingyen Lin is a native of Taiwan and spouse of Meien Huang. Chingyen Lin is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Meien Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1516. Plaintiff X.L. is a native of Taiwan and minor child of Meien Huang. Plaintiff X.L. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Meien Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1517. On May 7, 2019, Meien Huang was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1518. The KCC assigned Meien Huang visa case number 20202AS9292. 1519. On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Meien Huang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1520. Plaintiff Meien Huang has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1521. To date, Meien Huang has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1522. The adjudication of Plaintiff Meien Huang’s family’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
182

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 227 of 303
Ibrahim Masoud Dowah 1523. Ibrahim Masoud Dowah is a native of Libya and DV-2020 selectee. 1524. On May 7, 2019, Ibrahim Masoud Dowah was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1525. The KCC assigned Ibrahim Masoud Dowah visa case number 2020AF00040010. 1526. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1527. Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1528. Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah had an interview scheduled for May 21, 2020 but it was canceled. 1529. To date, Ibrahim Masoud Dowah has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1530. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure 1531. Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure is a native of Camerooon and DV-2020 selectee. 1532. On May 7, 2019, Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
183

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 228 of 303
1533. The KCC assigned Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure visa case number 2020AF39778.
1534. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1535. Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1536. Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure had an interview scheduled for April 21, 2010 but it was canceled.
1537. To date, Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1538. The adjudication of Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Honey Marjan Khan Family 1539. Plaintiff Honey Marjan Khan is a native of Sweden and DV-2020 selectee. 1540. Plaintiff Rauf Ahmad Rajput is a native of Sweden and spouse of Honey Marjan Khan. Rauf Ahmad Rajput is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Honey Marjan Khan should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
184

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 229 of 303
1541. On May 7, 2019, Honey Marjan Khan and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1542. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Honey Marjan Khan visa case number 2020EU00033834.
1543. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff Honey Marjan Khan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1544. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff Rauf Ahmad Rajput submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1545. Plaintiffs Honey Marjan Khan and Rauf Ahmad Rajput have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1546. To date, Plaintiffs Honey Marjan Khan and Rauf Ahmad Rajput have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1547. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Honey Marjan Khan and Rauf Ahmad Rajput immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Hamish Charles Egan 1548. Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan is a native of New Zealand and DV-2020 selectee.
185

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 230 of 303
1549. On May 7, 2019, Hamish Charles Egan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1550. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan visa case number 2020OC740. 1551. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1552. Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1553. On May 28, 2019, KCC notified Hamish Charles Egan that his case was
documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview. 1554. To date, Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan has not been scheduled for an interview at
an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1555. The adjudications of Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan’s immigrant visa applications
are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ailyn Caballero Acevedo 1556. Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 1557. On May 7, 2019, Ailyn Caballero Acevedo was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1558. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo case number 2020SA3763. 1559. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1560. Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
186

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 231 of 303
1561. To date, Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1562. The adjudications of Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mahta Goudarzi 1563. Plaintiff Mahta Goudarzi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1564. Plaintiff Mohsen Vosughifar is a native of Iran and spouse of Mahta Goudarzi. Rauf Ahmad Rajput is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mahta Goudarzi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1565. On May 7, 2019, Mahta Goudarzi and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1566. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mahta Goudarzi visa case number 2020AS7025. 1567. On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mahta Goudarzi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1568. On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mohsen Vosughifar submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1569. Plaintiffs Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
187

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 232 of 303
1570. Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar were scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on March 24, 2020, however the interview was cancelled.
1571. To date, Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1572. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Alice Kanneh Bility 1573. Plaintiff Alice Kanneh Bility is a native of Liberia and DV-2020 selectee. 1574. Plaintiff Sedekie S. Bility is a native of Libera and spouse of Alice Kanneh Bility. Sedekie S. Bility is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Alice Kanneh Bility should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1575. On May 7, 2019, Alice Kanneh Bility and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1576. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alice Kanneh Bility visa case number 2020AF44425. 1577. On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Alice Kanneh Bility submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1578. On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Sedekie S. Bility submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
188

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 233 of 303
1579. Plaintiffs Alice Kanneh Bility and Sedekie S. Bility have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1580. To date, Alice Kanneh Bility and Sedekie S. Bility have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1581. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Alice Kanneh Bility and Sedekie S. Bility’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Diana Nery Brana Diaz 1582. Plaintiff Diana Nery Brana Diaz is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 1583. Plaintiff Abel Lorenzo Morera is a native of Cuba and spouse of Diana Nery Brana Diaz. Abel Lorenzo Morera is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Diana Nery Brana Diaz should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1584. Plaintiff D.L.B. is a native of Cuba and minor of Diana Nery Brana Diaz. D.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Diana Nery Brana Diaz should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1585. On May 7, 2019, Diana Nery Brana Diaz and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1586. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Diana Nery Brana Diaz visa case number 2020SA3199.
189

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 234 of 303
1587. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff Diana Nery Brana Diaz submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1588. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff Abel Lorenzo Morera submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1589. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff D.L.B. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1590. Plaintiffs Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.B. have resubmitted their DS-260’s on January 23, 2020.
1591. Plaintiffs Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.B. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1592. To date, Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.L.B. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1593. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.L.B.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Frank Akomeah Addae 1594. Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae is a native of Ghana and DV-2020 selectee. 1595. On May 7, 2019, Frank Akomeah Addae was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1596. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae case number 2020AF57481.
190

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 235 of 303
1597. Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1598. Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1599. To date, Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1600. The adjudications of Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohammad Navidi 1601. Plaintiff Mohammad Navidi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1602. Plaintiff Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi is a native of Iran and spouse of Mohammad Navidi. Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Navidi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1603. Plaintiff S.N. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mohammad Navidi. S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Navidi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1604. Plaintiff Y.N. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mohammad Navidi. Y.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Navidi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
191

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 236 of 303
1605. On May 7, 2019, Mohammad Navidi and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1606. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammad Navidi visa case number 2020AS5560. 1607. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammad Navidi submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1608. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi submitted his DS-
260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1609. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff S.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1610. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Y.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1611. Plaintiffs Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1612. Plaintiffs Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N. attended a consular interview on February 4, 2020. 1613. To date, Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N. have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1614. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s
192

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 237 of 303
policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Mohamed Muhumed Hassan 1615. Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee. 1616. On May 7, 2019, Mohamed Muhumed Hassan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1617. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan case number 2020AF54759. 1618. On November 28, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1619. Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1620. To date, Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1621. The adjudications of Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ramin Yousofi 1622. Plaintiff Ramin Yousofi is a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1623. Plaintiff Sadaf Yousofi is a native of Afghanistan and spouse of Ramin Yousofi Sadaf Yousofi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ramin Yousofi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
193

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 238 of 303
1624. Plaintiff M.Y.Y. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Ramin Yousofi. M.Y.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ramin Yousofi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1625. Plaintiff Y.Y. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Ramin Yousofi. Y.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ramin Yousofi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1626. On May 7, 2019, Ramin Yousofi and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
1627. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ramin Yousofi visa case number 2020AS15870. 1628. On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff Ramin Yousofi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1629. On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff M.Y.Y. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1630. On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff Y.Y. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1631. Plaintiffs Ramin Yousofi, Sadaf Yousofi, M.Y.Y, and Y.Y. have submitted all
necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1632. To date, Ramin Yousofi, Sadaf Yousofi, M.Y.Y. and Y.Y. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1633. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ramin Yousofi, Sadaf Yousofi, M.Y.Y, and Y.Y.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,
194

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 239 of 303
procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Allan George Steve
1634. Plaintiff Allan George Steve is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1635. Plaintiff Eunice Awino Ogutu is a native of Kenya, a medical surgical specialist,
and spouse of Allan George Steve. Eunice Awino Ogutu is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Allan George Steve should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1636. Plaintiff A.C.S. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Allan George Steve. Plaintiff A.C.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Allan George Steve should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1637. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Allan George Steve and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1638. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Allan George Steve visa case number 2020AF00047095. 1639. On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff Allan George Steve submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1640. On July 22, 2019 Plaintiff Eunice Awino Ogutu submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1641. On July 17, 2019 Plaintiff A.C.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.
195

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 240 of 303
1642. To date, Plaintiffs Allan George Steve, Eunice Awino Ogutu, and A.C.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1643. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Allan George Steve, Eunice Awino Ogutu, and A.C.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Rose Ateno Owiti
1644. Plaintiff Rose Ateno Owiti is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1645. Plaintiff Raymond Omondi Osanya is a native of Kenya and spouse of Rose Atieno
Owiti. Raymond Omondi Osanya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1646. Plaintiff S.A.O. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Rose Atieno Owiti. Plaintiff S.A.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1647. Plaintiff G.V.O. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Rose Atieno Owiti. Plaintiff G.V.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1648. Plaintiff M.T.A.O. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Rose Atieno Owiti. Plaintiff M.T.A.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative
196

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 241 of 303
beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1649. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1650. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti visa case number 2020AF37798. 1651. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1652. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff Raymond Omondi Osanya submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1653. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff S.A.O. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1654. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff G.V.O. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1655. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff M.T.A.O. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1656. To date, Plaintiffs Rose Atieno Owiti, Raymond Omondi Osanya, S.A.O., G.V.O. and M.T.A.O. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1657. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Rose Atieno Owiti, Raymond Omondi Osanya, S.A.O., G.V.O. and M.T.A.O.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the
197

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 242 of 303
Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh
1658. Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1659. Plaintiff Saman Sinayifard is a native of Iran and spouse of Bahareh Hemmassian
Etefagh. Saman Sinayifard is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1660. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1661. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh visa case number 2020AS11068. 1662. On June 30, 2020 Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1663. On June 30, 2020 Plaintiff Saman Sinayifard submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1664. To date, Plaintiffs Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh and Saman Sinayifard have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1665. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh and Saman Sinayifard’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s
198

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 243 of 303
policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Mehdi Emamifar
1666. Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1667. Plaintiff Maryam Khorsand is a native of Iran and spouse of Mehdi
Emamifar. Maryam Khorsand is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mehdi Emamifar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1668. Plaintiff R.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mehdi Emamifar. Plaintiff R.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mehdi Emamifar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1669. Plaintiff R.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mehdi Emamifar. Plaintiff R.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mehdi Emamifar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1670. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1671. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar visa case number 2020AS1183. 1672. Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1673. Plaintiff Maryam Khorsand submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
199

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 244 of 303
1674. Plaintiff R.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
1675. Plaintiff Ray.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
1676. To date, Plaintiffs Mehdi Emamifar, Maryam Khorsand, R.E. and Ray.E. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1677. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mehdi Emamifar, Maryam Khorsand, R.E. and Ray.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Shahram Davoudi
1678. Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1679. Plaintiff Negar Zarrinfam is a native of Iran and spouse of Shahram
Davoudi. Negar Zarrinfam is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Shahram Davoudi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1680. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1681. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi visa case number 2020AS2549. 1682. On May 20, 2019 Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
200

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 245 of 303
1683. Plaintiff Negar Zarrinfam submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1684. Plaintiffs Shahram Davoudi and Negar Zarrinfam attended an interview on December 5, 2019.
1685. To date, Plaintiffs Shahram Davoudi and Negar Zarrinfam have not been scheduled for a re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1686. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Shahram Davoudi and Negar Zarrinfam’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mouad Zitouni
1687. Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni is a native of Morocco and DV-2020 selectee. 1688. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1689. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni visa case number 2020AF45275. 1690. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1691. To date, Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1692. The adjudication of Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
201

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 246 of 303
Nasrin Raeisidehkordi
1693. Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1694. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1695. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi visa case number 2020AS8660. 1696. On September 30, 2019 Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1697. Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi was scheduled for an interview on April 20, 2020,
but it was cancelled by the embassy. 1698. To date, Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi has not been rescheduled for an interview
at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1699. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah
1700. Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.
1701. Plaintiff Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia is a native of Egypt and spouse of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
202

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 247 of 303
1702. Plaintiff F.E.R.I.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Plaintiff F.E.R.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1703. Plaintiff P.E.R.I.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Plaintiff P.E.R.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1704. Plaintiff O.E.R.I.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Plaintiff O.E.R.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1705. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1706. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah visa case number 2020AF40345.
1707. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah submitted her DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1708. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
203

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 248 of 303
1709. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff F.E.R.I.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1710. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff P.E.R.I.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1711. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff O.E.R.I.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1712. Plaintiffs Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah, and her derivative beneficiaries. submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. and on Tue, Feb 18, 2020, KCC notified them that they are ready to be scheduled for an interview.
1713. To date, Plaintiffs Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah, Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia, F.E.R.I.A., P.E.R.I.A. and O.E.R.I.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1714. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah, Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia, F.E.R.I.A., P.E.R.I.A. and O.E.R.I.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Abdikar Jele Idris
1715. Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1716. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1717. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris visa case number 2020AF54620.
204

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 249 of 303
1718. On August 29, 2019 Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1719. To date, Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1720. The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Farangis Kurbonova
1721. Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova is a native of Tajikistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1722. Plaintiff Sobirjon Kurbonov is a native of Tajikistan and spouse of Farangis
Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1723. Plaintiff S.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Farangis Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1724. Plaintiff M.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Farangis Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1725. Plaintiff A.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Farangis Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative
205

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 250 of 303
beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1726. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1727. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova visa case number 2020EU9298. 1728. On Decemember 3, 2019 Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1729. On Decemember 3, 2019 Plaintiff Sobirjon Kurbonov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1730. On Decemember 3, 2019, Plaintiff S.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1731. On Decemember 3, 2019, Plaintiff M.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1732. On Decemember 3, 2019, Plaintiff A.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1733. Plaintiffs Farangis Kurbonova, Sobirjon Kurbonov, S.K., M.K. and A.K. were scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020 that was cancelled. 1734. To date, Plaintiffs Farangis Kurbonova, Sobirjon Kurbonov, S.K., M.K. and A.K. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
206

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 251 of 303
1735. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Farangis Kurbonova, Sobirjon Kurbonov, S.K., M.K. and A.K.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva 1736. Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1737. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1738. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva visa case number 2020EU28270. 1739. On April 17, 2019 Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1740. To date, Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1741. The adjudication of Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dipa Khatri 1742. Plaintiff Dipa Khatri is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.
207

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 252 of 303
1743. Plaintiff Mahesh Bista is a native of Nepal and spouse of Dipa Khatri. Mahesh Bista is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dipa Khatri should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1744. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs Dipa Khatri and Dipa Khatri were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1745. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dipa Khatri visa case number 2020AS00008092. 1746. Plaintiff Dipa Khatri submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1747. KCC scheduled an interview for Plaintiff Dipa Khatri for March 23, 2020, but it
was cancelled. 1748. To date, Plaintiffs Dipa Khatri and Mahesh Bista have not been re-scheduled for an
interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1749. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dipa Khatri and Mahesh Bista’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dániel Kováts
1750. Plaintiff Dániel Kováts is a native of Hungary and DV-2020 selectee. 1751. Plaintiff Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor is a native of Hungary and spouse of Dániel
Kováts. Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dániel Kováts should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
208

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 253 of 303
1752. Plaintiff M.K. is a native of Hungary and minor child of Dániel Kováts. Plaintiff M.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dániel Kováts should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1753. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dániel Kováts and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1754. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dániel Kováts visa case number 2020EU00043673. 1755. On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff Dániel Kováts submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1756. On September 9, 2019 Plaintiff Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor submitted her DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1757. On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff M.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1758. To date, Plaintiffs Dániel Kováts, Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor, and M.O. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1759. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dániel Kováts, Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor, and M.K.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Camille Djiomegni Mbakop
209

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 254 of 303
1760. Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.
1761. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1762. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop visa case number 2020AF53273.
1763. On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1764. To date, Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1765. The adjudication of Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Babak Ebadian
1766. Plaintiff Babak Ebadian is a native of Iran, and EMT tech, and DV-2020 selectee. 1767. Plaintiff Zahra Mohammad Taheri is a native of Iran and spouse of Babak
Ebadian. Zahra Mohammad Taheri is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Babak Ebadian should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1768. Plaintiff R.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Babak Ebadian. Plaintiff R.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Babak Ebadian should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
210

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 255 of 303
1769. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Babak Ebadian and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1770. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Babak Ebadian visa case number. 1771. Plaintiff Babak Ebadian submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1772. Plaintiff Zahra Mohammad Taheri submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1773. Plaintiff R.E. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1774. To date, Plaintiffs Babak Ebadian, Zahra Mohammad Taheri, and R.E. have not
been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1775. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Babak Ebadian, Zahra Mohammad Taheri, and R.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hamid Ullah Ansari
1776. Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari is a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1777. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1778. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari visa case number 2020AS19146.
211

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 256 of 303
1779. On November 24, 2019 Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1780. On January 20, 2020, Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari submitted all the required documents to KCC, who notified him by email he was ready to be scheduled for an interview.
1781. To date, Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1782. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah
1783. Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee. 1784. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah was invited to submit a
DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1785. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah visa case number 2020AS15260. 1786. Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1787. Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah was scheduled for an interview on April 8, 2020. 1788. To date, Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
212

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 257 of 303
1789. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana
1790. Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana is a native of Fiji and DV-2020 selectee. 1791. Plaintiff Litiana Buadromo is a native of Fiji and spouse of Josese Tulele
Lawaniyasana. Litiana Buadromo is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1792. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1793. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana visa case number 2020OC954. 1794. On November 13, 2019 Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1795. On November 13, 2019 Plaintiff Litiana Buadromo submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1796. Plaintiffs Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and Litiana Buadromo were scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020.
213

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 258 of 303
1797. To date, Plaintiffs Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and Litiana Buadromo have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1798. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and Litiana Buadromo’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime
1799. Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime is a native of Togo and DV-2020 selectee. 1800. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime was invited to submit a
DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1801. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime visa case number 2020AF32069. 1802. Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1803. To date, Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1804. The adjudication of Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dieudonne Hakizimana
214

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 259 of 303
1805. Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana is a native of Rwanda and DV-2020 selectee. 1806. Plaintiff Virginie Uwingabire is a native of Rwanda and spouse of Dieudonne
Hakizimana. Virginie Uwingabire is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dieudonne Hakizimana should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1807. Plaintiff R.W.S. is a 7-year-old native of Rwanda and minor son of Dieudonne Hakizimana. Plaintiff R.W.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dieudonne Hakizimana should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1808. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1809. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana visa case number 2020AF16686. 1810. On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1811. On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff Virginie Uwingabire submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1812. On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff R.W.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1813. Plaintiffs Dieudonne Hakizimana, Virginie Uwingabire, and R.W.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260.
215

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 260 of 303
1814. To date, Plaintiffs Dieudonne Hakizimana, Virginie Uwingabire, and R.W.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1815. Both Dieudonne Hakizimana and Virginie Uwingabire are nurses.
1816. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dieudonne Hakizimana, Virginie Uwingabire, and R.W.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Hashim Mohamud Maalim 1817. Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1818. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1819. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim visa case number 2020AF66270. 1820. On November 28, 2019, Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1821. Plaintiffs Hashim Mohamud Maalim have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1822. To date, Plaintiffs Hashim Mohamud Maalim has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
216

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 261 of 303
1823. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Hashim Mohamud Maalim’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Akmal Wassef Abdalla 1824. Plaintiff Akmal Wassef Abdalla is a native of Egypt, German citizen, and DV-2020 selectee. 1825. Plaintiff Dorothea Stuettgen-Abdalla is a native of Germany and spouse of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. Dorothea Stuettgen-Abdalla is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1826. Plaintiff A.S.A. is a native of Germany and minor child of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. A.S.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1827. Plaintiff M.M.A. is a native of Germany and minor child of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. M.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1828. Plaintiff M.M.A.(2) is a native of Germany and minor child of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. M.M.A.(2) is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1829. On May 7, 2019, Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
217

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 262 of 303
1830. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Akmal Wassef Abdalla visa case number 2020AF57907.
1831. In November 2019, Plaintiff Akmal Wassef Abdalla submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1832. In November 2019, Plaintiff Dorothea Stuettgen-Abdalla submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1833. In November 2019, Plaintiff A.S.A. 1 submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1834. In November 2019, Plaintiff M.M.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1835. In November 2019, Plaintiff M.M.A.(2) submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1836. Plaintiffs Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his family have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1837. To date, Plaintiffs Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his family have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1838. The family has lived in Switzerland since 2008. 1839. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his family’s immigrant
visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque
218

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 263 of 303
1840. Plaintiff Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.
1841. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1842. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque visa case number 2020AF63191.
1843. On June 9, 2019, Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1844. Plaintiffs Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1845. To date, Plaintiffs Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1846. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque ’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim 1847. Plaintiff Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1848. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
219

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 264 of 303
1849. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim visa case number. 1850. Plaintiff Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1851. Plaintiffs Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1852. To date, Plaintiffs Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim has not been scheduled for an interview
at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1853. The adjudication of Plaintiff Rakiatou Jamyla Ibrahim’s immigrant visa application
is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Abdiaziz Mahat Adan 1854. Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1855. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1856. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adanvisa case number 2020AF42877. 1857. On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adansubmitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1858. Plaintiffs Abdiaziz Mahat Adan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1859. To date, Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
220

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 265 of 303
1860. The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sabir Shrestha 1861. Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1862. On May 7, 2019, Sabir Shrestha was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1863. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha case number 2020A11985. 1864. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1865. Plaintiffs Sabir Shrestha has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1866. To date, Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1867. The adjudication of Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Narges Azar 1868. Plaintiff Narges Azar a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1869. On May 7, 2019, Narges Azar was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1870. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Narges Azar case number 2020AS9425.
221

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 266 of 303
1871. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff Narges Azar submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1872. Plaintiffs Narges Azar has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1873. Plaintiff Narges Azar was scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on April 9, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
1874. To date, Plaintiff Narges Azar has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1875. The adjudication of Plaintiff Narges Azar’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani 1876. Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1877. On May 7, 2019, Ismail Adan Abdullahi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1878. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani visa case number 2020AF8051. 1879. Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1880. Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1881. To date, Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications.
222

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 267 of 303
1882. The adjudication of Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mokrane Khelifi 1883. Plaintiff Mokrane Khelifi is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee. 1884. Plaintiff Ouriba Chaib is a native of Algeria and spouse of Mokrane Khelifi. Ouriba Chaib is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mokrane Khelifi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1885. Plaintiff I.K. is a native of Algeria and minor child of Mokrane Khelifi. I.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mokrane Khelifi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1886. Plaintiff Y.K. is a native of Algeria and minor child of Mokrane Khelifi. Y.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mokrane Khelifi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1887. On May 7, 2019, Mokrane Khelifi and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1888. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mokrane Khelifi visa case number 2020AF31310. 1889. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff Mokrane Khelifi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1890. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff Ouriba Chaib submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
223

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 268 of 303
1891. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff I.K. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1892. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff Y.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1893. Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ouriba Chaib, I.K., and Y.J have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1894. Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ouriba Chaib and their minor children were scheduled for an interview for April 27, 2020 but it was cancelled by the embassy.
1895. To date, Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ouriba Chaib and their minor children have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1896. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ouriba Chaib, and their minor children’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda 1897. Plaintiff Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee. 1898. Plaintiff Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi is a native of Egypt and spouse of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda. Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
224

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 269 of 303
1899. Plaintiff M.O.M.R. is a native of Saudi Arabia and minor child of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda . M.O.M.R is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1900. Plaintiff Mo.O.M.R. is a native of Saudi Arabia and minor child of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda. Mo.O.M.R is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1901. Plaintiff M.O.M.R.S. is a native of Saudi Arabia and minor child of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda . M.O.M.R.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1902. On May 7, 2019, Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda and Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
1903. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda visa case number 2020af00064284.
1904. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1905. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff M.O.M.R. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
225

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 270 of 303
1906. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff Mo.O.M.R. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1907. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff M.O.M.R.S.. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1908. Plaintiffs Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda, Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1909. To date, Plaintiffs Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda, Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1910. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda, Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ismail Adan Abdullahi 1911. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1912. On May 7, 2019, Ismail Adan Abdullahi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1913. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir visa case number 2020AF00005658. 1914. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
226

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 271 of 303
1915. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1916. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi had an interview on December 2, 2019, but then went to administrative processing until he could send his passport. He sent his passport, but then the embassy suspended operations and returned his passport.
1917. To date, Plaintiff has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications.
1918. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Zhanna Samsonenka 1919. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka is a native of Belarus and DV-2020 selectee. 1920. On May 7, 2019, Zhanna Samsonenka was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1921. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka visa case number 2020EU12220. 1922. On May 27, 2019, Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1923. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1924. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka had an appointment scheduled at the embassy but it was cancelled on March 13, 2020. 1925. To date, Plaintiff has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications.
227

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 272 of 303
1926. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka was scheduled for an interview on March 16, 2020. 1927. The adjudication of Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka’s immigrant visa applications is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir 1928. Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir is a native of Iraq and DV-2020 selectee. 1929. On May 7, 2019, Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1930. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir visa case number 2020AS00026655. 1931. Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1932. Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1933. To date, Plaintiff has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications. 1934. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Michel Divine Poundeu Happi
228

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 273 of 303
1935. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.
1936. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi derivative beneficiary was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1937. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi visa case number. 1938. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1939. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi has submitted all necessary documentation
for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1940. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi was scheduled for an interview on April
22, 2020. 1941. To date, Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi has not been rescheduled for an
interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1942. The adjudication of Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi’s immigrant visa
applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Gabriel Alexanru Stoita 1943. Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita is a native of Canada, a registered nurse where she practices in the respiratory unit recently treating Covid-19 patients, and DV-2020 selectee. 1944. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita is a native of Canada and spouse of Gabriel Alexanru Stoita.
229

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 274 of 303
1945. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1946. Plaintiff B.S. is a native of Canada and minor child of Gabriel Alexanru Stoita at the time of filing. B.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Gabriel Alexanru Stoita should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1947. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1948. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita visa case number 2020EU00019138.
1949. Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1950. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1951. Plaintiff B.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1952. Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1953. Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. were scheduled for an interview on April 1, 2020.
230

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 275 of 303
1954. To date, Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1955. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy 1956. Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy is a native of Egypy and DV-2020 selectee. 1957. Plaintiff Mohamed Hatem Swilam is a native of Egypt and spouse of Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1958. Plaintiff S.S. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy at the time of filing. S.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1959. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1960. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy visa case number 2020AF42201
231

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 276 of 303
1961. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1962. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Hatem Swilam submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1963. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff S.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1964. Plaintiffs Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy, Mohamed Hatem Swilam, and B.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1965. To date, Plaintiffs Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy, Mohamed Hatem Swilam, and S.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1966. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy, Mohamed Hatem Swilam, and S.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absi 1967. Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis a native of Yemen and DV-2020 selectee. 1968. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
232

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 277 of 303
1969. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absi visa case number 2020AS6833.
1970. Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1971. Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1972. To date, Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1973. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadari 1974. Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria native of Yemen and DV2020 selectee. 1975. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1976. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria case number 2020AS1534. 1977. Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
233

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 278 of 303
1978. Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1979. To date, Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1980. The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ferdows Jamali 1981. Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1982. Plaintiff Ali Mokhtarabadi is a native of Iran and spouse of Ferdows Jamali. Plaintiff Ali Mokhtarabadi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1983. Plaintiff A.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Ferdows Jamali at the time of filing. S.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ferdows Jamali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1984. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1985. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali visa case number 2020AS2018.
234

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 279 of 303
1986. Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1987. Plaintiff Ali Mokhtarabadi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1988. Plaintiff A.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1989. Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1990. Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. attended an interview. 1991. To date, Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. have not been
rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1992. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Khamiss Raji 1993. Plaintiff Khamiss Raji native of Morocco and DV-2020 selectee. 1994. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Khamiss Raji was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1995. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Khamiss Raji case number 2020AF33350.
235

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 280 of 303
1996. On June 9, 2019, Plaintiff Khamiss Raji submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1997. Plaintiff Khamiss Raji has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
1998. To date, Plaintiff Khamiss Raji has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1999. The adjudication of Plaintiff Khamiss Raji’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege 2000. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 2001. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2002. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege case number 2020AF26627. 2003. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2004. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 2005. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege was scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on March 31, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
236

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 281 of 303
2006. To date, Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2007. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sami Ben Ali Sahboun 2008. Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun is a native of Tunisia and DV-2020 selectee. 2009. Plaintiff Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach is a native of Tunisia and spouse of Sami Ben Ali Sahboun. Plaintiff Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 2010. Plaintiff Z.S. is a native of Tunisia and minor child of Sami Ben Ali Sahboun Rei Savenkov. Z.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sami Ben Ali Sahboun should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2011. On May 7, 2019, Sami Ben Ali Sahboun and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 2012. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun visa case number 2020AS00002402. 2013. Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
237

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 282 of 303
2014. Plaintiff Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2015. Plaintiff Z.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2016. Plaintiffs Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, and Z.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
2017. To date, Plaintiffs Sami Ben Ali Sahboun Rei Savenkov, Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, and Z.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2018. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Sami Ben Ali Sahboun Rei Savenkov, Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, and Z.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
DEFENDANTS 2019. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America. He is sued in his official capacity. 2020. Defendant Michael Pompeo is the Secretary of State for the United States of America. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he has the authority to issue regulations to implement the Diversity Visa Lottery Program. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 1154. He also prescribes the Visa Lottery fee, which is $330 per DV winner or derivative. C.F.R. § 42.33(h)(2)(i) He is sued in his official capacity.
238

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 283 of 303
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DIVERSITY VISA IMMIGRANT PROGRAM
2021. The Immigration Act of 1990 created a new immigration category, the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. to increase diversity in the U.S. immigrant population by providing 50,000 Diversity visas to nationals of countries that have had low immigration rates to the United States. Public Law 101-649; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)
2022. The congressionally mandated program issues visas specifically for immigrants who are citizens of countries from where fewer than 50,000 immigrants came to the United States over the previous five years.
2023. Each fiscal year, the Department grants approximately 50,000 diversity immigrant visas to individuals from countries underrepresented in the immigration process, which allow recipients who are granted admission to enter the country as lawful permanent residents who may live and work in the United States indefinitely. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(e), 1153(c)(1).
2024. Hopeful immigrants must submit entries during the application period. 2025. From those entries, the Department then chooses eligible selectees to apply for
immigrant visas. 2026. A diversity visa selectee is entitled to apply for an immigrant visa only during the
fiscal year for which the entry was submitted. See INA § 204(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). 2027. The diversity visa program is administered at the Department’s KCC. See 9 FAM
502.6-4(c)(1)(a). 2028. After their selection, selectee receives a first notifications letter informing the
selectee of their selection and visa number. Id.
239

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 284 of 303
2029. The visa number, assigned by the KCC, is an administrative device used by the State Department to ensure that it does not grant more than the statutorily allocated 50,000 visas per year.
2030. Selectees must then submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and various supporting documents. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(1)(a),(b).
2031. When a selectee submits the DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and supporting documentation, KCC considers the case documentarily qualified.
2032. Once the case is documentarily qualified, the Department must schedule the selectee for an immigrant visa interview at a United States Embassy or Consulate.
2033. The Foreign Affairs Manual and associated Handbooks (hereafter collectively referred to as the “FAM”) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM conveys codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive, and Department mandates.
2034. The FAM states that “KCC will schedule an appointment for a ‘documentarily qualified’ applicant when his or her regional lottery rank number is about to become current.” 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2) (emphasis added).
2035. Each month, the Department publishes a Diversity Visa Bulletin summarizing the availability of immigrant visas for diversity visa selectees.
240

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 285 of 303
2036. Selectees with current visas are entitled to an immigrant visa interview to make a formal application for an immigrant visa before a consular officer.
2037. All Plaintiffs have an available immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 program selection.
2038. The Department’s July 2020 Diversity Visa Bulletin demonstrates that all Plaintiffs have an available immigrant visa.

Visa Bulletin for July, Number 43, Volume X, Department of State, Washington, D.C.

available

at

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-

bulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-for-july-2020.html/.

2039. As of July 2020, immigrant visas were available to all Plaintiffs.

241

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 286 of 303
2040. Because the Department must schedule immigrant visa interviews for DV-2020 selectees when their application is about to be current, the Department also publishes the forthcoming months visa bulletin for DV-2020 selectees.
2041. The Department’s Visa Bulletin for July states that on August 1, 2020 all DV-2020 selections will be current and eligible for immigrant visa interviews.
Id. 2042. The entitlement requires the Department to schedule the selectee for a mandatory
immigrant interview at a US Embassy or Consulate to determine the selectee’s qualifications for the diversity visa and admissibility into the United States pursuant to the laws of the United States of America. 2043. At the time of the interview, the consular officer must issue or refuse the immigrant visa application. 2044. If the selectee is admissible to the United States, the consular officer “shall” issue the selectee an immigrant visa and may only refuse a visa “upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations.” See 22 C.F.R. § 40.6.
242

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 287 of 303 2045. Consular officers are prohibited from discriminating against any individual in the
issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s nationality, except as expressly authorized by Congress. See 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). 2046. Because the diversity visa program restarts each fiscal year, diversity visas may not be issued after midnight on September 30 of the fiscal year of the selection. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1)(d); see also 31 U.S.C. § 1102. 2047. If a selectee is not issued a visa prior to midnight on September 30 of the fiscal year of the selection, the selectee cannot be issued a visa based on his or her visa selection for that fiscal year. B. DIVERSITY VISA ANIMUS 2048. At 4:30 AM on November 1, 2017, President Donald J. Trump made clear on twitter his hostility towards the Diversity Visa Program.
243

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 288 of 303 2049. In a cabinet meeting later that day, the President stated that “I am today starting the
process of terminating the diversity lottery program.” Also stating, “Diversery [sic] and diversity lottery. Diversity lottery. Sounds nice. It's not nice. It's not good. It's not good. It hasn't been good. And we've been against it.”
Available at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926155393490878464). 244

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 289 of 303
2050. The next day, recognizing the President did not garner the legislative backing necessary to end the Congressionally mandated program, the President stated “We're being stopped by Democrats because they're obstructionists. And, honestly, they don't want to do what's right for our country. We need strength. We need resolve. We have to stop it. So, we're going to get rid of this lottery program as soon as possible.”
2051. On December 15, 2017, while speaking about the Diversity Visa Program the President stated "They give us their worst people, they put 'em in a bin," Trump continued, making a lifting gesture from an imaginary bin. He went on to say, "But in his hand when he's picking these people, it's really the worst of the worst. 'Congratulations, you're going to the United States.' What a system."
2052. It is unclear if the President was referring to career State Department officials at the KCC or foreign services officers at the United States Embassies and Consulates who place both their and their families lives at risk serving the citizens of the United States and enforcing our immigration laws in his statement on giving the United States the “worst of the worst.”
2053. On December 29, 2017, the President made clear in a tweet that “there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.”
2054. On January 4, 2018, the President tweeted “We must BUILD THE WALL, stop illegal immigration, end chain migration & cancel the visa lottery. The current system is unsafe & unfair to the great people of our country – time for change!” He repeated this sentiment in tweets on January 9, 11, 12, 16, and two more on February 6.
245

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 290 of 303 2055. On February 8, 2018, the President tweeted “Time to end the visa lottery. Congress
must secure the immigration system and protect Americans.”
2056. On February 10, 2018, the President again detailed his intention of ending the Diversity Visa Program, stating “My Administration has identified three major priorities for creating a safe, modern and lawful immigration system: fully securing the border, ending chain migration, and canceling the visa lottery.”
246

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 291 of 303
Available at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/962469767109009408. 2057. During the President’s 2018 State of the Union address, he reiterated his intention
to gut the Diversity Visa Program as part of his immigration overhaul. 2058. In tweets sent on February 15, May 26, June 15, July 29, and July 30, 2018, the
President continued to call for ending the DV Lottery program. 2059. In May of 2019, Trump unveiled an immigration proposal, drafted largely by the
president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Again, the President proposed to end the Diversity Visa Program. 2060. At a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2019, President Trump painted a wildly inaccurate picture to his supporters of how the diversity visa program works. 2061. The President stated, “And you pick people out of the lottery,” gesturing as if he were picking names out of a hat. “Well let’s see, this one is a murderer, this one robbed
247

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 292 of 303
four banks, this one I better not say, this one another murderer, ladies and gentlemen, another murderer.” 2062. The President also stated, “You think [countries] are going to put their great citizens [….] into the lottery? Look at the people they put into these lotteries.” 2063. Despite his tenacious twitter campaign, the President again failed to garner the legislative support for ending the Diversity Visa Program. 2064. The President’s longstanding animus towards the Diversity Visa Program, failed efforts to garner the Congressional support to end the Diversity Visa Program, and intent to unlawfully end the Congressional mandated program is the basis for the Defendant’s unlawful policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees. 2065. Defendants are now relying, in part, on the PP 10014 to circumvent the Immigration and Nationality Act and federal regulations protecting the Diversity Visa Program by unlawfully suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2066. Defendants policies, programs, and practices are a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act, federal regulations, and existing Department policies governing the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for Diversity Visa Program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. C. DEFENDANTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW AND SUSPENDED THE ADJUDICATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR DV-2020 SELECTEES
2067. The Department has implemented policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees.
248

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 293 of 303
2068. The graph below reflects the suspension of immigrant visa adjudication for the DV2020 through the end of May in comparison to the DV-2019, DV-2018, and DV-2017.
2069. The Department cannot rely on any statutory authority, presidential proclamations, or executive orders to support a lawful implementation of policies, procedures, and practices that suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for eligible DV2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2070. The Department has suspended adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries at the KCC pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices.
2071. The KCC has suspended assigning visa numbers to DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
2072. The KCC has suspended transferring documentarily complete immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to 249

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 294 of 303
the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2073. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended conducting immigrant visa interviews for immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees pursuant to Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2074. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended accepting evidence in support of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2075. United States Embassies and Consulates have ended conducting security checks for immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2076. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended all adjudications for already interviewed immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
250

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 295 of 303
2077. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries will not restart adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees before October 1, 2020 effectively ending the DV-2020 program and their derivative beneficiaries.
D. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY RELY ON PP 10014 TO SUSPEND THE ADJUDICATION AND ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS FOR DV-2020 PROGRAM SELECTEES AND THEIR DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES. 2078. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries relies in part on PP 10014. 2079. The Department has adopted policies, procedures, and practices directing the KCC, United States Embassies and Consulates, and consular officers to suspend immigrant visas adjudications prior to a final decision to issue or refuse those immigrant visa applications pursuant to PP 10014. 2080. PP 10014 mandates that consular officers “shall determine, in his or her discretion, whether an immigrant has established his or her eligibility for an exception” to the proclamation. 2081. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices preclude consular officers from determining whether PP 10014 is applicable to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2082. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries conflate the PP 10014 suspension of entry with a ban on visa issuance.
251

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 296 of 303
2083. PP 10014 does not preclude the issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2084. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa adjudications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries violate statutes and regulations requiring the issuance of immigrant visas to diversity visa lottery winners who are statutorily eligible.
2085. The Department has failed to adhere to and has implemented policies and procedures in contrary to PP 10014. CAUSES OF ACTION First Claim for Relief Agency Action That is Arbitrary and Capricious, An Abuse of Discretion, and Otherwise Not in Accordance with Law in Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
2086. Plaintiffs reallege the forgoing allegation as if set forth fully herein. 2087. The Department is an agency subject to the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (hereafter referred to as the “APA”). 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1). 2088. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), courts shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action
that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; or without observance of procedure required by law. 2089. The implementation of the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitutes a final agency action that is reviewable by this Court.
252

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 297 of 303
2090. The policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law because the Defendant lacked the statutory authority to unilaterally suspend the adjudications of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2091. The policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries strips the Congressionally mandated entitlements of DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries and it does so by rewriting the immigration laws and contradicting the priorities adopted by Congress.
2092. Defendant also disregarded the serious reliance interests engendered by the DV2020 program. Defendants must, in addition to demonstrating that there are good reasons for the new policy, offer “a reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).
2093. Plaintiffs were harmed and continued to be harmed by these unlawful acts. Second Claim for Relief
Agency Action Without Observance of Procedure Required by Law In Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)
2094. Plaintiffs reallege the forgoing allegation as if set forth fully herein. 2095. The APA requires administrative agencies to follow notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures to promulgate substantive rules. 5 U.S.C. § 553. 2096. The Administrative Procedures Act defines “rule” broadly to include “the whole or
part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed
253

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 298 of 303
to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). 2097. The Department promulgated and relied upon the policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries without authority and without notice-andcomment rulemaking. It is therefore unlawful. 2098. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitutes a substantive rule subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. 2099. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitute a substantive rule because it affirmatively circumscribes the Department’s Congressional mandate and nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate and issue decisions for immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees. 2100. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitute a substantive rule because it is a categorical rule, which applies to all DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2101. In implementing the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for the DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative
254

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 299 of 303
beneficiaries, Defendant impermissibly announced a new rule without undertaking noticeand-comment rulemaking. 2102. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
Third Claim Agency Action Not Concluded Within a Reasonable Time 5 U.S.C. § 555(b)
2103. Pursuant to the APA, the Defendant has a nondiscretionary duty “to conclude a matter presented to it” “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b),
2104. The Department has failed to adjudicate the immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries within a reasonable time.
2105. The Department has implemented policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries since at least March 2020 – six months before the statutory conclusion of the DV-2020 program.
2106. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries is a final agency action. It is the consummation to the Department’s agency on this matter.
2107. The Department has nothing further to do to issue directions to its employees at the KCC or its consular officers at US Embassies and Consulates around the world regarding suspending adjudications of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2108. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudications for and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees w and their derivative beneficiaries ill have legal consequences.
255

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 300 of 303
2109. The Department will continue to refuse to adjudicate and issue immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries through September 30, 2020, effectively ending the DV-2020 program.
2110. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices directing employees at the KCC and the US Embassies and Consulates around the world to end the DV-2020 program are not authorized by any governing law, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of law.
2111. Defendant administers the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the DV-2020 program.
2112. Pursuant to the APA, a court may compel agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
2113. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts. Fifth Claim
Violation of the Take Care Clause, Art. II, § 3, Cl. 5 2114. Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein. 2115. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices violates the President’s
constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II § 3, cl. 5. 2116. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Take Care Clause is judicially enforceable against presidential invocations of dispensing power. See, e.g., Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524m 612-13(1838); Angelus Milling CO. v. Comm’r Of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 293, 296 (1945). 2117. The Take Care Clause limits the Presidents power and ensures that he will faithfully execute the Congress’s laws – no rewrite them under the guise of executive “discretion.”
256

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 301 of 303
2118. In this case, the President has taken action to end the law and its mandated administration Diversity Visa Program by suspending the Department’s adjudication and issuance of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees.
2119. The Defendant cannot faithfully execute the law by directly contravening Congress’s objectives.
2120. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts. RELIEF REQUESTED
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries; B. Declare Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendant to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries void and without legal force or effect; C. Declare that the Defendants’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706; D. Declare the Defendants’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are in violation of the Constitution and contrary to the laws of the United States;
257

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 302 of 303
E. Preliminarily enjoin and restrain the Defendants to hold diversity visa numbers to process and issue Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications in the event the Court finds the Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to be unlawful;
F. Preliminarily enjoin and restrain the Defendants to hold diversity visa numbers beyond September 30, 2020 to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa application in the event the Court finds the Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to be unlawful;
G. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants, the Department, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from implementing or enforcing the Departments’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other action taken by Defendants to indefinitely suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees that is not in compliance with applicable law;
H. Retain jurisdiction over this action to monitor and enforce Defendants’ compliance with all orders of this Court;
I. Award Plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other applicable law; and
J. Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. // // // //
258

Case 1:20-cv-01856 Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 303 of 303
// // Dated: July 9, 2020
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Curtis Lee Morrison Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application forthcoming
259

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 308

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DRS. MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDULBAGI MOHAMMED, ITIDAL MOHAMMEDSALIH TAGELSIR MAHJOUB, R.M.A.A. (A MINOR), A.M.A.A. (A MINOR), J.M.A.A. (A MINOR),
ALNOOR STREER 807 KHARTOUM SUDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
INNA ISHCHENKO, V YURII ISHCHENKO, E. I.,
57 KOROLENKO ST. APT. 25, BROVARY, KIEV REGION, 07400 UKRAINE

Case No. 20-cv-1856
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

PLAINTIFF(S),

PAWEL MIECZKOWSKI,

51 AYR RD., LANARK ML11 0SF UK

PLAINTIFF(S),

FARID KURBANOV,

SDT RAZLIV 18YA DOROZHKA 10A, ST. PETERSBURG, 197701 RUSSIA

PLAINTIFF(S),

GRAEME JOHN WARD,

960 THORN VALLEY ESTATE, 12 ROME AVENUE, GREENSTONE HILL

i

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 308
JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG, 1609 SOUTH AFRICA
PLAINTIFF(S),
DMITRII PAVLOVICH VELIKII, NINA KONSTANTINOVNA, M.D.V. (A MINOR),
MOLODEZHNAYA 12, APT. 91, DOLGOPRUDNY, 141707 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARCO PALANO,
VIA HONTE GRAPPA, APT. 4, HENAGGIO, COHO, 22017 ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARC CYRUS,
9595 ERICKSON DR, APT 1003, BURNABY BC V3J 7N9 CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RADU SEBE, MIRABELA MARIA SEBE,
STR. CLUJ, NR. 81, SC. 3, ET. 5, AP. 94, 011492, BUCHAREST, ROMANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
NASSIM BOUNOUA, NARIMANE FLICI, N.B. (A MINOR),
136 COP ELOMRANE BEAUSEJOUR, BOUZAREAH, ALGIERS 16340, ALGERIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 308
RAFIK BABACI, DR. YASMIN SEGHIER, A.M.B. (A MINOR),
46 COOP ERRAHMA DELY IBRAHIM, ALGIERS, 16320 ALGERIA PLAINTIFF(S), ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL RAHEEM M AYASH, ALBAWADI, JEDDAH, MAKKAH, 23531, SAUDI ARABIA PLAINTIFF(S), IGOR SHCHEGLOVITOV ELENA KADUSHKINA LENINGRADSKOE SH. 52, KV 223 MOSCOW 125212, RUSSIAN FEDERATION PLAINTIFF(S), KARINA OLEGOVNA SMITCHENKO, SERGEY VALERIEVICH DUNANOV, 1 RABFAKOVSKIY PER. 3 AP. 244 SAINT-PETERSBURG, 192012 RUSSIA PLAINTIFF(S), MARYAM MALEKZADEH, RASHAD RASHIDIAN, N.R. (A MINOR) UNIT 3, 3TH FLOOR, EAST 13, GOODARZI ST, SARVE AZAD, CHITGAR, TEHRAN, IRAN PLAINTIFF(S),
iii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 308
IREM GÜZEL, EREN GÜZEL,
EMEK MH. ORDUCD.KENTLIFE ST. H080, B12, NO.17, SANCAKTEPE, ISTANBUL, 34785, TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
ELHAM NIKJOUY TABRIZI, SOHRAB DAVARI CHEKAN,
NEW CITY, BUILDING 1, ENTRANCE 4, 2TH FLOOR, NO.58, DOOR NO.202, TBILISI, VARKETILI, HUALING GEORGIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
FABIEN RENE MICHEL PAROUTAUD SILVINA NANCY ASURMENDI, N.P. (A MINOR)
408285 AV. LAURIER EAST, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, H2T 3E7, CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
DR. TAL DROR,
HAHARUV RD. 11, GINATON, 7311000 ISRAEL
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHRISTELLE VIRGINIE AUDE MEDA
3ÈÙE ÉTAGE GAUCHE 3 RUE DU 4 SEPTEMBRE 93200 SAINT DENIS FRANCE
PLAINTIFF(S),
iv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 308
AKERKE URANGALIYEVA, HOANG ANH NGUYEN, R.N. (A MINOR),
10B, SAURAN STREET, APT 108, NUR-SULTAN, Z05T3G1 KAZAKHSTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
YUEN TING XENIA WONG, LAHIRU THILNA SAMARAKOON,
FLAT 4, 31/F, BLOCK C, NEW KWAI FONG GARDENS, 16 KWAI YI ROAD, KWAI CHUNG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
AINSLEA ANNE MADDISON CRAIN,
44 NELLINGS PLACE BRISBANE, QLD., 4034 AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
DAVID NATHAN TODMAN, CHLOE LEE TODMAN,
163 CHARLES ST SEDDON VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3011
PLAINTIFF(S),
DOBRIN GANCHEV GANEV, INEZ RADULOV, I.G. (A MINOR), O.G. (A MINOR)
90 SHERWOOD RD., CALGARY, AB, ALBERTA, T3RON8 CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
v

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 308
FRANCESCA SCORTI, SEBASTIANO MIDULLA, F.M (A MINOR),
VIA DEI GIGLI 35, OLGIATE OLONA, VARESE 21057 PLAINTIFF(S), MARIIA PISHKOVA, VADIM PISHKOV, 28-A LYZHNAYA STREET, TOKSOVO, LENINGRAD OBLAST RUSSIA, 188664 PLAINTIFF(S), SANTOSH KUMAR SAH, #15, KALPAVRUKSHA, SARJAPUR ROAD, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA INDIA-560103 PLAINTIFF(S), KRISTINA HOXHA, BESAR HOXHA, RR. 5 MAJ, ND 44, H 34 AP 7, 1012, TIRANA, ALBANIA, PLAINTIFF(S), AMIN BANIASADI ZAREE, SADAF ZAHEDI, A.B.Z. 1 (A MINOR), A.B.Z. 2 (A MINOR) NO 29 ABOTHAR 27 ALLEY, RAFSANJAN, KERMAN 35661, IRAN PLAINTIFF(S), WEN CHI HUANG, YUNG CHOU CHANG, P.Y.C. (A MINOR), J.Y.C. (A MINOR), 17F-1, NO.849, NANPING ROAD, GUSHAN DIST. KAOHSIUNG,
vi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 308
TAIWAN 80453 PLAINTIFF(S), SHIRLEY JOY LINDA
JOURI ANAS BUILDING NO. 23, STREET NO 920, ZIP 00000 DOHA, QATAR PLAINTIFF(S), IBRAHIM GOKHAN DOGAR, POLEN HAZEL DOGAR, A.D. (A MINOR) INCEK MAH 1061 KUME EVLERI T3-4 NO 25/29 KAT 5 ANKARA, GOLBASI 06830 TURKEY PLAINTIFF(S), VITALI KOROLEV 8 MIRA STREET, APT 71, NOVOKUZNETSK CITY, KEMEROVSKAYA OBLAST, RUSSIA 654054 PLAINTIFF(S), MICHAL SZYMCZAK, MONIKA PUL, 11 THE WILLOWS, 1025 HIGH ROAD, N20 0QE LONDON, ENGLAND PLAINTIFF(S), DIEGO BARCO CUERPO, 249 E 48TH ST 2F NEW YORK, NY 10017 PLAINTIFF(S), VALERIO PAGLIAROLI, ANNA CALICCHIA, VIA AONIO PALEARIO, 87,
vii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 308
VEROLI, FR, ITALY, 03029
PLAINTIFF(S),
NATALIA PAKULSKAIA, PETR PAKULSKII,
ULITSA ZATSEPSKIY VAL 4 KV 59, 115 054 RUSSIAN FEDERATION MOSCOW
PLAINTIFF(S),
TIAGO VAZ DUARTE SOARES,
ALAMEDA ANTÓNIO SÉRGIO 80 2, LINDA A VELHA LISBON, PORTUGAL, 2795-022,
PLAINTIFF(S),
TATIANA PETROSYAN-MKERVALI DAVID PETROSIAN-MKERVALI, I.P.M (A MINOR),
VIA ORELLI 8, BERGAMO BG 24128, ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
PERE CERVERO GREGORI,
CALLE BENICANENA 50, 1-1. GANDÍA (VALENCIA), 46702 ESPAÑA
PLAINTIFF(S),
HICHEM KRIAA, RADHIA BARHOUMI EP KRIAA,
ROAD KHELIFA KAROUI_RESIDENCE ANISSA_BLOC A_ FLOOR 3_APPARTMENT A3-1, SOUSSE, SAHLOUL 3, 4054 TUNISIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHANAD NADER FUAD BATARSEH,
viii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 9 of 308
AL YADOUDEH- PHARMACISTS HOUSING, NEAR ALI MANGO STREET- BLDG 11, AMMAN, JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MICHAEL MATTHEW CAMILLERI,
8 MARY, MILNER STREET, SLIEMA, MALTA, EUROPE, SLM 1727
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHEREEN ELSAID REZK ABDELAZIZ NAWARA, AHMED SOROUR AHMED AHMED, N.A.S.A.A. (A MINOR), A.A.S.A.A. (A MINOR),
AL SENIYAH ST., HOUSE 4 B, UMM AL QUWAIN, UMM AL QUWAIN U.A.E.
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHIARA ALUNNI RICCI, MARCO PENCHINI,
VIALE PERUGIA 18 MAGIONE (PG), 06063 ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHAHPOUR SAFAEI SEMNANI, HOMA SAFFARAN,
NO 3 EBNE SINA BLVD, ERAM BLVD, MEHRSHAHR, ALBORZ, IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
HABTAMU SISAY EYASU, BETELHAM CHALA, A.H.S. (A MINOR), M.H.S. (A MINOR),
ADDIS KETEMA SUB CITY, WEREDA 8,H.N 717
ix

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 10 of 308
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARINA UTKINA, ANDREI UTKIN,
LAZO STREET 15/1-49, PRYMORSKYI KRAI ARTEM-CITY RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
SEMA AYDIN, TANER AYDIN,
TAHTAKALE MAHALLESI AVRUPA KONUTLARI 3, NO 4 8 4B BLOK DAIRE 55 ISPARTAKULE, AVCILAR, ISTANBUL TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARIIA RELITSKA, VIKTOR RELITSKYI, N.R. (A MINOR),
MARSHALA MALINOVSKOGO STR 4V, 243 APT, KYIV, UKRAINE
PLAINTIFF(S),
ILONA SUSSNER, LAURENZ ALOYSIUS TENHUMBERG, J.S. (A MINOR),
BAHNPOSTEN 5, 52388 NOERVENICH GERMANY
PLAINTIFF(S),
INA BITRI, PERSID QALLIU, K.Q. (A MINOR)
RRUGA RIZA KAPOSHI, LAGJJA KADRI QYSTRI LUSHNJE, ALBANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
x

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 11 of 308
MOZHGAN KARIMIAN KHORRAM, AMIR ELAYSI, B.E. (A MINOR),
UNIT 1422 ,14TH FLOOR , ARMAN TOWER 22 BAHMAN ST, ASHRAFI ESFAHANI BLVD TEHRAN , TEHRAN 1467864581 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
DR. MOHAMMED AWAD MOHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDEEN, HAGAR YOUSSEF AHMED SAKR, K.M.A.M.A. (A MINOR), A.M.A.M.A. (A MINOR), A.M.A.A. (A MINOR), H.M.A.M.I.A. (A MINOR),
3 DE HAVILLAND WALK, CHATHAM, KENT UK. ME46H
PLAINTIFF(S),
LIUDMILA KAIUMOVA, L.K. (A MINOR),
ULITSA MIRA, 140-46 TOLYATTI, SAMARSKAYA 445035 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
VELI BOZAN, FATMA BOZAN, Z.N.B. (A MINOR), I.A.B. (A MINOR)
SAHIN CD YUNUSEMRE SK NO 20 D 9 34315 AVCILAR-ISTANBUL TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
DR. SHOROQ QASEM SHATNAWI, ODAY ALI HUSSEN BANI AHMAD, A.O.A.B.A. (A MINOR)
VILLA 6, ALMAHABBAH ST., ALKHALIDIYAH, ABU DHABI UAE
xi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 12 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
KONSTANTIN SHABALIN, ANASTASIA MALTSEVA,
PERERVA 52, APT 87, POSTAL CODE 109341, MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALAA R D HABEEB , HEBAH H. H. HABEEB, R.A.R.H. (A MINOR), M.A.R.H. (A MINOR), J.A.R.H. (A MINOR), A.A.R.H (A MINOR), Q.A.R.H. (A MINOR),
AL-SAMER 21452 JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AYMEN BEN YOUSSEF, MIRIAM OUERGHI, Y.B.Y. (A MINOR), M.B.Y. (A MINOR),
ZONE 61 STREET 875 BUILDING 20, 4TH FLOOR AL FAISAL TOWER WESTBAY, 22188 DOHA, QATAR
PLAINTIFF(S),
GIORGI TSIKARISHVILI
GLDANI/3DISTRICT/FLAT.14, BUILDING.88 TBILISI, GE 0167 GEORGIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RIZIKI BLANDINE BIKALI, ROBERT BYAMUNGU BURAGA, N.A.B. (A MINOR), D.N.B. (A MINOR), J.I.B. (A MINOR),
177, AVENUE MAKANZA QUARTIER 24 NOVEMBRE, COMMUNNE NGIRINGIRI VILLE/PROVINCE DE KINSHASA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
xii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 13 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
ZELJONA SHAHINAS,
VIA XX SEPTEMBRE 73 VERONA, 37123 VERONA, ITALY
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAL KUMAR ADHIKARI,
WARD 4, PRAGATI TOLE DHUMBARAHI, KATHMANDU NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
OSAMA SAID AHMED AL-NAJJAR, MAIS NAWAF ALI S AL MOMANI, SO.S.J. (A MINOR), N.O.S.J. (A MINOR), A.O.S.N. (A MINOR),
5 ABU AL-ATAHEYA ST. AMMAN, JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHI WAI CHEUNG, SUK KEI KU, O.Y.C. (A MINOR), Y.M.C. (A MINOR),
ROOM26, 4/F, MAN KING BUILDING 26 MAN WUI STREET, FERRY POINT, JORDAN HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
NICOLE MELINDA STEPAN,
12/22-28 WELLINGTON STREET BONDI NSW 2026, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
IAROSLAV KULAGIN,
xiii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 14 of 308
4 ILINSKOE SHOSSE APP 22 KRASNOGORSK MOSCOW REGION RUSSIA 143405 PLAINTIFF(S), MINA MAGDY MICHEL MORCOS, IRENY MOUNIR SAAD YOUSSEF, 7 HAMID BASHA FAHMY ST, HELIOPOLIS, CAIRO EGYPT PLAINTIFF(S), TIZIANO MAMMANA, ANGELA DE CRISTOFARO, 1005 - 1960 ALBERNI ST VANCOUVER, BC V6G 1B4 PLAINTIFF(S), ORNELA FEZA, RR. VENECIANE 50, KENETE, 2007 DURRES, ALBANIA PLAINTIFF(S), MIKITA VARONIN, TOMSKIY LANE 35, APT. 65 MINSK, 220137 BELARUS PLAINTIFF(S), MONIKA OZLEVI, EROL OZLEVI D.O. (A MINOR), S.K.O. (A MINOR), MUSTAFA IZZET EFENDI SOK. MEDIKO 1 SITE A14 D8, BALMUMCU BESIKTAS ISTANBUL, TURKEY
xiv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 15 of 308
DR. ASHRAF AHMED FATHI FAHMI MOHAMED, AMANY MOHAMED MOUSSA ABDELLATIF TAHON, F.F.A.F.F.M. (A MINOR)
7083 MAHMUD AL HALI, AL MALAZ DISTRICT RIYADH, AR RIYADH 12629 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
YASSER AHMED ELNOUR MOHAMED ZAID, DOAA MOHAMED ALI MOHAMED ALI, R.Y.A.E.M.Z. (A MINOR), M.Y.A.E.M.Z. (A MINOR),
IMAM FAISAL BIN TURKEY STREET, OM SELIM DISTRICT, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
GERGANA KOSTOVA IVANOVA, GEORGI NIKOLOV IVANOV, G.A.I. (A MINOR), B.G.I. (A MINOR),
37 MORDEN ROAD, MITCHAM, SURREY, CR4 4DE UK
PLAINTIFF(S),
SERGEY BELOUSOV,
LADOZHSKAYA STR. 8-52 POST CODE- 105005 MOSCOW, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
YAT LUNG CHU, NGAN CHING YU, C.H.C. (A MINOR),
FLAT C, 8/F, BLOCK 1, KENSWOOD COURT, KINGSWOOD VILLAS, TIN SHUI WAI, HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
xv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 16 of 308
IVI HAXHAJ, ANISA LILA,
HENRIK LACAJ, BLDG 2 FLR 3 APT 4 , CITY TIRANE, ALBANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
BEHRANG GHABCHI,
KAZIMDIREK MAH. SANAYI CAD. NO.31 B. BLOK NO.622 MYVIA 414 BORNOVA IZMIR TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
VISAR MUSLIU, ARTA SEJDIU MUSLIU,M.M. (A MINOR), E.M. (A MINOR),
STR.NAK BERISHA NR.9, PRISTINA, 10000 KOSOVO
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARYAM HASSAN ALI SULIMAN, MOHAMED ALI MOHAMED FARAH, M.M.A.M. (A MINOR),
PO BOX 1093, POST CODE 211, AL-WADI, AL-MARHOON VILLA COMPLEX, VILLA NO. EAST 3, SALALAH, SULTANATE OF OMAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMED ALLY MSABAHA, A.M.M. (A MINOR),
MUHEZA STREET 14, KARIAKOO, DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
xvi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 17 of 308
ARI ADIL KADIR
BADINAN 58, 16, SULAYMANEYAH, AL SULAYMANEYAH, IRAQ 46001
PLAINTIFF(S),
UMMAN ORUJOVA (HUSEYNLI), ZAUR ORUJOV K.O. (A MINOR)
KHATAI DISTRICT, S..A.SHIRVANI STR. 23/19 , AP.81 BAKU CITY, AZERBAIJAN AZ1142
PLAINTIFF(S),
ISABELLA RACHEL JUDITH KEARNEY-NURSE
125 BRIDGE ROAD, GLEBE, 2037 SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ENAS FATHY AHMED EISSA, KHALED ELGHANDOUR, S.E., M.E.
UNIT 127, BUILDING 19, STREET 755, ZONE 51 DOHA, QATAR
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLEG SOROKIN, SVETLANA SOROKINA, V.S. (A MINOR), D.S. (A MINOR), I.S. (A MINOR),
25 OREKHOVAYA STREET, TYUMEN, TYUMENSKAYA OBL, 625043 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AHMET ER,
7 OCEANVIEW ROAD MOUNT MAUNGANUI, TAURANGA 3116
xvii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 18 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
ZAHEERUDDIN NAEABKHAIL TAMANNA NAEBKHAIL, B.N. (A MINOR), S.N. (A MINOR)
APARTMENT 16, BLOCK C-49, SHAHRAK ARIA, DISTRICT 10, KABUL AFGHANISTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMAD MUJALLI MOHAMMAD ABUJABER NOOR NIMER MOHAMMAD, Z.M.M.A. (A MINOR)
FLAT 03, BUILDING 785 MOHAMMAD SHATTA STREET AL NAEEM DISTRICT, JEDDAH SAUDI ARABIA 21435
PLAINTIFF(S),
KHALIL YEHYA AL HARIRI, REINE OUDAY ASSAAD, Y.K.A. (A MINOR), R.J.A.H. (A MINOR)
SARI STREET, SARI PALMS VILLA 26, JEDDAH 21248 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANASTASIA VICTOROVNA VEDENINA, ALEXANDER YEVGENYEVICH KORNEEV, P.A.K. (A MINOR),
POTAPOVSKY LANE, 9/11, APT.6 MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION 101000
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLEG POTANIN, OXANA POTANINA,
344112, APT.14, 6/3 NOVOLESNAIA STR. ROSTOV-NA-DONU, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
xviii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 19 of 308
MOHAMMAD HAMMAD ABED ABUZNEIMAH,
RAS ALKHAIMAH ALMUNTASIR ST FAB BUILDING
PLAINTIFF(S),
FATHI MUFTAH M EJGANDI, ALAA SALEH ALI AJAJ, M.F.E. (A MINOR)
SALAH EDDIN TRIPOLI, LIBYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RAZMIK MKRTCHYAN, ANAHIT TOROSYAN, D.M. (A MINOR),
TUMANYAN 5/3, APT 11 NOR HACHN, KOTAYK ARMENIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
SIN YI VENUS LO, S.W.S.T. (A MINOR),
FLAT 702, BLOCK B, THE DAHFULDY 21 HO MAN TIN HILL ROAD, HO MAN TIN HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
MAHSA TAGHI ZADEH
52 ALF NEELY WAY, NEWMARKET, L3Y 0C6 ONTARIO, CANADA
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAWRENCE SAMUEL SIVA, YUEHUA PAN,
1D GREEN LANE SINGAPORE 438890 SINGAPORE
xix

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 20 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S), NASSIM BOUKRAA,
21 STREET PIERRE JOSEPH PROUDHON 69100 VILLEURBANNE, FRANCE PLAINTIFF(S), JANAYA LEE NELSON, PO BOX 62, WINDANG, NEW SOUTH WALES, 2528 AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF(S), FARSHAD HESAMI, FATEMEH AHMADZADEHLAYEGHLASHEH 6TH FLOOR,ELYSIUM TOWER, KUHSAR ST, TEHRAN, SHAHRAN SQ, TEHRAN, 148883619 IRAN PLAINTIFF(S), NIKOLETTA LATOS SZEDRESKERTI LAKÓNEGYED 18. 3/1. 8000 SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR HUNGARY PLAINTIFF(S), SANDOR MAJOR, AGNES IDA HUSZTI, HUNGARY, 1101 BUDAPEST, SALGOTARJANI UTCA 16/C PLAINTIFF(S), PETER MATTHIAS SCHULZ, WIESENDAMM 55 A 22305 HAMBURG
xx

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 21 of 308
GERMANY
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALEKSANDAR DORDEVIC, MARIJA DORDEVIC,
BOLNICKA 44, 23000 ZRENJANIN SERBIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ESRAA NABIL ALI MOHAMED, AHMED HATEM AHMED MOHAMED, O.A.H.M.,
SHIHAB IBN MALIK STREET JAREER DISTRICT-RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA 12836
PLAINTIFF(S),
EDOUARD DOUGLAS CHARLES DE RIEDMATTEN VALENTINE LOUISE MARIE HERMANCE BERREUR
34 RUE PERRONET NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE 92200 FRANCE
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHIRIN HASHEMIAN,
JAFARI STREET DAREHSHAHR, ILAM, 6961714554 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MANAL SALAH GHARZEDDINE, FADEL WAHAB ZAHREDDINE, A.F.Z. (A MINOR), A.F.Z. (A MINOR), T.F.Z. (A MINOR),
MAIN STREET KFARFAKOUDEL SHOUF LEBANON
xxi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 22 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHAHIN SALIMBAYOV,
AZERBAIJAN, BAKU, SABUNCHI REGION, ZABRAT 2 DISTRICT, TRAMVAY STREET #7A
PLAINTIFF(S),
ASKAR ALIYEV, A.J., (A MINOR), A.A. (A MINOR) , A.A. (A MINOR),
24A SULEYMENOVA STR. APT.56
PLAINTIFF(S),
NOURREDINE NASRI,
CALLE POETA CARMELO CALVO 14, 4 ALICANTE 03004 SPAIN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABBAS VAHDATI PANAH,
NO35 BAHARESTAL 1ST STREET, KHORASAN RAZAVI MASHHAD, IRAN, 91877444
PLAINTIFF(S),
NADEEKA CHANDANI EKANAYAKE EKANAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE, MAHESH INDRAJITH VITHARANA PATHIRANA, V.M.V.P (A MINOR) ,
184/C/4/01 WEBODA SOUTH WEBODA, WESTERN PROVINCE, 11858 SRI LANKA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AGUSTIN SASTRE PEREZ MIREN ELIXABETE UGALDE IBERO
xxii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 23 of 308
C/ ARETXAGA 8, 5 IZQ BILBAO, 48003, BIZKAIA, SPAIN
PLAINTIFF(S),
AHMED SOBHY ELSEBAIE MOHAMED SOLIMAN,
16 EL QUDS ST, HADAYEK EL KOBBA, 11331 CAIRO, EGYPT.
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANU REGMI,
4-AFALDOLE, DHOBIGHAT PATAN, LALITPUR NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
VAIDAS BUDRYS, KAROLINA BUDRE,
SAULETEKIO ST 49 VILNIUS, LITHUANIA, 10228
PLAINTIFF(S),
VITALII SAMSONENKO, ZHANNA SYRAEVA, V.S. (A MINOR),
65 WILGENSTRAAT HAARLEM, NORTH HOLLAND, 2023 NN NETHERLANDS
PLAINTIFF(S),
RUBEN SANCHEZ APARICIO,
PASEO DE LA CHOPERA 329, 3A, ALCOBENDAS, MADRID SPAIN
PLAINTIFF(S),
REENU MAHAT,
xxiii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 24 of 308
KATHMANDU, NAGARJUN, SYUCHATAR NEPAL PLAINTIFF(S), DR. MINA REMON EL SHAHAT TAWFEK, 23 ST MOKWKS MIT GHAMR, ELDAKAHLIA EGYPT PLAINTIFF(S), DAVID PRAKASH MUKHIYA, NAYA NAIKAP, KATHMANDU, BAGMATI, ,44600 NEPAL PLAINTIFF(S), DHIAEDDINE KARA, CITY 338 N APT 76 BOUIRA, BOUIRA, ALGERIA, 10 000 PLAINTIFF(S), JEEVAN POUDEL, SUJYANA KARKI, DUWAKDT-1, BHAKTAPUR, 44800 PROVINCE-3 NEPAL PLAINTIFF(S), RAEFA SUFIAN IBRAHIM GHANAYEM, AHMAD S D SALAMA, 10828 GREEN MOUNTAIN CIRCLE COLUMBIA, MD 21044 PLAINTIFF(S),
xxiv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 25 of 308
MALINDA PRASAD RATHNAYAKE RATHNAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE,
GEMUNU PLACE, ALUTH MALKADUWAWA, NO. 162, KURUNEGALA, 60000, NORTH WESTERN, SRI LANKA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANONG SAENGRIT, JARUS SOONTORNSING, T.S. (A MINOR),
14 SOI SAI NAM PHUENG, SIRI MANGKALAJARN RD., TAMBON SU THEP, MUEANG CHIANG MAI, CHIANG MAI, 50200 THAILAND
PLAINTIFF(S),
AMMAR S ASHRAF HASHEMI,
UTHMAN AL AKBARI ST RIYADH, RIYADH 12832 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ELITSA STOYANOVA YORDANOVA SPASOVA, VALENTIN BOGDANOV SPASOV,
BULGARIA, TOWN OF PERNIK, P.C.2304, 5, LENINSKI PROSPEKT STR., ENTR. A, APP. 9
PLAINTIFF(S),
BIJOUX YVETTE NSANG TITABONG, KOME IVO EJELLE, M.P.D.K. (A MINOR), B.L.F.K. (A MINOR), E.P.C.K. (A MINOR),
CARREFOUR TASI, BEPELLE BLOCK 5 NDOBO - BONABERI, DOUALA CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
xxv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 26 of 308
ISSA BOUBACAR HASSANE, RUTH IBRAHIM YAHAYA, L.N.B.H. (A MINOR CHILD), S.I.B. (A MINOR CHILD),
BOULEVARD DE LA LIBERTÉ, PO BOX 13804 NIAMEY, NIGER
PLAINTIFF(S),
JEN-CHIEH CHANG, YIJUE ZHANG,
46 WALKER ST., UNIT 1101, RHODES, NSW, 2138 AUSTRALIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
HLEB LITVINOV,
YUBILEYNIY 42, APT. 125 KHARKIV, UKRAINE
PLAINTIFF(S),
MARINA OPOLSKAIA, ANATOLII OPOLSKII,
16/10 PROFSOUZNAIA STREET, APT 55 MOSCOW, RUSSIA 117292
PLAINTIFF(S),
TSZ HIM FONG,
ROOM 1918, WAH PING HOUSE LONG PING ESTATE, YUEN LONG, N.T. HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
IRYNA MOLOKOPOI, SERHII RYZHOV, M.R. (A MINOR),
APP.189 STR. 30-13 RAKHMANINOVA, KYIV 03164 UKRAINE
xxvi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 27 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
BIJAYANDRA BASTOLA,
DO CHA MARG, MAHARAJGUNJ, KATHMANDU, NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
CHUNG TING AMY LEUNG, HON CHOR LEE, W.Y.L. (A MINOR), C.H.L. (A MINOR),
FLAT G, 15/F, BLOCK 2, SITE 9, WHAMPOA GARDEN, HUNG HOM HONG KONG
PLAINTIFF(S),
VADIM GONTARI, D.G. (A MINOR CHILD),
62 PANDURILOR STREET APARTMENT 40, CHISINAU, MD-2015, MOLDOVA REPUBLIC
PLAINTIFF(S),
DUAA ABDULRAHMAN H ALGHAMDI,
8113 AQBAH IBN KUDAYIM ST., APT. 3 AZ ZAHRA DISTRICT, JEDDAH 23522 MAKKAH PROVINCE SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHSEN SALEHKERMANI,
UNIT 3, NO. 3, KHORDAD ALLEY MIRESMAEILI AV, DARAKEH ST. TEHRAN 1984155361 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ MENDOZA, ZURAYMIS PEREZ VILCHES,
xxvii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 28 of 308
CATANZARO Y BOLONIA, LA MILAGROSA BARRIO SAN FRANCISCO, MALDONADO URUGUAY
PLAINTIFF(S),
TEMESGEN HUNIE GELAW, YIDENEKU ABINEH YITAYEW,
DEJEN, AMHARA, ETHIOPIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
EDVARD MATTIAS STEFAN GEZIN, JULIENE MIDORI FUJIMOTO,
ÄRTHOLMSVÄGEN 206 21620 MALMÖ, SKÅNE, SWEDEN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ANDREI SAVENKOV,
117525, 23 CHERTANOVSKAYA, BLD. 2, APT. 41 MOSCOW, RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
AHMAD FAHIM NOUMAN, ELAHA NOUMAN, A.R.N (A MINOR),
SHAHRE NEW, KABUL DISTRICT 10 KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMADREZA GHAFFAR, LEILA TALEI, A.G. (A MINOR),
NO.1, SABA BUILDING, DOWN THE BAHARSHIRAZ STREET, SHARIATI AVE., TEHRAN, IRAN 1564916639
PLAINTIFF(S),
xxviii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 29 of 308
MOHAMMED ANSARI, NABILA IMTIYAZ AHMED QURESHI,
5, 3566 IBN AL UQAYL ST., AR RAWDAH DIST., JEDDAH, 23435-8338 SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
PEDRO KIALA NANJUNJO GONCALVES, CELMIRA DE FATIMA DOMINGOS MANUEL GONCALVES, Y.G.M.G (A MINOR), D.R.M.G. (A MINOR),
RUA 165, PRD E204, 3 APT NOVA VIDA, LUANDA ANGOLA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MUHAMMAD ADIL TANVEER,
SAJIR STREET, RAWDAH RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
WILLEM JACOB VERHEUL,
DRAAISTOK 46, BOSKOOP, 2771MW ZUID-HOLLAND THE NETHERLANDS
PLAINTIFF(S),
LAL BAHADUR MAGAR, SANJU THAPA MAGAR,
JIWANPUR, 04, DHUNBESHI, DHADING, PROVINCE THREE NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
OLIMZHON KURBANOV, MUNISA KURBANOVA, A.K. (A MINOR), F.K. (A MINOR),
xxix

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 30 of 308
TAJIKISTAN, KHATLON REGION SHAHRITUZ DISTRICT SANOEV ST
PLAINTIFF(S),
NATALIA MUKHAMETDINOVA,
15/8 BAZOVSKAYA STREET, APT. 190, MOSCOW, 125635 RUSSIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AYAAD ALKURDI, DUAA IBRAHIM YOUSEF ABU ALWAFA, A.R.M.I.A. (A MINOR CHILD), S.M.I.A. (A MINOR CHILD), M.M.I.A. (A MINOR CHILD),
ALBNYAT ALJANOBI ST., AMMAN, 11623 JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
HAWRE MOHAMMED HASSAN, ZHILAN MUSTAFA RASUL,
RAPARIN QUARTE-RANYA SULAYMANIYAH IRAQ
PLAINTIFF(S),
BARISCAN DEMIRCI,
SUSAM SK. IZZETPASA MAH APT. 10/14, SISLI, 34381, ISTANBUL, TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
OXANA CONDUR, EUGEN BRAILA,
3 1 LIVIU DELEANU STR APT 21 CHISINAU 2071, MOLDOVA
xxx

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 31 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S), NAIRA SAMVELOVNA OGANISYAN, SERGEI VLADIMIROVICH RUDENKO, M.S.R. (A MINOR),
CALLE FELIP II, 50, AT 2, BADALONA, BARCELONA, SPAIN 08917 PLAINTIFF(S), NDE KILEAN FRU, AYABA STREET BIG MANKON CATHEDRAL BAMENDA PLAINTIFF(S), ANA GRAMA, VASILE TATARU, 142 SOS HINCESTI APT 56 CHISINAU 2070 MOLDOVA PLAINTIFF(S), INA CUCEREANU, ANDREI BADURA, 40 MIHAIL SADOVEANU STR APT 16 CHISINAU 2044 MOLDOVA PLAINTIFF(S), DIANA GRABCIUC, EUGENIU MOGIDEA, 12 2 GINTA LATINA STR APR 87 MOLDOVA PLAINTIFF(S), STANISLAV LIAPTCEV, MARIIA LIAPTCEVA, 111033, RUSSIA, MOSCOW, 8 ZOLOTOROZHSKIY VAL, APT 40 PLAINTIFF(S),
xxxi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 32 of 308
ANITA NISTREAN, ARTIOM GOLOGAN, 3 STEFAN CEL MARE STR, VADUL LUI VODA 2046 MOLDOVA
PLAINTIFF(S), KENICHI MIYAGI,
1143 YANOMACHI HACHIOJI-SHI TOKYO JAPAN 192-0016 PLAINTIFF(S), ALISSA AFIZA DEAN, 27 RATU SUKUNA ROAD SUVA FIJI PLAINTIFF(S), MEI-EN HUANG, CHINGYEN LIN, X.L. (A MINOR), 4F, NO. 6, ALLEY 31, LANE 265, SEC. 4, XINYI RD., DA-AN DISTRICT, TAIPEI CITY TAIWAN 106 PLAINTIFF(S), IBRAHIM MASOUD DOWAH, 445 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TAJURA, TRIPOLI, LIBYA PLAINTIFF(S), ASKADIROU GBETNKOM YOUMAPOURE, DEIDO RUEDE PAVEE, DOULA, LITTORAL CAMEROON PLAINTIFF(S),
xxxii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 33 of 308
HONEY MARJAN KHAN, RAUF AHMAD RAJPUT, GUSTAF DALENSGATAN 3C, 417 22 GOTHENBURG, SWEDEN
PLAINTIFF(S), HAMISH CHARLES EGAN,
881 NORTH BRIDGE ROAD 17-06 SINGAPORE 198784 PLAINTIFF(S), AILYN CABALLERO ACEVEDO, CALLE 2DA #20 ENTRE CENTRAL Y MORFFI REPARTO OSVALDO HERRERA SANTA CLARA VILLA CLARACUBA PLAINTIFF(S), MAHTA GOUDARZI, MOHSEN VOSUGHIFAR, UNIT 13- NO.1, ROHANI AL- MEHRMOHAMMADI AL.-ANDARZGOO BLV. QEYTARIEH, TEHRAN IRAN PLAINTIFF(S), ALICE KANNEH BILITY, SEDEKIE S. BILITY, NEW VOINJAMA COMMUNITY, VOINJAMA CITY, LOFA COUNTY LIBERIA PLAINTIFF(S), DIANA NERY BRANA DIAZ, ABEL LORENZO MORERA, D.L.B. (A MINOR CHILD),
xxxiii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 34 of 308
CALLE LAWTON NO. 1114 ALTOS APTO 2 ENTRE POCITO Y BELLAVISTA, REPARTO LAWTON, DIEZ DE OCTUBRE LA HABANA CUBA 10700
PLAINTIFF(S),
FRANK AKOMEAH ADDAE,
P.O. BOX KIA 9737 AIRPORT ACCRA GHANA
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMMAD NAVIDI, AZAM EMAMI GHALEGHASEMI, S.N. (A MINOR) , Y.N. (A MINOR),
NO. 23, ESTEGHAMAT ALLEY, EMAM STREET GHODS CROSS RASHT CITY, GUILAN PROVINCE IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOHAMED MUHUMED HASSAN,
BOLE MICHAEL ADDIS ABUBA ETHIOPIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
RAMIN YOUSOFI, SADAF YOUSOFI, M.Y.Y (A MINOR), Y.Y. (A MINOR),
THIRD MICRORAYON BLOCK #21, APT. 12 KABUL, 21000 AFGHANISTAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ALLAN GEORGE STEVE, EUNICE AWINO OGUTU, A.C.S. (A MINOR),
xxxiv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 35 of 308
P.O BOX 19478- 00100 GPO NAIROBI KENYA STREET: SAVANNAH ROAD, DONHOLM PHASE 8, OPPOSITE GREENSPAN MALL RACOTTO PROPERTIES
PLAINTIFF(S),
ROSE ATIENO OWITI, RAYMOND OMONDI OSANYA, S.A.O. (A MINOR CHILD), G.V.O. (A MINOR CHILD), M.T.A.O (A MINOR CHILD),
FAHARI ESTATE-BAMBURI HOUSE NO.43 MOMBASA KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
BAHAREH HEMMASSIAN ETEFAGH, SAMAN SINAYIFARD,
NO 64,POOYAN BLIND ALLEY HEZAR JERIB ST, DARVAZE SHIRAZ ISFAHAN, ISFAHAN 8168643331 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MEHDI EMAMIFAR, MARYAM KHORSAND, R.E. (A MINOR), R.E.(2) (A MINOR),
3RD PARSA ST., BAHARESTAN ST, NASR BLVD, KERMAN, IRAN, POSTAL CODE: 7618693199
PLAINTIFF(S),
SHAHRAM DAVOUDI, NEGAR ZARRINFAM,
NO. 63, FLOOR 15, APARTMENT 13, 60M STREET ERBIL IRAQ
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOUAD ZITOUNI,
xxxv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 36 of 308
HAY ERRAHMA 04, AV ADARISSA N° 27 DAKHLA 73000 MOROCCO
PLAINTIFF(S),
NASRIN RAEISIDEHKORDI,
MOALLEM AVE, ALLEY 16, HOUSE NR 78, APT 6 SHAHREKORD IRAN 88148-54573
PLAINTIFF(S),
AMAL ABDELMESSIH FAWZY ATALLAH.
HAWALLY , BLOCK 11 , 49 BUILDING , 176 STREET 3 FLOOR , APARTMENT 11 , KUWAIT
PLAINTIFF(S),
EMADRASMY IBRAHIM ATIA, FADY EMAD RASMY IBRAHIM ATIA, P.E.R.I.A. (A MINOR), O.E.R.I.A. (A MINOR),
P.O. BOX 08 NAIROBI, GARISSA 701 KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDIKADIR JELE IDRIS,
LENIN STR 179, 11 KHUJAND, TAJIKISTAN 735700
PLAINTIFF(S),
FARANGIS KURBONOVA, SOBIRJON KURBONOV, S.K. (A MINOR), M.K. (A MINOR), A.K. (A MINOR),
LENIN STR 179, 11. KHUJAND TAJIKISTAN 735700
xxxvi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 37 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
VICTORIA YURYEVNA GOLUBEVA,
15 MYTNINSKAYA STREET, APARTMENT 47, SAINT PETERSBURG, 191144, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
PLAINTIFF(S),
DIPA KHATRI, MAHESH BISTA,
BARBARDIYA, 10 BARDIYA, NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
DÁNIEL KOVATS, KITTY ÁGNES KOVATS-KANTOR, M.K. (A MINOR),
KIKÖTŐ UTCA 40 BUDAPEST, HUNGARY 1212
PLAINTIFF(S),
CAMILLE DJIOMEGNI MBAKOP,
ETOUG-EBE YAOUNDÉ
PLAINTIFF(S),
BABAK EBADIAN, MOHAMMAD TAHERI, R.E. (A MINOR),
UNIT 17, NO 19, 20TH GALESTANSI, KARAJ, ALLOURZ, 3147893811 IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
HAMID ULLAH ANSARI,
FLAT NO.08, BLOCK NO.38, PHA-E-TYPE FLATS, ST.118, G-11/4, ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
xxxvii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 38 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S), HOSSAMELDINE BABIKER MARGANI JUBARAH,
SUDAN, KHARTOUM ,ELSHAHEED TAHA ELMAHI,SHOUHADA PROVINCE, 11111 SUDAN PLAINTIFF(S), JOSESE TULELE LAWANIYASANA, LITIANA BUADROMO, LOT 11 NATUVUKICA ROAD, KHALSA ROAD, SUVA, NAITASIRI, FIJI
PLAINTIFF(S), YAYRA BENJAMIN AGNESSILIME,
ADETIKOPÉ, AGNESSILIME'S HOUSE, LOME- TOGO PLAINTIFF(S), DIEUDONNE HAKIZIMANA, VIRGINIE UWINGABIRE, R.W.S. (A MINOR), KK 634 KIGALI KICUKIRO PO BOX 6955 KIGALI - RWANDA PLAINTIFF(S), HASHIM MOHAMUD MAALIM, PO BOX 485 70-200 WAJIR.STREET MANYALO NAIROBI,WAJIR KENYA PLAINTIFF(S),
xxxviii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 39 of 308
AKMAL WASSEF ABDALLA, DOROTHEA STUETTGEN-ABDALLA, A.S.A. (A MINOR), M.M.A. (A MINOR), M.M.A.(2) (A MINOR),
SCHMIEDMATTE 1B CH- 6207 NOTTWIL SWITZERLAND
PLAINTIFF(S),
HERVE GIRESSE TCHACOUNTE NOUQUE,
DOUALA IN BEPANDA CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
JAMYLA IBRAHIM RAKIATOU
CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDIAZIZ MAHAT ADAN,
222 OFF SANKURI ROAD, GARISSA NORTH EASTERN, 70105 KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
SABIR SHRESTHA,
AMARCHITRAKAR MARG, DALLU-15 HOUSE NO-120, KATHMANDU, NEPAL
PLAINTIFF(S),
NARGES AZAR,
UNIT 1, FLOOR 1, NO 171, 13 ST., ZANBAGH ST. FARHANGSHAHR BLVD. SHIRAZ FARS 7187953341 IRAN
xxxix

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 40 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
SAHAR HAJIRAHIMI SICHANI,
NO136, LAHOR ST, JEY ST, ESFAHAN IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MOKRANE KHELIFI, OURIDA CHAIB, I.K. (A MINOR), Y.K. (A MINOR),
POSTE DE BOUFHAIMA, DRAA EL MIZAN, TIZI OUZOU, 15000 ALGERIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
HEND AHMED ABDELMAKSOUD GOUDA, OSSAMA MUHAMED RABIE SOUFI, M.O.M.R. (A MINOR), M.O.M.R. (A MINOR), M.O.M.R.S. (A MINOR),
9 AN NASR ST., MISHRIFA 6 JEDDAH, SAUDIA ARABIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ISMAIL ADAN ABDULLAHI,
MURATINA ROAD NAIROBI KENYA
PLAINTIFF(S),
ZHANNA SAMSONENKA,
UL. VLADIMIROVA 31/46, GOMEL, BELARUS 246034
PLAINTIFF(S),
AMMAR A ABDUL HUSSEIN ALKHUDHIR,
AL HUSSEIN DISTRICT
xl

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 41 of 308
AL FAISAL APARTMENTS APT 10 AMMAN JORDAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
MICHEL DIVINE POUNDEU HAPPI,
LOGPON DOULA LITTORAL CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
GABRIEL ALEXANDRU STOITA MIHAELA STOITA, BOGDAN IONUT STOITA,
901-2333 TAUNTON ROAD, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO L6H0N5
PLAINTIFF(S),
FATMA IBRAHIM ELSHAARAWY, MOHAMED HATEM SWILAM, S.M.H.S. (A MINOR),
47, MOHAMED IBRAHIM ST. APT 16 MANSHEYAT AL MESRI, THAKANAT ELMAADI. CAIRO, EGYPT
PLAINTIFF(S),
HESHAM TAWFIK AHMED AL-ABSI,
HAYEL STREET ALWAHDAH DISTRICT SANAA, YEMEN
PLAINTIFF(S),
ABDULLAH MOHAMMED MOHAMMED ALNADARI,
ALMOHAFADHAH STREET, ALDHEHAR, IBB YEMEN
xli

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 42 of 308
PLAINTIFF(S),
FERDOWS JAMALI, ALI MOKHTARABADI, A.M. (A MINOR),
NO. 82, 4TH ALLEY, ABOLKALAM SQUARE, JOMHURI ST. SHIRAZ, FARS IRAN
PLAINTIFF(S),
KHAMISS RAJI,
LOTISSEMENT HIND NR102 QRT AIT MOU MRIRT MOROCCO
PLAINTIFF(S),
NGATCHA YOSSE BRIGITTE NADEGE,
NORTH CAMEROON FIGUL CAMEROON
PLAINTIFF(S),
SAMI BEN ALI SAHBOUN, HOUDA BENT ALI LAKHRACH, Z.B.S.S. (A MINOR),
ALDANA BUILDING 326 AL WARQA 1 DUBAI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
PLAINTIFF(S),
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
SERVE: DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
xlii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 43 of 308
WASHINGTON, DC 20500 DEFENDANT, MICHAEL R. POMPEO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE,
SERVE: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER SUITE 5.600 600 19TH ST. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20522
DEFENDANT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3 PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................................4 DEFENDANTS ...............................................................................................................238 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 239
DIVERSITY VISA IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.......................................................239 THE PRESIDENT’S DIVERSITY VISA ANIMUS ................................................243 DEFENDANTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW AND SUSPENDED THE ADJUDICATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR DV-2020 SELECTEES .......................................................................248 DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY RELY ON PP 10014 TO SUSPEND THE ADJUDICATION AND ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATION FOR DV-2020 PROGRAM SELECTEES AND THEIR DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES ................................................................251 CAUSES OF ACTION ..............................................................................................252 RELIEF REQUESTED..............................................................................................257
xliii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 44 of 308 Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application forthcoming
xliv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 45 of 308
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are 493 Diversity Visa program selectees and derivative beneficiaries from 70
countries. Plaintiffs include doctors and nurses with experience treating COVID-19, successful businesspeople intent on creating jobs in the United States, two veterinarians, people fleeing conflicts and persecution, and children with limitless potential. Plaintiffs all yearn for a life in the shining city upon a hill and its beacon of hope – the American Dream. 2. Plaintiffs hereby challenge the U.S. Department of State’s (hereafter referred to as the “Department”) adoption of policies, procedures, and practices implemented pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10014 (hereafter referred to as the “PP 10014”), and its extension in Presidential Proclamation 10052 (“PP 10052), suspending the processing of immigrant visa applications for individuals selected in the fiscal year 2020 Diversity Visa Program (hereafter referred to as “DV-2020 program”) and the resulting unlawful withholding of issuances of visas to eligible applicants. 3. All Plaintiffs, either as DV-2020 selectees or as derivative spouses or children, have been invited by the Department to apply for the DV-2020 program. 4. All Plaintiffs have submitted immigrant visa applications pursuant to their DV-2020 program selection, and submitted all required documents to the Department’s Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”). 5. Plaintiffs hereby seek an order requiring Defendant President Trump, Secretary Michael R. Pompeo, and the Department to set aside the Department’s unlawful policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for
1

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 46 of 308
DV-2020 selectees, fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, and issue decisions on their applications before September 30, 2020. 6. For Plaintiffs, the stakes are high and a matter of extreme urgency. By statute, DV-2020 program selectees must have their visas adjudicated and issued before midnight on September 30, 2020. 7. Should the Plaintiffs not have their visas issued before midnight on September 30, 2020, barring a protective order from this Court, Plaintiffs, will lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States of America through the DV-2020 program as a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions. 8. With over 23 million entrants a year, a diversity visa entrant has less than a one percent chance to be selected to apply for the visa. The probability of being selected twice is .00025%. 9. Defendants have suspended the DV-2020 program through policies, procedures, and practices that are contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),federal regulations, and preexisting Department policies governing the adjudication of the program. 10. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspend: (1) processing of applications for the DV-2020 program at the KCC; (2) scheduling of mandatory immigrant visa interviews for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries at United States Embassies and Consulates; and (3) adjudications for already submitted applications pending decisions by consular officers.
2

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 47 of 308
11. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices will remain in place through September 30, 2020 and effectively end the DV-2020 program.
12. Defendants policies, procedures, and practices suspending the Diversity Visa Program rests, in part, on the Presidential Proclamation 10014, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak (April 23, 2020) (hereafter referred to as “PP 10014”), and its extension in Presidential Proclamation 10052, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak (hereafter referred to as “PP 10052”).
13. Plaintiffs have received emails from U.S. Embassies and Consulates stating: “Unfortunately, Diversity Visa applicants are not exempt of the current Travel Ban and there are [sic] no waiver eligible. Hence, the Embassy is putting all Diversity Visa applications on hold until the Travel Ban is lifted.”
14. State Department officials and media outlets have repeated this message and informed all DV-2020 visa applicants that the adjudications of their visas have been suspended through December 31, 2020 pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052.
15. The Department’s practices, policies, and procedures refusing to adjudicate immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries and issue visas to eligible applicants is unlawful and violates non-discretionary duty to adjudicate immigrant visa applications.
16. Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court: (1) mandate Defendants reserve visas numbers for Plaintiffs through the pendency of litigation, (2) declare Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspending Plaintiffs’ visa application applications, (3) order Defendants to
3

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 48 of 308
fully adjudicate Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications before the statutory deadline on September 30, 2020, and issue visas to eligible applicants in accordance with law. If Plaintiffs receive their visas, Plaintiffs request their visas be preserved until the suspension is lifted and they are permitted to enter the United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Declaratory relief is authorized by Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has remedial authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702. 18. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1)(A) because Defendant Michael R. Pompeo, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, resides in the District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, namely, the formulation and promulgation of the challenged policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigration visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed
19. Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed was born in Saudi Arabia, but is a citizen of Sudan, and DV-2020 selectee.
20. Plaintiff Dr. Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub was born in Saudi Arabia and is a citizen of Sudan, and the spouse of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Dr. Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub is eligible to immigrate to the United States as
4

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 49 of 308
a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 21. Drs. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed and Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub are both medical doctors in Sudan. 22. Plaintiff R.M.A.A. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Plaintiff R.M.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 23. Plaintiff A.M.A.A. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Plaintiff A.M.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 24. Plaintiff J.M.A.A. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. Plaintiff J.M.A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 25. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 26. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed visa case number 2020AS12673.
5

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 50 of 308
27. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
28. On June 2, 2019 Plaintiff Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
29. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff R.M.A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
30. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
31. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff J.M.A.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.
32. To date, Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed, Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub, R.M.A.A., A.M.A.A. and J.M.A.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
33. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed, Itidal Mohammed Salih Tagelsir Mahjoub, R.M.A.A., A.M.A.A. and J.M.A.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Inna Ishchenko and Family 34. Plaintiff Inna Ishchenko is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee.
6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 51 of 308
35. Plaintiff Yurii Ishchenko is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Inna Ishchenko. Yurii Ishchenko is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Inna Ishchenko should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to the DV-2020 selection.
36. Plaintiff E.I. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Inna Ishchenko. E.I. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneificiary of Inna Ishchenko should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
37. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Inna Ishchenko and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV2020 selection.
38. The KCC assigned Inna Ishchenko visa case number 2020EU27918. 39. On July 26, 2019 Plaintiff Inna Ishchenko submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 40. Plaintiffs Inna Ishchenko, Yurii Ishchenko, and E.I. submitted all necessary
documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 41. To date, Plaintiffs Inna Ishchenko, Yurii Ishchenko, and E.I. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 42. The adjudication of Inna Ishchenko, Yurii Ishchenko, and E.I.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Pawel Mieczkowski 43. Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski is a native of Poland and DV-2020 selectee.
7

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 52 of 308
44. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
45. The KCC assigned him visa case number 2020EU33272. 46. On September 16, 2019 Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 47. Plaintiff Pawel Mieczkowski submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his
DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 48. To date, Plainiff Pawel Mieczkowski has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate. 49. The adjudication of Plaintiff’s Pawel Mieczkowski’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees Farid Kurbanov 50. Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee. 51. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 52. The KCC assigned him visa case number 2020EU32239. 53. On February 24, 2020 Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 54. Plaintiff Farid Kurbanov has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 55. To date, Farid Kurbanov has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 53 of 308
56. The adjudication of Farid Kurbanov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Graeme John Ward 57. Plaintiff Graeme John Ward is a native of South Africa and DV-2020 selectee. 58. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Graeme John Ward was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 59. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020AF30202. 60. On July 28, 2019 Plaintiff Graeme John Ward submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 61. On February 6, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Graeme John Ward that his case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview. 62. To date, Graeme John Ward has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 63. The adjudication of Graeme John Ward’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii Family 64. Plaintiff Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 65. Plaintiff Nina Konstantinovna (Velikaia), a native of Russia and spouse of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii. Nina Konstantinovna, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
9

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 54 of 308
66. Plaintiff M.D.V. is a native of Russia and son of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii. M.D.V. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
67. On May 7, 2019, Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
68. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU38872. 69. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 70. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Nina Konstantinovna submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 71. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff M.D.V. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 72. Plaintiffs Dmitrii Pavalovich Velikii, Nina Konstantinovna, and M.D.V. have submitted
all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 73. To date, Plaintiffs Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii, Nina Konstantinova, and M.D.V. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 74. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Dmitrii Pavlovich Velikii, Nina Konstantinova, and M.D.V.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Marco Palano and Family
10

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 55 of 308
75. Plaintiff Marco Palano is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee. 76. Plaintiff Hevelin Simonetta is a native of Italy and spouse of Marco Palano. Hevelin
Simonetta is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Marco Palano should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 77. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marco Palano was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 78. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU14905. 79. On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Marco Palano submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 80. On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Hevelin Simonetta submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 81. On January 14, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Marco Palano that his case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview. 82. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff Marco Palano was scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on April 15, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
83. To date, Plaintiff Marco Palano and Hevelin Simonetta has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
84. The adjudication of Plaintiff Marco Palano and Hevelin Simonetta’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Marc Cyrus 85. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus is a native of Iran and citizen of Canada, and the derivative spouse of a DV-2020 selectee, who has already been issued a visa eight months ago. 11

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 56 of 308
86. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marc Cyrus was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
87. The KCC assigned Marc Cyrus visa case number 2020AS1202. 88. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 89. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their
DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 90. On December 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Marc Cyrus attended an immigrant visa interview. 91. To date, Plaintiff Marc Cyrus has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy
or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 92. Plaintiff Marc Cyrus is an essential worker, a truck driver, and now works everyday
delivering goods from Canada to the United States. 93. The adjudication of Plaintiff Marc Cyrus’s immigrant visa application is suspended
pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Radu Sebe 94. Plaintiff Radu Sebe is a native of Romania and DV-2020 selectee. 95. Plaintiff Mirabela Maria Sebe is a native of Romania and spouse of Radu Sebe. Mirabela Maria Sebeis eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Radu Sebe should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 96. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Radu Sebe was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 97. The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU00032614.
12

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 57 of 308

98. On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff Radu Sebe submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. On January 29, 2020, he re-

opened the DS-260 to update the newly added questions.

99. On July 3, 2019, 2020 Plaintiff Mirabela Sebe submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. On January

29, 2020, she re-opened the DS-260 to update the newly added questions.

100.

On June 5, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Radu Sebe that his case was documentarily

complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

101.

To date, Plaintiff Radu and Mirabela Sebe has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

102.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Radu and Mirabela Sebe’s immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Nassim Bounoua and Family

103.

Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee.

104.

Plaintiff Narimane Flici is a native of Algeria, and spouse of Nassim Bounoua.

Narimane Flici is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Nassim Bounoua should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

105.

Plaintiff N.B. is a native of Algeria and minor child of Nassim Bounoua. N.B. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nassim Bounoua

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

106.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

13

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 58 of 308

107.

The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020AF55102.

108.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

109.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Nariman Flici submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

110.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff N.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

111.

On March 19, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua that his case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

112.

To date, Plaintiffs Nassim Bounoua, Narimane Flici, and N.B. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

113.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Nassim Bounoua, Nariman Flici, and N.B.’s

immigrant visa application are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Rafik Babaci and Family

114.

Plaintiff Rafik Babaci is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee.

115.

Plaintiff Dr. Yasmin Seghier is a native of Algeria, a medical doctor and spouse of

Rafik Babaci. Dr. Yasmin Seghier is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Rafik Babaci should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

14

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 59 of 308

116.

Plaintiff A.M.B. is a native of Algeria and minor daughter of Rafik Babaci. A.M.B.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rafik Babaci

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

117.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Rafik Babaci was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

118.

The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020AF57218.

119.

On November 8, 2019 Plaintiff Rafik Babaci submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application.

120.

On November 8, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Yasmin Seghier submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

121.

On November 8, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application.

122.

Plaintiffs Rafik Babaci, Yasmin Seghier, and A.M.B. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

123.

To date, Plaintiff Rafik Babaci, Dr. Yasmin Seghier, and A.M.B. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

124.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Rafik Babaci, Dr. Yasmin Seghier, and A.M.B.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash

15

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 60 of 308

125.

Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash is a native of Jordan and DV-

2020 selectee.

126.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash was invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

127.

The KCC assigned him visa case number 2020AS22351.

128.

On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash submitted his

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

129.

Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash has submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

130.

On March 25, 2020, KCC sent Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash

confirmation that all necessary documents were received.

131.

To date, Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash has not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

132.

Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Abdul Raheem M Ayash has a U.S. citizen sister who

resides in Houston, Texas and who is waiting for him and worried for him.

133.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdul Rahman Ayash’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Igor Shcheglovitov and Family

134.

Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

16

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 61 of 308

135.

Plaintiff Elena Kadushkina is a native of Russia and spouse of Igor Shcheglovitov.

Elena Kadushkina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

Igor Schheglovitov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

136.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

137.

The KCC assigned his visa case number 2020EU28377.

138.

On July 28, 2019 Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

139.

On July 28, 2019 Plaintiff Elena Kadushkina submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

140.

On March 9, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov that his case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview

141.

To date, Plaintiffs Igor Shcheglovitov and Elena Kadushkina have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

142.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Igor Shcheglovitov and Elena Kadushkina’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Karina Olegovna Smitchenko

143.

Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

17

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 62 of 308

144.

Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of

Karnia Olegovna Smitchenko. Sergey Valerievich Dunanov is eligible to immigrate to the

United States as a derivative beneficiary Karina Olegovna Smitchenko should he be issued

an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

145.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Igor Shcheglovitov was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

146.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko visa case number

2020EU43232.

147.

On October 9, 2019 Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

148.

On February 7, 2020 Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

149.

Plaintiff Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich Dunanov have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application.

150.

On Febrary 4, 2020, Plaintiff Sergey Valerievich Dunanov attended an interview

where everything was fine except for his medical examination. He has since completed it

and sent to embassy on June 11, 2020.

151.

To date, Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich Dunanov

have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

152.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Karina Olegovna Smitchenko and Sergey Valerievich

Dunanov’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

18

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 63 of 308

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.

Maryam Malekzadeh

153.

Plaintiff Maryam Malekzadeh is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

154.

Plaintiff Rashad Rashidian is a native of Iran and spouse of Maryam Malekzadeh.

Rashad Rashidian is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

Maryam Malekzadeh should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

155.

Plaintiff N.R. is a native of Algeria and minor daughter of Maryam Malekzadeh.

N.R.. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Maryam

Malekzadeh should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

156.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Maryam Malekzadeh was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

157.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Maryam Malekzadeh visa case number

2020AS00011660.

158.

On January 26, 2020 Plaintiff Maryam Malekzadeh submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

159.

On December 20, 2019 Plaintiff Rashad Rashidian submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

160.

On December 20, 2019 Plaintiff R. N. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

19

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 64 of 308

161.

Plaintiffs Maryam Malekzadeh , Rashad Rashidian and R. N. submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

162.

To date, Plaintiffs Maryam Malekzadeh , Rashad Rashidian, and R.N.have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

163.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Maryam Malekzadeh , Rashad Rashidian, and R.N.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Irem Guzel and Family

164.

Plaintiff Irem Guzel is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

165.

Plaintiff Eren Guzel is a native of Turkey and spouse of Irem Guzel. Eren Guzel is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Irem Guzel should she

be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

166.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Irem Guzel was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

167.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Irem Guzel visa case number 2020EU49567.

168.

On May 14, 2020 Plaintiff Irem Guzel submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

169.

On May 14, 2020 Plaintiff Eren Guzel submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

20

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 65 of 308

170.

Plaintiffs Irem Guzel and Eren Guzel have submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

171.

To date, Plaintiffs Eren Guzel and Irem Guzel have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

172.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Eren Guzel and Irem Guzel immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Family

173.

Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

174.

Plaintiff Sohrab Davari Chekan is a native of Iran and spouse Elham Nikjouy

Tabrizi. Sohrab Davari Chekan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

175.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

176.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi visa case number 2020AS3145.

177.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

178.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Sohrab Davari Chekan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection

21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 66 of 308

179.

Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari Chekan have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

180.

On January 8, 2020, Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari Chekan

attended an immigrant visa interview.

181.

To date, Plaintiffs Elham Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari

Chekan have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or

issued a decision on their applications.

182.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Elham Nikjouy Tabrizi and Sohrab Davari Chekan

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud and Family

183.

Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud is a native of France and DV-2020

selectee.

184.

Plaintiff Silvina Nancy Asurmendi is a native of Argentina and spouse Fabien Rene

Michel Paroutaud. Silvina Nancy Asurmendi is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

185.

Plaintiff N.P. is a native of Canada and minor son Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud.

N.P. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Fabien Rene

Michel Paroutaud should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection

22

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 67 of 308

186.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

187.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud visa case number

2020EU19512.

188.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

189.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Silvina Nancy Asurmendi submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

190.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff N.P. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

191.

Plaintiffs Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy Asurmendi, and N.P. have

submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application.

192.

On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud was scheduled for

an immigrant visa interview on April 3, 2020.

193.

On March 19, 2020, Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy Asurmendi, and

N.P. received notice from the US Embassy in Montreal that their immigrant visa interview

was cancelled.

194.

To date, Plaintiffs Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy Asurmendi, and

N.P. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

23

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 68 of 308

195.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Fabien Rene Michel Paroutaud, Silvina Nancy

Asurmendi, and N.P. immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dr. Tal Dror

196.

Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror is a native of Israel and DV-2020 selectee.

197.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

198.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror visa case number 2020AS29898.

199.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. He re-submitted the

form on February 6, 2020.

200.

Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication

of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

201.

To date, Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

202.

Dr. Tal Dror is a veterinarian.

203.

Dr. Tal Dror is gay, and looks forward to living in the U.S. where he is free to

marry, as he is not in his native country.

204.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Tal Dror’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Christelle Virginie Aude Meda

24

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 69 of 308

205.

Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda is a native of France and DV-2020

selectee.

206.

On May 7, 2019, Christelle Virginie Aude Meda was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

207.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda visa case number

2020EU51569.

208.

On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

209.

Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

210.

To date, Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

211.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Christelle Virginie Aude Meda’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Akerke Urangaliyeva and Family

212.

Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.

213.

Plaintiff Hoang Anh Nguyen is a native of Ukraine and spouse Akerke

Urangaliyeva. Hoang Anh Nguyen is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Akerke Urangaliyeva should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

25

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 70 of 308

214.

Plaintiff R.N. is a citizen of Kazakhstan and minor son Akerke Urangaliyeva. N.P.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akerke

Urangaliyeva should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection

215.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

216.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva visa case number

2020EU00026428.

217.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Akerke Urangaliyeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application.

218.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Hoang Anh Nguyen submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application.

219.

Plaintiff R.N. was born in November, and his parents submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application two months later.

220.

Plaintiffs Hoang Anh Nguyen, Akerke Urganliyeva, and R.N. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

221.

To date, Plaintiffs Hoang Anh Nguyen, Akerke Urganliyeva, and R.N. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

222.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Hoang Anh Nguyen, Akerke Urganliyeva, and R.N.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

26

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 71 of 308

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Yuen Ting Xenia Wong

223.

Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

224.

Plaintiff Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon is a native of Sri Lanka and spouse of Yuen

Ting Xenia Wong. Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Yuen Ting Xenia Wong should he be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.

225.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and her derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

226.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong visa case number

2020AS29398.

227.

On August 24, 2019 Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

228.

On August 24, 2019 Plaintiff Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

229.

Plaintiffs Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

230.

In preparation for their move to America, Plaintiff Yuen Ting Xenia Wong took the

New York bar exam and passed it in February

27

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 72 of 308

231.

To date, Plaintiffs Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and Lahiru Thilina Samarakoon have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

232.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Yuen Ting Xenia Wong and Lahiru Thilina

Samarakoon immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain

233.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain is a native of Australia and DV-2020

selectee.

234.

On May 7, 2019, Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

235.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain visa case number

2020OC697.

236.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

237.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

238.

Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain was scheduled for interview for March 24,

2020, but it was cancelled by the embassy.

239.

To date, Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain has not been re-scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

28

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 73 of 308

240.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ainslea Anne Maddison Crain’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees

David Nathan Todman and Family

241.

Plaintiff David Nathan Todman is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee.

242.

Plaintiff Chloe Lee Todman is a native of Australia and spouse of David Nathan

Todman. Chloe Lee Todman is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of David Nathan Todman should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV2020 selection

243.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff David Nathan Todman was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

244.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff David Nathan Todman visa case number 2020OC1074.

245.

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff David Nathan Todman submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

246.

Plaintiffs David Nathan Todman and Chloe Lee Todman have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

247.

To date, Plaintiffs David Nathan Todman and Chloe Lee Todman have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued decisions on their

application.

248.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs David Nathan Todman and Chloe Lee Todman’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

29

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 74 of 308

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Dobrin Ganchev Ganev and Family

249.

Plaintiff Dobrin Ganchev Ganev is a native of Bulgaria and DV-2020 selectee.

250.

Plaintiff Inez Radulov is a native of Hungary and spouse of Dobrin Ganchev Ganev.

Inez Radulov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Dobrin Ganchev Ganev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020

selection.

251.

Plaintiff I.G. is a native of Canada and minor child of Dobrin Ganchev Ganev. I.G.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dobrin Ganchev

Ganev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection.

252.

Plaintiff O.G. is a native of Canada and minor child of Dobrin Ganchev Ganev.

O.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dobrin

Ganchev Ganev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection.

253.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dobrin Ganchev Ganev was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

254.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dobrin Ganchev Ganev visa case number

2020EU20220.

255.

Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and O.G. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

256.

Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and O.G. were scheduled for

an interview for April 3, 2020 but it was cancelled by the embassy.

30

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 75 of 308

257.

To date, Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and O.G. have not

been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

258.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dobrin Ganchev Ganev, Inez Radulov, I.G., and

O.G.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees

Francesca Scorti and Family

259.

Plaintiff Francesca Scorti is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

260.

Plaintiff Sebastiano Midulla is a native of Italy and spouse of Francesca Scorti.

Sebastiano Midulla is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Francesca Scorti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020

selection.

261.

Plaintiff F.M. is a native of Italy and minor child of Francesca Scorti. F.M. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Francesca Scorti

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection.

262.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Francesca Scorti and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

263.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Francesca Scorti visa case number 2020EU28949.

264.

On January 24, 2020 Plaintiff Francesca Scorti submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

31

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 76 of 308

265.

On January 24, 2020 Plaintiff Sebastiano Midulla submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

266.

On January 24, 2020 Plaintiff F.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

267.

Plaintiffs Francesca Scorti, Sebastiano Midulla, and F.M. have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

268.

On March 12, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Francesca Scorti that her case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview”.

269.

To date, Plaintiffs Francesca Scorti, Sebastiano Midulla, and F.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

270.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Francesca Scorti, Sebastiano Midulla, and F.M.

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Mariia Pishkova and Family

271.

Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

272.

Plaintiff Vadim Pishkov is a native of Russia and spouse of Mariia Pishkova.

Vadim Pishkov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Mariia Pishkova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

32

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 77 of 308

273.

On May 7, 2019, Mariia Pishkova and her derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

274.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova visa case number 2020EU00053170.

275.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

276.

On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Vadim Pishkov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

277.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Mariia Pishkova and Vadim Pishkov have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

278.

On July 22, 2019, KCC notified Plaintiff Mariia Pishkova that her case was

documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview

279.

To date, Plaintiffs Mariia Pishkova and Vadim Pishkov have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

280.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mariia Pishkova and Vadim Pishkov’s immigrant

visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Santosh Kumar Sah

281.

Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

282.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

33

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 78 of 308

283.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah visa case number 2020AS12259.

284.

On February 17, 2020, Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

285.

Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

286.

To date, Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

287.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Santosh Kumar Sah’s immigrant visa applications are

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Kristina Hoxha and Family

288.

Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

289.

Plaintiff Besar Hoxha is a native of Albania and spouse of Kristina Hoxha. Besar

Hoxha is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Kristina

Hoxha should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

290.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

291.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha visa case number 2020EU00019519.

292.

On June 9, 2019 Plaintiff Kristina Hoxha submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

293.

On June 9, 2019 Plaintiff Besar Hoxha submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

34

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 79 of 308

294.

Plaintiffs Besar Hoxha have submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

295.

Plaintiffs Kristina Hoxha and Besar Hoxha were scheduled for an interview on

April 23, 2020 but that interview was cancelled.

296.

To date, Plaintiffs Kristina Hoxha and Besar Hoxha have not been re-scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

297.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Kristina Hoxha and Besar Hoxha’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Amin Baniasadi Zaree and Family

298.

Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

299.

Plaintiff Sadaf Zahedi is a native of Iran and spouse of Amin Baniasadi

Zaree. Sadaf Zahedi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Amin Baniasadi Zaree should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

300.

Plaintiff A.B.Z.(1) is a native of Iran and minor child of Amin Baniasadi

Zaree. Plaintiff A.B.Z.(1) is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Amin Baniasadi Zaree should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

301.

Plaintiff A.B.Z.(2) is a native of Iran and minor child of Amin Baniasadi

Zaree. Plaintiff A.B.Z.(2) is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Amin Baniasadi Zaree should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

35

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 80 of 308

302.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

303.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree visa case number 2020AS7701.

304.

Plaintiff Amin Baniasadi Zaree submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

305.

Plaintiff Sadaf Zahedi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

306.

Plaintiff A.B.Z.(1) submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

307.

Plaintiff A.B.Z.(2) submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

308.

Plaintiffs Amin Baniasadi Zaree, Sadaf Zahedi, A.B.Z.(1) and A.B.Z.(2) were

scheduled for an interview for April 7, 2020, but that was cancelled by the embassy.

309.

To date, Plaintiffs Amin Baniasadi Zaree, Sadaf Zahedi, A.B.Z.(1) and A.B.Z.(2)

have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

310.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Amin Baniasadi Zaree, Sadaf Zahedi, A.B.Z.(1) and

A.B.Z.(2)’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Wen Chi Huang and Family

311.

Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang is a native of Taiwan and DV-2020 selectee.

36

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 81 of 308

312.

Plaintiff Yung Chou Chang is a native of Taiwan and spouse of Wen Chi

Huang. Yung Chou Chang is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Wen Chi Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

313.

Plaintiff P.Y.C. is a native of Taiwan and minor child of Wen Chi Huang. Plaintiff

P.Y.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Wen Chi

Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

314.

Plaintiff J.Y.C. is a native of Taiwan and minor child of Wen Chi Huang. Plaintiff

J.Y.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Wen Chi

Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

315.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

316.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang visa case number 2020AS00025701.

317.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff Wen Chi Huang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

318.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff Yung Chou Chang submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

319.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff P.Y.C. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

320.

On February 1, 2020 Plaintiff J.Y.C. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

37

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 82 of 308

321.

Plaintiffs Wen Chi Huang, Yung Chou Chang, P.Y.C. and J.Y.C. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

322.

To date, Plaintiffs Wen Chi Huang, Yung Chou Chang, P.Y.C. and J.Y.C. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

323.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Wen Chi Huang, Yung Chou Chang, P.Y.C. and

J.Y.C.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Shirley Joy Linda

324.

Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee.

325.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

326.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda visa case number 2020AF00035716.

327.

On January 27, 2020 Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

328.

Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

329.

To date, Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

38

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 83 of 308

330.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Shirley Joy Linda’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar Family

331.

Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

332.

Plaintiff Polen Hazel Dogar is a native of Turkey and spouse of Ibrahim Gokhan

Dogar. Polen Hazel Dogar is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

333.

Plaintiff A.D. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Ibrahim Gokhan

Dogar. Plaintiff A.D. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

334.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

335.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar visa case number

2020EU00036330.

336.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

337.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Polen Hazel Dogar submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

39

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 84 of 308

338.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff A.D. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

339.

To date, Plaintiffs Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar, Polen Hazel Dogar and A.D. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

340.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Ibrahim Gokhan Dogar, Polen Hazel Dogar and

A.D.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Vitalii Korolev

341.

Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

342.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

343.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev visa case number 2020EU00014974.

344.

On June 5, 2019 Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

345.

Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev was scheduled for an interview on April 28, 2020, but it

was cancelled.

346.

To date, Plaintiff Vitalii Korolev has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

347.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Vitali Korolev’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

40

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 85 of 308

Michal Szymczak

348.

Plaintiff Monika Pul is a native of Poland and spouse of Michal Szymczak. Monika

Pul is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Michal

Szymczak should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

349.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Michal Szymczak and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

350.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Michal Szymczak visa case number 2020EU00049396.

351.

On June 10, 2019 Plaintiff Michal Szymczak submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

352.

On June 11, 2019 Plaintiff Monika Pul submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

353.

Plaintiffs Michal Szymczak and Monika Pul have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

354.

To date, Plaintiffs Michal Szymczak and Monika Pul have not been scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

355.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Michal Szymczak and Monika Pul’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

356.

Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee.

41

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 86 of 308

357.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

358.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo visa case number 2020EU26743.

359.

On April 16, 2020 Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

360.

To date, Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

361.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Diego Barco Cuerpo’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Valerio Pagliaroli Family

362.

Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

363.

Plaintiff Anna Calicchia is a native of Italy and spouse of Valerio Pagliaroli. Anna

Calicchia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Valerio

Pagliaroli should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

364.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

365.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli visa case number 2020EU00027013.

366.

On October 30, 2019 Plaintiff Valerio Pagliaroli submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

367.

On October 30, 2019 Plaintiff Anna Calicchia submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

42

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 87 of 308

368.

Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia submitted all the required

documentation to KCC on November 11, 2019.

369.

On March 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia

that their documents were processed and they were ready to be scheduled for an interview.

370.

To date, Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

371.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Valerio Pagliaroli and Anna Calicchia’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Natalia Pakulskaia

372.

Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

373.

Plaintiff Petr Pakulskii is a native of Russia and spouse of Natalia Pakulskaia. Petr

Pakulskii is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Natalia

Pakulskaia should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

374.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

375.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia visa case number

2020EU00026229.

376.

On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff Natalia Pakulskaia submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

43

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 88 of 308

377.

On May 18, 2019 Plaintiff Petr Pakulskii submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

378.

On March 10, 2020 KCC sent notice to Plaintiffs Natalia Pakulskaia and Petr

Pakulskii confirming all necessary documents were received and they were ready to be

scheduled for an interview.

379.

To date, Plaintiffs Natalia Pakulskaia and Petr Pakulskii have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

380.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Natalia Pakulskaia and Petr Pakulskii’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares

381.

Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares is a native of Portugal and DV-2020 selectee.

382.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

383.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares visa case number

2020EU00033454.

384.

On October 1, 2019 Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

385.

To date, Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

44

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 89 of 308

386.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares’ immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali Family

387.

Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

388.

Plaintiff David Petrosian-Mkervali is a native of Russia and spouse of Tatiana

Petrosyan-Mkervali. David Petrosian-Mkervali is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali should she be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

389.

Plaintiff I.P.M. is a native of Russia and minor child of Tatiana Petrosyan-

Mkervali. Plaintiff I.P.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

390.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

391.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali visa case number

2020EU00025411.

392.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

393.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff David Petrosian-Mkervali submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

45

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 90 of 308

394.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff I.P.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

395.

On March 11, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali that her

case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

396.

To date, Plaintiffs Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali, David Petrosian-Mkervali and

I.P.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

397.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Tatiana Petrosyan-Mkervali, David

Petrosian-Mkervali and I.P.M.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Pere Cervero Gregori

398.

Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee.

399.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

400.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori visa case number 2020EU31033.

401.

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

402.

Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

403.

To date, Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

46

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 91 of 308

404.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Pere Cervero Gregori’s immigrant visa applications

are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Hichem Kriaa

405.

Plaintiff Hichem Kriaa is a native of Tunisia and DV-2020 selectee.

406.

Plaintiff Radhia Barhoumi Kriaa is a native of Tunisia and spouse of Hichem Kriaa.

Radhia Barhoumi Kriaa is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Hichem Kriaa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

407.

On May 7, 2019, Hichem Kriaa and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

408.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hichem Kriaa visa case number 2020AF49793.

409.

On January 19, 2020, Plaintiff Hichem Kriaa submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

410.

On January 19, 2020, Plaintiff Radhia Barhoumi Kriaa submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

411.

Plaintiffs Hichem Kriaa and Radhia Barhoumi Kiraa have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

47

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 92 of 308

412.

To date, Plaintiffs Hichem Kriaa and Radhia Barhoumi Kiraa have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

413.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Hichem Kriaa and Radhia Barhoumi Kiraa

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh

414.

Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh is a native of Jordan and DV-2020

selectee.

415.

On May 7, 2019, Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

416.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh visa case number

2020AS16267.

417.

On October 5, 2019, Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

418.

Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh has submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

419.

To date, Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. `

48

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 93 of 308

420.

The adjudications of Plaintiff Mohanad Nader Fuad Batarseh immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Michael Matthew Camilleri

421.

Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri is a native of Malta and DV-2020 selectee.

422.

On May 7, 2019, Michael Matthew Camilleri was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

423.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri visa case number

2020EU35883.

424.

On May 2, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

425.

Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri has submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

426.

To date, Plaintiff Michael Matthew Camilleri has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. `

427.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Michael Matthew Camilleri immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara Family

428.

Plaintiff Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara is a native of Egypt and DV-2020

selectee.

429.

Plaintiff Ahmed Sorour Ahmed Ahmed is a native of Egypt and spouse of Shereen

Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara. Ahmed Sorour Ahmed Ahmed is eligible to immigrate to

49

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 94 of 308

the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

430.

Plaintiff N.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Shereen Elsaid Rezk

Abdelaziz Nawara. N.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara should she be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

431.

Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Shereen Elsaid Rezk

Abdelaziz Nawara. A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara should she be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

432.

On May 7, 2019, Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

433.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara visa case

number 2020AF38549.

434.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara submitted

her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

435.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Ahmed Sorour Ahmed Ahmed submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

436.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff N.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

50

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 95 of 308

437.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

438.

Plaintiffs Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her derivative beneficiaries

have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application.

439.

To date, Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her derivative beneficiaries

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

440.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Shereen Elsaid Rezk Abdelaziz Nawara and her

derivative beneficiaries’ immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees

Chiara Alunni Ricci

441.

Plaintiff Chiara Alunni Ricci is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

442.

Plaintiff Marco Penchini is a native of Italy and spouse of Chiara Alunni Ricci.

Marco Penchini is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Chiara Alunni Ricci should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

443.

On May 7, 2019, Chiara Alunni Ricci and her derivative beneficiary were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

444.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Chiara Alunni Ricci visa case number 2020EU39710.

51

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 96 of 308

445.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff Chiara Alunni Ricci submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

446.

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marco Penchini submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

447.

Plaintiffs Chiara Aluni Ricci and her derivative beneficiary have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

448.

To date, Chiara Alunni Ricci and Marco Penchini have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

449.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Chiara Alunni Ricci and Marco Penchini’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees

Shahpour Safaei Semnani

450.

Plaintiff Shahpour Safaei Semnani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

451.

Plaintiff Homa Saffaran is a native of Iran and spouse of Shahpour Safaei Semnani.

Homa Saffaran is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Shahpour Safaei Semnani should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

452.

On May 7, 2019, Shahpour Safaei Semnani and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

52

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 97 of 308

453.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahpour Safaei Semnani visa case number

2020AS8043.

454.

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Shahpour Safaei Semnani submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

455.

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Homa Saffaran submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

456.

Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran have submitted all

necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

457.

Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran were scheduled for an

interview on April 8, 2020, but the embassy cancelled it.

458.

To date, Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran have not been re-

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

459.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Shahpour Safaei Semnani and Homa Saffaran’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees

Habtamu Sisay Eyasu

460.

Plaintiff Habtamu Sisay Eyasu is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee.

461.

Plaintiff Beteleham Chala is a native of Ethiopia and spouse of Habtamu Sisay

Eyasu. Beteleham Chala is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

53

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 98 of 308

beneficiary of Habtamu Sisay Eyasu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

462.

Plaintiff A.S. is a native of Ethiopia and minor child of Habtamu Sisay Eyasu. A.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Habtamu Sisay

Eyasu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

463.

Plaintiff M.S. is a native of Ethiopia and minor child of Habtamu Sisay Eyasu. M.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Habtamu Sisay

Eyasu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

464.

On May 7, 2019, Habtamu Sisay Eyasu and his derivative beneficiary were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

465.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Habtamu Sisay Eyasu visa case number 2020AF68135.

466.

On November 4, 2019 Plaintiff Habtamu Sisay submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection

467.

On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff Beteleham Chala submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

468.

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff A.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

469.

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff M.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

54

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 99 of 308

470.

Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu, Beteleham Chala, M.S., and A.S. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

471.

To date, Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu, Beteleham Chala, M.S., and A.S. have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

472.

Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu and Beteleham Chala are both pharmacists.

473.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Habtamu Sisay Eyasu, Beteleham Chala, M.S., and

A.S.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Marina Utkina

474.

Plaintiff Marina Utkina is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

475.

Plaintiff Andrei Utkin is a native of Russia and spouse of Marina Utkina. Andrei

Utkin is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Marina

Utkina should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

476.

On May 7, 2019, Marina Utkina and her derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

477.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marina Utkina visa case number 2020EU26632.

478.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marina Utkina submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

55

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 100 of 308

479.

On June 7, Plaintiff Andrei Utkin submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

480.

Plaintiffs Marina Utkina and Andrei Utkin have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

481.

To date, Plaintiffs Marina Utkina and Andrei Utkin have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

482.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Marina Utkina and Andrei Utkin’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Sema Aydin

483.

Plaintiff Sema Aydin is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

484.

Plaintiff Taner Aydin is a native of Turkey and spouse of Sema Aydin. Taner Aydin

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sema Aydin

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

485.

On May 7, 2019, Sema Aydin and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit

a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

486.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sema Aydin visa case number 2020EU36675.

487.

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Sema Aydin submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

488.

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Taner Aydin submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

56

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 101 of 308

489.

Plaintiffs Sema Aydin and Taner Aydin have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

490.

To date, Plaintiffs Sema Aydin and Taner Aydin have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

491.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Sema Aydin and Taner Aydin’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mariia Relitska

492.

Plaintiff Mariia Relitska is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee.

493.

Plaintiff Victor Relitskyi is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Mariia Relitska.

Victor Relitskyi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Mariia Relitska should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

494.

Plaintiff N.R. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Mariia Relitska. N.R. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mariia Relitska

should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

495.

On May 7, 2019, Mariia Relitska and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

496.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mariia Relitska visa case number 2020EU20389.

497.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Mariia Relitska submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

57

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 102 of 308

498.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Victor Relitskyi. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

499.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff N..R. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

500.

Plaintiffs Mariia Relitska, Victor Relitskyi, and N.R. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

501.

KCC sent Plaintiff Mariia Relitska confirmation that all the documentation was

received and they were ready for an interview, .

502.

To date, Plaintiffs Mariia Relitska, Victor Relitskyi, and N.R. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

503.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mariia Relitska, Victor Relitskyi, and N.R.’s

immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Ilona Sussner

504.

Plaintiff Ilona Sussner is a native of Germany, a psychologist and licensed

psychotherapist, and DV-2020 selectee.

505.

Plaintiff Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg is a native of Germany and spouse of Ilona

Sussner. Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Ilona Sussner should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

58

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 103 of 308

506.

Plaintiff J.S. is a native of Germany and minor son of Ilona Sussner. J.S. is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ilona Sussner should she

be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

507.

On May 7, 2019, Ilona Sussner and her derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

508.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ilona Sussner visa case number 2020EU43401.

509.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff Ilona Sussner submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

510.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

511.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff J.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

512.

Plaintiffs Ilona Sussner, Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg, and J.S. have submitted

all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application.

513.

To date, Plaintiffs Ilona Sussner and Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

514.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ilona Sussner, Laurenz Aloysius Tenhumberg, and

J.S.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

59

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 104 of 308

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Ina Bitri

515.

Plaintiff Ina Bitri is a native of Albania, a pharmacist, and DV-2020 selectee.

516.

Plaintiff Persid Qalliu is a native of Albania and spouse of Ina Bitri. Persid Qalliu

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ina Bitri should

she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

517.

Plaintiff K.Q. is a native of Albania and minor child of Ina Bitri. K.Q. is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ina Bitri should she be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

518.

On May 7, 2019, Ina Bitri and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

519.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ina Bitri visa case number 2020EU24569.

520.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Ina Bitri submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

521.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Persid Qalliu submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

522.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff K.Q. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

523.

Plaintiffs Ina Bitri, Persid Qalliu, and K.Q. have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

60

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 105 of 308

524.

On March 10, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiffs Ina Bitri that the documents had been

processed and that the family was ready for an interview. On the phone, KCC told Plaintiff

Ina Bitri that interview would be scheduled for March 10, 2020, but it was never scheduled.

525.

To date, Plaintiffs Ina Bitri, Persid Qalliu, and K.Q. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

526.

The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ina Bitri and Persid Qalliu’s immigrant visa

applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mozhgan Karimian Khorram

527.

Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

528.

Plaintiff Amir Elaysi is a native of Iran and spouse of Mozhgan Karimian

Khorram. Amir Elaysi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mozhgan Karimian Khorram should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

529.

Plaintiff B.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mozhgan Karimian

Khorram. Plaintiff B.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mozhgan Karimian Khorram should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

530.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

531.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram visa case number

2020AS00007932.

61

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 106 of 308

532.

Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

533.

Plaintiff Amir Elyasi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

534.

Plaintiff B.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

535.

Plaintiff Mozhgan Karimian Khorram was notified that her family was scheduled

for an interview for April 1, 2020, but that interview was cancelled.

536.

To date, Plaintiffs Mozhgan Karimian Khorram, Amir Elyasi and B.E. have not

been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

537.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mozhgan Karimian Khorram, Amir Elyasi and B.E.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen Family

538.

Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen was born in Saudi

Arabia, is a citizen of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

539.

Plaintiff Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr is a native of Egypt and spouse of Dr.

Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

62

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 107 of 308

540.

Plaintiff K.M.A.M.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff K.M.A.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

541.

Plaintiff A.M.A.M.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff A.M.A.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

542.

Plaintiff A.M.A.A. was born in Saudi Arabia, a citizen of Egypt, and minor child

of Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff A.M.A.A. is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

543.

Plaintiff H.M.A.M.I.A. is a native of Great Britain and minor child of Dr.

Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen. Plaintiff H.M.A.M.I.A. is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Mohammed Awad

Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

544.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen and

his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

545.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen

visa case number 2020AS00022943.

63

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 108 of 308

546.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim

Abdeen submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

547.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

548.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff K.M.A.M.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

549.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.A.M.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

550.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff A.M.A.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

551.

On September 19, 2019 Plaintiff H.M.A.M.I.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

552.

To date, Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen, Hagar

Youssef Ahmed Sakr, K.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.A. and H.M.A.M.I.A. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

553.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dr. Mohammed Awad Mohammed Ibrahim Abdeen,

Hagar Youssef Ahmed Sakr, K.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.M.A., A.M.A.A. and H.M.A.M.I.A.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

64

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 109 of 308

Liudmila Kaiumova

554.

Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

555.

Plaintiff L.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Liudmila Kaiumova. Plaintiff

L.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Liudmila

Kaiumova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

556.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

557.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova visa case number

2020EU00030194.

558.

On May 21, 2019 Plaintiff Liudmila Kaiumova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

559.

On May 21, 2019 Plaintiff L.K. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

560.

To date, Plaintiffs Liudmila Kaiumova and L.K. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

561.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Liudmila Kaiumova and L.K.’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Veli Bozan

562.

Plaintiff Veli Bozan is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

65

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 110 of 308

563.

Plaintiff Fatma Bozan is a native of Turkey and spouse of Veli Bozan. Fatma

Bozan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Veli Bozan

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

564.

Plaintiff Z.N.B. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Veli Bozan. Plaintiff

Z.N.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Veli

Bozan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

565.

Plaintiff I.A.B. is a native of Turkey and minor child of Veli Bozan. Plaintiff I.A.B.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Veli Bozan

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

566.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Veli Bozan and his derivative beneficiaries were invited

to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

567.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Veli Bozan visa case number 2020EU46514.

568.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Veli Bozan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

569.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Fatma Bozan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

570.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Z.N.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

571.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff I.A.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

66

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 111 of 308

572.

To date, Plaintiffs Veli Bozan, Fatma Bozan, Z.N.B., and I.A.B. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

573.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Veli Bozan, Fatma Bozan, their two daughters

Z.N.B., and I.A.B.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi

574.

Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi is a native of Jordan and DV-

2020 selectee.

575.

Plaintiff Oday Ali Hussen Bani Ahmad is a native of Jordan and spouse of Dr.

Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi. Oday Ali Hussen Bani Ahmad is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Shoroq Qasem

Mohammad Shatnawi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

576.

Plaintiff A.O.A.B.A. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Dr. Shoroq Qasem

Mohammad Shatnawi. Plaintiff A.O.A.B.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi should she be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

577.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi and her

derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

67

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 112 of 308

578.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi visa case

number 2020AS00016647.

579.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi submitted her

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

580.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Oday Ali Hussen Bani Ahmad submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

581.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff A.O.A.B.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

582.

To date, Plaintiffs Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi, Oday Ali Hussen Bani

Ahmad and A.O.A.B.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

583.

Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi has been admitted to the PhD program

in veterinary school in Oklahoma state university for the fall of 2020.

584.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dr. Shoroq Qasem Mohammad Shatnawi, Oday Ali

Hussen Bani Ahmad and A.O.A.B.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant

to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of

immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Konstantin Shabalin

585.

Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

586.

Plaintiff Anastasia Maltseva is a native of Russia and spouse of Konstantin

Shabalin. Anastasia Maltseva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

68

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 113 of 308

beneficiary of Konstantin Shabalin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

587.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

588.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin visa case number

2020EU00031533.

589.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Konstantin Shabalin originally submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

590.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Anastasia Maltseva originally submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

591.

To date, Plaintiffs Konstantin Shabalin and Anastasia Maltseva have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

592.

The adjudication of Konstantin Shabalin and Anastasia Maltseva’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Alaa R. D. Habeeb

593.

Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb is a native of Palestine and DV-2020 selectee.

594.

Plaintiff Hebah H. H. Habeeb is a native of Palestine and spouse of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Hebah H. H. Habeeb is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

69

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 114 of 308

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

595.

Plaintiff R.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff R.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

596.

Plaintiff M.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff M.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

597.

Plaintiff J.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff J.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

598.

Plaintiff A.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff A.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

599.

Plaintiff Q.A.R.H. is a native of Palestine and minor child of Alaa R. D.

Habeeb. Plaintiff Q.A.R.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Alaa R. D. Habeeb should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

70

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 115 of 308

600.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

601.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb visa case number

2020AS00022253.

602.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff Alaa R. D. Habeeb submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

603.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff Hebah H. H. Habeeb submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

604.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff R.A.R.H. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

605.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff M.A.R.H. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

606.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff J.A.R.H. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

607.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff A.A.R.H. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

608.

On November 5, 2019 Plaintiff Q.A.R.H. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

609.

To date, Plaintiffs Alaa R. D. Habeeb, Hebah H. H. Habeeb, R.A.R.H., M.A.R.H.,

J.A.R.H., A.A.R.H. and Q.A.R.H. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

71

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 116 of 308

610.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Alaa R. D. Habeeb, Hebah H. H. Habeeb, R.A.R.H.,

M.A.R.H., J.A.R.H., A.A.R.H. and Q.A.R.H.’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Aymen Ben Youssef

611.

Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef is a native of Tunisia and DV-2020 selectee.

612.

Plaintiff Miriam Ouerghi is a native of Tunisia and spouse of Aymen Ben

Youssef. Miriam Ouerghi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Aymen Ben Youssef should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

613.

Plaintiff Y.B.Y. is a native of Tunisia and minor child of Aymen Ben

Youssef. Plaintiff Y.B.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Aymen Ben Youssef should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

614.

Plaintiff M.B.Y. is a native of Qatar and minor child of Aymen Ben

Youssef. Plaintiff M.B.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Aymen Ben Youssef should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

615.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

616.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef visa case number 2020AF25152.

72

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 117 of 308

617.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff Aymen Ben Youssef submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

618.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff Miriam Ouerghi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

619.

On October 9, 2019 Plaintiff Y.B.Y. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

620.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff M.B.Y. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

621.

Plaintiffs Aymen Ben Youssef, Miriam Ouerghi, Y.B.Y. and M.B.Y. were invited

for an interview on March 25, 2020 but it was cancelled on March 17, 2020.

622.

To date, Plaintiffs Aymen Ben Youssef, Miriam Ouerghi, Y.B.Y. and M.B.Y. have

not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

623.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Aymen Ben Youssef, Miriam Ouerghi, Y.B.Y. and

M.B.Y.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Giorgi Tsikarishvili

624.

Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili is a native of Georgia and DV-2020 selectee.

625.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

626.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili visa case number

2020EU00026161.

73

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 118 of 308

627.

On June 23, 2019 Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

628.

To date, Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

629.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Giorgi Tsikarishvili’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Blandine Riziki Bikali

630.

Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and DV-2020

selectee.

631.

Plaintiff Robert Byamungu Buraga is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and spouse of

Blandine Riziki Bikali. Robert Byamungu Buraga is eligible to immigrate to the United

States as a derivative beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

632.

Plaintiff N.A.B. is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and minor child of Blandine Riziki

Bikali. Plaintiff N.A.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

633.

Plaintiff D.N.B. is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and minor child of Blandine Riziki

Bikali. Plaintiff D.N.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

74

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 119 of 308

634.

Plaintiff J.I.Y.M.B. is a native of Congo-Kinshasa and minor child of Blandine

Riziki Bikali. Plaintiff J.I.Y.M.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Blandine Riziki Bikali should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

635.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali and her derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

636.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali visa case number

2020AF00023040.

637.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Blandine Riziki Bikali submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

638.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Robert Byamungu Buraga submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

639.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff N.A.B. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

640.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff D.N.B. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

641.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff J.I.Y.M.B. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

642.

To date, Plaintiffs Blandine Riziki Bikali, Robert Byamungu Buraga, N.A.B.,

D.N.B. and J.I.Y.M.B. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

75

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 120 of 308

643.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Blandine Riziki Bikali, Robert Byamungu Buraga,

N.A.B., D.N.B. and J.I.Y.M.B.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Zeljona Shahinas

644.

Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

645.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

646.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas visa case number 2020EU00035330.

647.

Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

648.

To date, Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

649.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Zeljona Shahinas’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Lal Kumar Adhikari

650.

Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.

651.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

652.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari visa case number 2020AS12729.

653.

On May 14, 2019 Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

76

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 121 of 308

654.

To date, Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari has not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

655.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Lal Kumar Adhikari’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar Family

656.

Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar is a native of Jordan and DV-2020 selectee.

657.

Plaintiff Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani is a native of Jordan and spouse of Osama

Said Ahmed Al-Najjar. Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani is eligible to immigrate to the

United States as a derivative beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be

issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

658.

Plaintiff S.O.S.N. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Osama Said Ahmed Al-

Najjar. Plaintiff S.O.S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

659.

Plaintiff N.O.S.N. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Osama Said Ahmed Al-

Najjar. Plaintiff N.O.S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

660.

Plaintiff A.O.S.N. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Osama Said Ahmed Al-

Najjar. Plaintiff A.O.S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

77

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 122 of 308

661.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

662.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar visa case number

2020EU00040919.

663.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

664.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

665.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff S.O.S.N. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

666.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff N.O.S.N. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

667.

On January 7, 2020 Plaintiff A.O.S.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

668.

To date, Plaintiffs Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar, Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al Momani,

S.O.S.N., N.O.S.N. and A.O.S.N. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

669.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Osama Said Ahmed Al-Najjar, Mais Nawaf Ali S. Al

Momani, S.O.S.N., N.O.S.N. and A.O.S.N.’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

78

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 123 of 308

Chi Wai Cheung

670.

Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

671.

Plaintiff Suk Kei Ku is a native of Hong Kong and spouse of Chi Wai Cheung. Suk

Kei Ku is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Chi Wai

Cheung should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

672.

Plaintiff O.Y.C. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Chi Wai

Cheung. Plaintiff O.Y.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Chi Wai Cheung should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

673.

Plaintiff Y.M.C. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Chi Wai

Cheung. Plaintiff Y.M.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Chi Wai Cheung should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

674.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

675.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung visa case number 2020AS00022275.

676.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Chi Wai Cheung submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

677.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Suk Kei Ku submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

678.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff O.Y.C. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

79

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 124 of 308

679.

On May 17, 2019 Plaintiff Y.M.C. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

680.

To date, Plaintiffs Chi Wai Cheung, Suk Kei Ku, O.Y.C. and Y.M.C. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

681.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Chi Wai Cheung, Suk Kei Ku, O.Y.C. and Y.M.C.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Nicole Melinda Stephan

682.

Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee.

683.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

684.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan visa case number

2020OC00002069.

685.

On November 30, 2019 Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

686.

To date, Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

687.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Nicole Melinda Stephan’s immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Iaroslav Kulagin

80

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 125 of 308

688.

Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

689.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

690.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin visa case number 2020EU33603.

691.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

692.

To date, Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin has not been scheduled for an interview at an

US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

693.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Iaroslav Kulagin’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mina Magdy Michel Morcos

694.

Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

695.

Plaintiff Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef is a native of Egypt and spouse of Mina Magdy

Michel Morcos. Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Mina Magdy Michel Morcos should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

696.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

697.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos visa case number

2020AF44957.

81

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 126 of 308

698.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

699.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

700.

On November 29, 2019, Plaintiff Mina Magdy Michel Morcos submitted all the

documents required by KCC and received a confirmation that they were processed.

701.

To date, Plaintiffs Mina Magdy Michel Morcos and Ireny Mounir Saad Youssef

have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

702.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mina Magdy Michel Morcos and Ireny Mounir Saad

Youssef’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Tiziano Mammana

703.

Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana is a native of Italy and DV-2020 selectee.

704.

Plaintiff Angela De Cristofaro is a native of Italy and spouse of Tiziano

Mammana. Angela De Cristofaro is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Tiziano Mammana should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

705.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

82

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 127 of 308

706.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana visa case number

2020EU00032463.

707.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

708.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Angela De Cristofaro submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

709.

On March 20, 2020, KCC sent an email to Plaintiff Tiziano Mammana letting him

know their documents were received and they were ready to be scheduled for an interview.

710.

To date, Plaintiffs Tiziano Mammana and Angela De Cristofaro have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

711.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Tiziano Mammana and Angela De Cristofaro’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Ornela Feza

712.

Plaintiff Ornela Feza is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

713.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ornela Feza was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

714.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ornela Feza visa case number 2020EU19506.

715.

On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Ornela Feza submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

83

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 128 of 308

716.

Plaintiff Ornela Feza was scheduled for an interview for April 21, 2020 but the

interview was cancelled.

717.

To date, Plaintiff Ornela Feza has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

718.

Plaintiff Ornela Feza is a registered nurse where works as a nurse in center of

persons with disabilities otherwise. Ministry of Health and Social Services in Albania.

719.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ornela Feza’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mikita Varonin

720.

Plaintiff Mikita Varonin is a native of Belarus and DV-2020 selectee.

721.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mikita Varonin was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

722.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mikita Varonin visa case number 2020EU00030258.

723.

On February 11, 2020 Plaintiff Mikita Varonin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

724.

To date, Plaintiff Mikita Varonin has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

725.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Mikita Varonin’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Monika Ozlevi Family

726.

Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi is a native of Czech Republic and DV-2020 selectee.

84

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 129 of 308

727.

Plaintiff Erol Ozlevi is a native of Turkey and spouse of Monika Ozlevi. Erol

Ozlevi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Monika

Ozlevi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

728.

Plaintiff D.O. is a native of Czech Republic and minor child of Monika

Ozlevi. Plaintiff D.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Monika Ozlevi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

729.

Plaintiff S.K.O. is a native of Czech Republic and minor child of Monika

Ozlevi. Plaintiff S.K.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Monika Ozlevi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

730.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

731.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi visa case number 2020EU33740.

732.

On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Monika Ozlevi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

733.

On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Erol Ozlevi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

734.

On September 18, 2019 Plaintiff D.O. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

735.

On September 18, 2019 Plaintiff S.K.O. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

85

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 130 of 308

736.

To date, Plaintiffs Monika Ozlevi, Erol Ozlevi, D.O. and S.K.O. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

737.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Monika Ozlevi, Erol Ozlevi, D.O. and S.K.O.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed

738.

Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed is a native of Egypt and DV-2020

selectee.

739.

Plaintiff Amany Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif Tahon is a native of Egypt and

spouse of Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed. Amany Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif

Tahon is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ashraf

Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

740.

Plaintiff F.A.A.F.F.M. is a citizen of Egypt, born in Saudi Arabia, and minor child

of Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed. Plaintiff F.A.A.F.F.M. is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

741.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

86

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 131 of 308

742.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed visa case

number 2020AF00018959.

743.

On August 13, 2019 Plaintiff Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed submitted his

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

744.

On August 13,2019 Plaintiff Amany Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif Tahon submitted

her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s

DV-2020 selection.

745.

On August 13,2019 Plaintiff F.A.A.F.F.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

746.

To date, Plaintiffs Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed, Amany Mohamed

Moussa Abdellatif Tahon and F.A.A.F.F.M. have not been scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

747.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Ashraf Ahmed Fathi Fahmi Mohamed, Amany

Mohamed Moussa Abdellatif Tahon and F.A.A.F.F.M.’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid Family

748.

Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid is a native of Saudi Arabia, a citizen

of Egypt, and DV-2020 selectee.

749.

Plaintiff Doaa Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali is a native of Egypt and spouse of

Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid. Doaa Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali is eligible to

87

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 132 of 308

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yasser Ahmed Elnour

Mohamed Zaid should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

750.

Plaintiff R.Y.A.E.M.Z. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Yasser Ahmed

Elnour Mohamed Zaid. Plaintiff R.Y.A.E.M.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States

as a derivative beneficiary of Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid should he be issued an

immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

751.

Plaintiff M.Y.A.E.M.Z. is a citizen of Egypt, born in Saudi Arabia, and minor child

of Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid. Plaintiff M.Y.A.E.M.Z. is eligible to immigrate

to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

752.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid and his derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

753.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid visa case

number 2020AS8266.

754.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid submitted his

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

755.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff Doaa Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali submitted her DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

756.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff R.Y.A.E.M.Z. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

88

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 133 of 308

757.

On August 2, 2019 Plaintiff M.Y.A.E.M.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

758.

On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid and his

family attended an interview at US Embassy Riyad, and the case went into administrative

processing. To this date, the embassy still has the families passports.

759.

To date, Plaintiffs Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid, Doaa Mohamed Ali

Mohamed Ali, R.Y.A.E.M.Z. and M.Y.A.E.M.Z. have not been scheduled for a re-

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

760.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Yasser Ahmed Elnour Mohamed Zaid, Doaa

Mohamed Ali Mohamed Ali, R.Y.A.E.M.Z. and M.Y.A.E.M.Z.’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Gergana Kostova Ivanova Family

761.

Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova is a native of Bulgaria, a speech and language

therapist, and DV-2020 selectee.

762.

Plaintiff Georgi Nikolov Ivanov is a native of Bulgaria and spouse of Gergana

Kostova Ivanova. Georgi Nikolov Ivanov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as

a derivative beneficiary of Gergana Kostova Ivanova should she be issued an immigrant

visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

763.

Plaintiff G.G.I. is a native of Bulgaria and minor child of Gergana Kostova

Ivanova. Plaintiff G.G.I. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Gergana Kostova Ivanova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

89

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 134 of 308

764.

Plaintiff B.G.I. is a native of Bulgaria and minor child of Gergana Kostova

Ivanova. Plaintiff B.G.I. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Gergana Kostova Ivanova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

765.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

766.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova visa case number

2020EU00032385.

767.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Gergana Kostova Ivanova submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

768.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Georgi Nikolov Ivanov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

769.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff G.G.I. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

770.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff B.G.I. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

771.

To date, Plaintiffs Gergana Kostova Ivanova, Georgi Nikolov Ivanov, G.G.I. and

B.G.I. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

772.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Gergana Kostova Ivanova, Georgi Nikolov Ivanov,

G.G.I. and B.G.I.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

90

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 135 of 308

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Sergey Belousov

773.

Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

774.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov was invited to submit a DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

775.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov visa case number

2020EU11592.

776.

On October 2, 2019 Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

777.

To date, Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov has not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

778.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Sergey Yourevich Belousov’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Yat Lung Chu

779.

Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

780.

Plaintiff Ngan Ching Yu is a native of Hong Kong and spouse of Yat Lung

Chu. Ngan Ching Yu is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Yat Lung Chu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

91

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 136 of 308

781.

Plaintiff C.H.C. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Yat Lung

Chu. Plaintiff C.H.C. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Yat Lung Chu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

782.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

783.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu visa case number 2020AS30587.

784.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Yat Lung Chu submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

785.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff Ngan Ching Yu submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

786.

On May 19, 2019 Plaintiff C.H.C. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

787.

To date, Plaintiffs Yat Lung Chu, Ngan Ching Yu and C.H.C. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

788.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Yat Lung Chu, Ngan Ching Yu and C.H.C.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Ivi Haxhaj

789.

Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj is a native of Albania and DV-2020 selectee.

92

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 137 of 308

790.

Plaintiff Anisa Lila is a native of Albania and spouse of Ivi Haxhaj. Anisa Lila is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ivi Haxhaj should

he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

791.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj and his derivative beneficiary were invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

792.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj visa case number 2020EU30240.

793.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

794.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff Anisa Lila submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

795.

On March 9, 2020 KCC notified Plaintiff Ivi Haxhaj that her documents were

processed and she was ready for an interview to be scheduled.

796.

To date, Plaintiffs Ivi Haxhaj and Anisa Lila have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

797.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Ivi Haxhaj and Anisa Lila’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Behrang Ghabchi

798.

Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.

799.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

800.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi visa case number 2020AS5563.

93

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 138 of 308

801.

On September 1, 2019 Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

802.

Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi was scheduled for an interview on February 17 in Abu

Dhabi, but he asked to change it since he lives in Turkey. He was waiting to be rescheduled

but that has never happened.

803.

To date, Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi has not been re-scheduled for an interview at

an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

804.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Behrang Ghabchi’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Visar Musliu

805.

Plaintiff Visar Musliu is a native of Kosovo and DV-2020 selectee.

806.

Plaintiff Arta Sejdiu Musliu is a native of Kosovo and spouse of Visar Musliu. Arta

Sejdiu Musliu is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of

Visar Musliu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

807.

Plaintiff M.M. is a native of Kosovo and minor child of Visar Musliu. Plaintiff

M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Visar

Musliu should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

808.

Plaintiff E.M. is a native of Kosovo and minor child of Visar Musliu. Plaintiff E.M.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Visar Musliu

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

94

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 139 of 308

809.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Visar Musliu and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

810.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Visar Musliu visa case number 2020EU53075.

811.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff Visar Musliu submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

812.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff Arta Sejdiu Musliu submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

813.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff M.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

814.

On October 17, 2019 Plaintiff E.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

815.

To date, Plaintiffs Visar Musliu, Arta Sejdiu Musliu, M.M. and E.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

816.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Visar Musliu, Arta Sejdiu Musliu, M.M. and E.M.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman Family

817.

Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman is a native of Sudan, a dentist, and DV-

2020 selectee.

95

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 140 of 308

818.

Plaintiff Dr. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Farah is a native of Sudan, a dental surgeon,

and spouse of Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman. Dr. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Farah is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dr. Maryam Hassan

Ali Suliman should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

819.

Plaintiff M.M.A.M. is a native of Sudan and minor child of Maryam Hassan Ali

Suliman. Plaintiff M.M.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

820.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

821.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman visa case number

2020AS12212.

822.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

823.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Farah submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

824.

On May 11, 2019 Plaintiff M.M.A.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

825.

Plaintiff Dr. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman was scheduled for an interview on March

10, 2020. She and her family prepared by paying for the medical checkups and

96

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 141 of 308

vaccinations, as instructed by the US Embassy Muscat. They arrived at the interview and

submitted the required documents, paid the $990 in fees.

826.

To date, Plaintiffs Drs. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman and Mohamed Ali Mohamed

Farah, and M.M.A.M. have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

827.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Drs. Maryam Hassan Ali Suliman, and Mohamed Ali

Mohamed Farah, and M.M.A.M.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the

Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant

visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mohamed Ally Msabaha

828.

Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha is a native of Tanzania and DV-2020 selectee.

829.

Plaintiff A.M.M. is a native of Tanzania and minor son of Mohamed Ally

Msabaha. Plaintiff A.M.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Mohamed Ally Msabaha should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

her DV-2020 selection.

830.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha and his derivative son A.M.M.

were invited to submit DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

831.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha visa case number

2021AF00017353.

832.

Plaintiff Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha and his derivative son A.M.M.

submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Applications pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

97

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 142 of 308

833.

To date, Plaintiffs Mohamed Ally Msabaha and A.M.M. have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

834.

Plaintiff Mohamed Ally Msabaha’s wife is a U.S. citizen, who came to America as

a refugee years ago. She resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.

835.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mohamed Ally Msabaha and A.M.M.’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Ari Adil Kadir

836.

Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir is a native of Iraq and DV-2020 selectee.

837.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

838.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir visa case number 2020AS29769.

839.

On November 6, 2019 Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

840.

To date, Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

841.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ari Adil Kadir’s immigrant visa application is

suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Umman Orujova

98

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 143 of 308

842.

Plaintiff Umman Orujova is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee.

843.

Plaintiff Zaur Orujov is a native of Azerbaijan and spouse of Umman

Orujova. Zaur Orujov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Umman Orujova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

844.

Plaintiff K.O. is a native of Azerbaijan and minor child of Umman

Orujova. Plaintiff K.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Umman Orujova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

845.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Umman Orujova and her derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

846.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Umman Orujova visa case number 2020EU00026692.

847.

On September 26, 2019 Plaintiff Umman Orujova submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

848.

On September 26, 2019 Plaintiff Zaur Orujov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

849.

On July 26, 2019 Plaintiff K.O. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

850.

To date, Plaintiffs Umman Orujova, Zaur Orujov, and K.O. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

99

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 144 of 308

851.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Umman Orujova, Zaur Orujov, and K.O.’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program

selectees.

Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse

852.

Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse is a native of Australia and DV-

2020 selectee.

853.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse was invited to

submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

854.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse visa case

number 2020OC1859.

855.

On October 18, 2019 Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse submitted her

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020

selection.

856.

Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse was scheduled for an interview on

April 21, 2020, but it was cancelled.

857.

To date, Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse has not been re-scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

858.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Isabella Rachel Judith Kearney-Nurse’s immigrant

visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

100

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 145 of 308

practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa

859.

Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.

860.

Plaintiff Khaled Elghandour is a native of Egypt and spouse of Enas Fathy Ahmed

Eissa. Khaled Elghandour is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

861.

Plaintiff S.E. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Enas Fathy Ahmed

Eissa. Plaintiff S.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

862.

Plaintiff M.E. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Enas Fathy Ahmed

Eissa. Plaintiff M.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-

2020 selection.

863.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa and her derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

864.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa visa case number

2020AF21483.

865.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

101

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 146 of 308

866.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Khaled Elghandour submitted her DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020

selection.

867.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff S.E. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.

868.

On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff M.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

869.

Plaintiffs Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa, Khaled Elghandour, S.E. and M.E. were

scheduled for an interview on March 18, 2020.

870.

To date, Plaintiffs Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa, Khaled Elghandour, S.E. and M.E.

have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a

decision on their applications.

871.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Enas Fathy Ahmed Eissa, Khaled Elghandour, S.E.

and M.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Oleg Sorokin

872.

Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

873.

Plaintiff Svetlana Sorokina is a native of Russia and spouse of Oleg

Sorokin. Svetlana Sorokina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

102

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 147 of 308

874.

Plaintiff V.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Oleg Sorokin. Plaintiff V.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

875.

Plaintiff D.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Oleg Sorokin. Plaintiff D.S.

is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

876.

Plaintiff I.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Oleg Sorokin. Plaintiff I.S. is

eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg Sorokin

should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

877.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

878.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin visa case number 2020EU00023874.

879.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Oleg Sorokin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

880.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff Svetlana Sorokina submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

881.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff V.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

882.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff D.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

883.

On May 27, 2019 Plaintiff I.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

103

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 148 of 308

884.

To date, Plaintiffs Oleg Sorokin, Svetlana Sorokina, V.S., D.S. and I.S. have not

been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on

their applications.

885.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Oleg Sorokin, Svetlana Sorokina, V.S., D.S. and

I.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Ahmet Er

886.

Plaintiff Ahmet Er is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee.

887.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmet Er was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

888.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ahmet Er visa case number 2020EU44987.

889.

On May 15, 2019 Plaintiff Ahmet Er submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. On May 19, 2019, he

re-submitted the DS-260 to change his interview location from Ankara to Auckland.

890.

To date, Plaintiff Ahmet Er has not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

891.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Ahmet Er’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail Family

892.

Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail is a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee.

104

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 149 of 308

893.

Plaintiff Tamanna Naeabkhail is a native of Afghanistan and spouse of Zaheeruddin

Naeabkhail. Tamanna Naeabkhail is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a

derivative beneficiary of Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail should he be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

894.

Plaintiff B.N. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Zaheeruddin

Naeabkhail. Plaintiff B.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

895.

Plaintiff S.N. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Zaheeruddin

Naeabkhail. Plaintiff S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

896.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

897.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail visa case number

2020AS1565.

898.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

899.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Tamanna Naeabkhail submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

900.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff B.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

105

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 150 of 308

901.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff S.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

902.

Plaintiffs Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail, Tamanna Naeabkhail, and B.N. were

scheduled for and attended an interview on November 7, 2019.

903.

To date, Plaintiffs Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail, Tamanna Naeabkhail, and B.N. have

not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

904.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Zaheeruddin Naeabkhail, Tamanna Naeabkhail, and

B.N.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber Family

905.

Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber is a native of Jordan and DV-

2020 selectee.

906.

Plaintiff Noor Nimer Mohammad Abujaber is a native of Jordan and spouse of

Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber. Noor Nimer Mohammad Abujaber is eligible

to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Mujalli

Mohammad Abujaber should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

907.

Plaintiff Z.M.M.A. is a native of Jordan and minor child of Mohammad Mujalli

Mohammad Abujaber. Plaintiff Z.M.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as

a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber should he be issued

an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 106

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 151 of 308

908.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber and his

derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

909.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber visa case

number 2020AS00021360.

910.

On September 7, 2019 Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber

submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

911.

On September 7, 2019 Plaintiff Noor Nimer Mohammad Abujaber submitted her

DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-

2020 selection.

912.

On September 7, 2019 Plaintiff Z.M.M.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

913.

KCC sent confirmation to Plaintiff Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber that

his family was ready to be scheduled for an interview.

914.

To date, Plaintiffs Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber, Noor Nimer

Mohammad Abujaber, and Z.M.M.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US

Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

915.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mohammad Mujalli Mohammad Abujaber, Noor

Nimer Mohammad Abujaber, and Z.M.M.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended

pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications

of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Khalil Yehya Al Hariri Family

107

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 152 of 308

916.

Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri is a native of Lebanon and DV-2020 selectee.

917.

Plaintiff Reine Ouday Assaad is a native of Lebanon and spouse of Khalil Yehya

Al Hariri. Reine Ouday Assaad is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Khalil Yehya Al Hariri should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

918.

Plaintiff Y.K.A. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Khalil Yehya Al

Hariri. Plaintiff Y.K.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Khalil Yehya Al Hariri should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

919.

Plaintiff R.K.A. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Khalil Yehya Al

Hariri. Plaintiff R.K.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Khalil Yehya Al Hariri should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

920.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

921.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri visa case number

2020AS21782.

922.

On November 19, 2019 Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

923.

On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff Reine Ouday Assaad submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection.

108

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 153 of 308

924.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff Y.K.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

925.

On May 12, 2019 Plaintiff R.K.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

926.

Plaintiff Khalil Yehya Al Hariri submitted all the required documents to KCC for

his family on Nov 19, 2019 and on March 19, 2020 he received an official email from KCC

congratulating him and confirming that the required documents had been processed and

that he was ready to be scheduled for an interview.

927.

To date, Plaintiffs Khalil Yehya Al Hariri, Reine Ouday Assaad, Y.K.A. and

R.K.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued

a decision on their applications.

928.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Khalil Yehya Al Hariri, Reine Ouday Assaad, Y.K.A.

and R.K.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s

policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications

for DV-2020 program selectees.

Anastasia Vedenina

929.

Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina is a native of Russia and DV-2020

selectee.

930.

Plaintiff Alexander Yevgenyevich Korneev is a native of Russia and spouse of

Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina. Alexander Yevgenyevich Korneev is eligible to

immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Anastasia Viktorovna

Vedenina should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

109

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 154 of 308

931.

Plaintiff P.A.K. is a native of Russia and minor child of Anastasia Viktorovna

Vedenina. Plaintiff P.A.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina should she be issued an immigrant visa

pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

932.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina and her derivative

beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

933.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina visa case number

2020EU241665.

934.

On October 12, 2019 Plaintiff Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

935.

On October 12, 2019 Plaintiff Alexander Yevgenyevich Korneev submitted his DS-

260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020

selection.

936.

On October 13, 2019 Plaintiff P.A.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

937.

To date, Plaintiffs Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina, Alexander Yevgenyevich

Korneev, and P.A.K. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or

Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

938.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Anastasia Viktorovna Vedenina, Alexander

Yevgenyevich Korneev, and P.A.K.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to

110

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 155 of 308

the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Oleg Potanin

939.

Plaintiff Oleg Potanin is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.

940.

Plaintiff Oxana Potanina is a native of Russia and spouse of Oleg Potanin. Oxana

Potanina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oleg

Potanin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

941.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Oleg Potanin and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

942.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Oleg Potanin visa case number 2020EU15330.

943.

On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff Oleg Potanin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

944.

On June 26, 2019 Plaintiff Oxana Potanina submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

945.

Plaintiffs Oleg Potanin and Oxana Potanina were scheduled for an interview on

April 2, 2020.

946.

To date, Plaintiffs Oleg Potanin and Oxana Potanina have not been rescheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

947.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Oleg Potanin and Oxana Potanina’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Mohammad Hamad Abed Abuznimah 111

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 156 of 308

948.

Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah is a native of Jordan and DV-2020

selectee.

949.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah was invited to submit

a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

950.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah visa case number

2020AS14168.

951.

On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

952.

Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah was scheduled for an interview on April

1, 2020 but it was cancelled. He had already incurred the expense and trouble of the medical

exam on March 22, 2020.

953.

To date, Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah has not been re-scheduled for

an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

954.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohammad Hamad Abuzneimah’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Fathi Muftah M Ejgandi

955.

Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi is a native of Libya and DV-2020 selectee.

956.

Plaintiff Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj is a native of Libya and spouse of Fathi Muftah M.

Ejgandi. Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection. 112

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 157 of 308

957.

Plaintiff M.F.E. is a native of Libya and minor child of Fathi Muftah M.

Ejgandi. Plaintiff M.F.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to

his DV-2020 selection.

958.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

959.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi visa case number

2020AF00046798.

960.

Plaintiff Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

961.

Plaintiff Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien

Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

962.

Plaintiff M.F.E. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.

963.

To date, Plaintiffs Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi, Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj, and M.F.E. have

not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision

on their applications.

964.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Fathi Muftah M. Ejgandi, Alaa Saleh Ali Ajaj, and

M.F.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,

procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-

2020 program selectees.

Razmik Mkrtchyan

113

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 158 of 308

965.

Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan is a native of Armenia and DV-2020 selectee.

966.

Plaintiff Anahit Torosyan is a native of Armenia and spouse of Razmik

Mkrtchyan. Anahit Torosyan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Razmik Mkrtchyan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

967.

Plaintiff D.M. is a native of Armenia and minor child of Razmik

Mkrtchyan. Plaintiff D.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Razmik Mkrtchyan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his

DV-2020 selection.

968.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

969.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan visa case number

2020EU00033316.

970.

On August 14, 2019 Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

971.

On August 14, 2019 Plaintiff Anahit Torosyan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

972.

On August 14, 2019 Plaintiff D.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.

973.

Plaintiff Razmik Mkrtchyan and his family have submitted all necessary

documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration

Application.

114

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 159 of 308

974.

To date, Plaintiffs Razmik Mkrtchyan, Anahit Torosyan, and D.M. have not been

scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their

applications.

975.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Razmik Mkrtchyan, Anahit Torosyan, and D.M.’s

immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures,

and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020

program selectees.

Sin Yi Venus Lo

976.

Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee.

977.

Plaintiff S.W.S.T. is a native of Hong Kong and minor child of Sin Yi Venus

Lo. Plaintiff S.W.S.T. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Sin Yi Venus Lo should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her

DV-2020 selection.

978.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo and her derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to her DV-2020 selection.

979.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo visa case number 2020AS23276.

980.

On February 23, 2020 Plaintiff Sin Yi Venus Lo submitted her DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.

981.

On February 23, 2020 Plaintiff S.W.S.T. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa

and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.

115

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 160 of 308

982.

Plaintiffs Sin Yi Venus Lo and S.W.S.T. submitted all necessary documentation

for adjudication of their DS260, and KCC sent them confirmation they were complete.

983.

To date, Plaintiffs Sin Yi Venus Lo and S.W.S.T. have not been scheduled for an

interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

984.

The adjudication of Plaintiffs Sin Yi Venus Lo and S.W.S.T.’s immigrant visa

application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices

suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh

985.

Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh is a native of Canada, born in Iran, and DV-2020

selectee.

986.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

987.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh visa case number

2020AS8565.

988.

On January 30, 2020 Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh submitted his DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

989.

Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh submitted all necessary documentation for

adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.

990.

On February 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh, that her case

was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.

991.

To date, Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh has not been scheduled for an interview

at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

116

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 161 of 308

992.

The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Mahsa Taghi Zadeh’s immigrant visa application

is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending

adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Lawrence Siva

993.

Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva is a native of Singapore and DV-2020 selectee.

994.

Plaintiff Yuehua Pan is a native of China and spouse of Lawrence Samuel

Siva. Yuehua Pan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary

of Lawrence Samuel Siva should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020

selection.

995.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva and his derivative beneficiaries

were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application

pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

996.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva visa case number

2020AS19181.

997.

On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Lawrence Samuel Siva submitted his DS-260, Immigrant

Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

998.

On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff Yuehua Pan submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and

Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.

999.

To date, Plaintiffs Lawrence Samuel Siva and Yuehua Pan have not been scheduled

for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

1000. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Lawrence Samuel Siva and Yuehua Pan’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and

117

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 162 of 308
practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Nassim Boukraa
1001. Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa is a native of France and DV-2020 selectee. 1002. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1003. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa visa case number 2020EU00020569. 1004. On September 20, 2019 Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1005. Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa was scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020 that
was cancelled. Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa scheduled an interview for July 7, 2020 online, but when he arrived, US Embassy Paris turned him away. 1006. To date, Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1007. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nassim Boukraa’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Janaya Lee Nelson
1008. Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson is a native of Australia and DV-2020 selectee. 1009. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1010. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson visa case number 2020OC1848.
118

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 163 of 308
1011. On May 8, 2019 Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1012. Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson was scheduled for an interview on April 14, 2020 that was cancelled by consulate on March 24, 2020.
1013. To date, Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1014. The adjudication of Plaintiff Janaya Lee Nelson’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Farshad Hesami Family
1015. Plaintiff Farshad Hesami is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1016. Plaintiff Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh is a native of Iran and spouse of
Farshad Hesami. Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farshad Hesami should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1017. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Farshad Hesami and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1018. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Farshad Hesami visa case number 2021AS1767 . 1019. On June 16, 2020 Plaintiff Farshad Hesami submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
119

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 164 of 308
1020. On June 16, 2020 Plaintiff Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV2020 selection.
1021. To date, Plaintiffs Farshad Hesami and Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1022. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Farshad Hesami and Fatemeh Ahmad Zadehlaye Ghlasheh’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Nikoletta Latos
1023. Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos is a native of Hungary and DV-2020 selectee. 1024. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1025. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos visa case number 2020EU44843. 1026. On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1027. To date, Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1028. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nikoletta Latos’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
120

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 165 of 308
Sandor Major
1029. Plaintiff Sandor Major is a native of Hungary and DV-2020 selectee. 1030. Plaintiff Agnes Ida Huszti is a native of Hungary and spouse of Sandor
Major. Agnes Ida Huszti is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sandor Major should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1031. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sandor Major and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1032. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sandor Major visa case number 2020EU45464. 1033. On July 7, 2019 Plaintiff Sandor Major submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1034. On July 7, 2019 Plaintiff Agnes Ida Huszti submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1035. To date, Plaintiffs Sandor Major and Agnes Ida Huszti have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1036. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Sandor Major and Agnes Ida Huszti’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Peter Mattias Schulz
1037. Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz is a native of Poland, citizen of Germany and Poland, and DV-2020 selectee.
121

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 166 of 308
1038. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1039. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz visa case number 2020EU28924. 1040. On January 12, 2020 Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. He originally submitted the DS-260 on May 9, 2019, but this date reflects when he made changes. 1041. On March 12, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz that his was ready to be scheduled for an interview. 1042. To date, Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1043. The adjudication of Plaintiff Peter Mattias Schulz’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Aleksandar Dordevic
1044. Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic is a native of Serbia and DV-2020 selectee. 1045. Plaintiff Marija Dordevic is a native of Serbia and spouse of Aleksandar
Dordevic. Marija Dordevic is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Aleksandar Dordevic should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1046. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
122

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 167 of 308
1047. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic visa case number 2020EU13683. 1048. On February 26, 2020 Plaintiff Aleksandar Dordevic submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1049. On February 26, 2020 Plaintiff Marija Dordevic submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1050. Plaintiffs Aleksandar Dordevic and Marija Dordevic were scheduled for an
interview on March 3, 2020.
1051. To date, Plaintiffs Aleksandar Dordevic and Marija Dordevic have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1052. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Aleksandar Dordevic and Marija Dordevic’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed
1053. Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed is a native of Egypt, a pharmacist, and DV-2020 selectee.
1054. Plaintiff Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed is a native of Egypt, a pharmacist, and spouse of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed. Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
123

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 168 of 308
1055. Plaintiff O.A.H.A.M. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed. Plaintiff O.A.H.A.M. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1056. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1057. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed visa case number 2020AF22676.
1058. On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1059. On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV2020 selection.
1060. On November 15, 2019 Plaintiff O.A.H.A.M. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1061. Plaintiff Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed’s family was scheduled for interview on April 19, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
1062. To date, Plaintiffs Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed, Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed, and O.A.H.A.M. have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1063. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Esraa Nabil Ali Mohamed, Ahmed Hatem Ahmed Mohamed, and O.A.H.A.M.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the
124

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 169 of 308
Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten Family
1064. Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten is a native of France and DV2020 selectee.
1065. Plaintiff Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur is a native of France and spouse of Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten. Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1066. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1067. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten visa case number 2020EU16888.
1068. On June 13, 2019 Plaintiff Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1069. On July 16, 2019 Plaintiff Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1070. Plaintiffs Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur were scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020.
125

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 170 of 308
1071. To date, Plaintiffs Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1072. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Edouard Douglas Charles de Riedmatten and Valentine Louise Marie Hermance Berreur’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Shirin Hashemian
1073. Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1074. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1075. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian visa case number 2020AS11507. 1076. On October 4, 2019 Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1077. To date, Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian has not been scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1078. The adjudication of Plaintiff Shirin Hashemian’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Manal Salah Gharzeddine Family
1079. Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine is a native of Lebanon and DV-2020 selectee.
126

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 171 of 308
1080. Plaintiff Fadel Wahab Zahreddine is a native of Lebanon and spouse of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Fadel Wahab Zahreddine is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1081. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1082. Plaintiff Ad.F.Z. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1083. Plaintiff T.F.Z. is a native of Lebanon and minor child of Manal Salah Gharzeddine. Plaintiff A.F.Z. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Manal Salah Gharzeddine should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1084. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1085. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine visa case number 2020AS00025981.
1086. Plaintiff Manal Salah Gharzeddine submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
127

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 172 of 308
1087. Plaintiff Fadel Wahab Zahreddine submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1088. Plaintiff A.F.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1089. Plaintiff Ad.F.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1090. Plaintiff T.F.Z. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1091. To date, Plaintiffs Manal Salah Gharzeddine, Fadel Wahab Zahreddine, A.F.Z., Ad.F.Z. and T.F.Z. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1092. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Manal Salah Gharzeddine, Fadel Wahab Zahreddine, A.F.Z., Ad.F.Z. and T.F.Z.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Shahin Salimbayov 1093. Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov is a native of Azerbaijan and DV-2020 selectee. 1094. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1095. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov visa case number 2020EU17505.
128

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 173 of 308

1096. On May 28, 2019 Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1097. To date, Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.

1098. The adjudication of Plaintiff Shahin Salimbayov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Askar Aliyev Family

1099. Plaintiff Askar Aliyev is a native of Kazakhstan and DV-2020 selectee.

1100. Plaintiff Alua Janbauliyeva is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse of Askar

Aliyev. Alua Janbauliyeva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Askar Aliyev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

1101. Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Kazakhstan and minor child of Askar Aliyev. Plaintiff

A.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Askar

Aliyev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

1102. Plaintiff A.A. is a native of Kazakhstan and minor child of Askar Aliyev. Plaintiff

An.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Askar

Aliyev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

1103. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Askar Aliyev and his derivative beneficiaries were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

1104.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Askar Aliyev visa case number 2020EU13577. 129

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 174 of 308

1105. On September 14, 2019 Plaintiff Askar Aliyev submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1106. On September 14, 2019 Plaintiff Alua Janbauliyeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1107. On July 20, 2019 Plaintiff A.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection
1108. On July 20, 2019 Plaintiff A.A. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection.
1109. Plaintiffs Askar Aliyev, Alua Janbauliyeva, A.A. and A.A. were scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020.
1110. To date, Plaintiffs Askar Aliyev, Alua Janbauliyeva, A.A. and A.A. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

1111. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Askar Aliyev, Alua Janbauliyeva, A.A. and A.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Nourredine Nasri

1112. Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee.

1113. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

1114.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri visa case number 2020AF30266. 130

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 175 of 308
1115. On May 25, 2019 Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1116. Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri resided in Spain, but chose his interview location as Algeria so he could visit family.
1117. Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri was scheduled for an interview on April 13, 2020. He spent money to translate all her papers. He bought the ticket for the trip and flew to Algeria, but then the interview was cancelled. Now, he is stuck in Algeria, and at risk at losing his residency in Spain. Also, he lost his job, is still paying rent for his apartment in Spain, where he cannot renew his residency right now. He is lost and desperate.
1118. To date, Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1119. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nourredine Nasri’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Abbas Vahdati Panah 1120. Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah is a native of Iran and spouse of Sharareh Ziaee. Abbas Vahdati Panah is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sharareh Ziaee as she was issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1121. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to Sharareh Ziaee’s DV-2020 selection. 1122. The KCC assigned Sharareh Ziaee visa case number 2020AS4173.
131

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 176 of 308
1123. On June 16, 2019 Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1124. Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah was scheduled for an interview on January 29, 2020. 1125. To date, Plaintiff Abbas Vahdati Panah has not been rescheduled for an interview
at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1126. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Abbas Vahdati Panah’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage
1127. Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage is a native of Sri Lanka and DV-2020 selectee.
1128. Plaintiff Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana is a native of Sri Lanka and spouse of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage. Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1129. Plaintiff V.M.V.P. is a native of Sri Lanka and minor child of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage. Plaintiff V.M.V.P. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
132

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 177 of 308
1130. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1131. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage visa case number 2020AS14036.
1132. On July 4, 2019 Plaintiff Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1133. Plaintiff Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1134. Plaintiff V.M.V.P. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1135. Plaintiffs were scheduled for an interview on April 9, 2020 that was cancelled. 1136. To date, Plaintiffs Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage,
Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana, and V.M.V.P. have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1137. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Nadeeka Chandani Ekanayake Ekanayake Mudiyaselage, Mahesh Indrajith Vitharana Pathirana, and V.M.V.P.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Agustin Sastre Perez
1138. Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee.
133

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 178 of 308
1139. Plaintiff Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero is a native of Spain and spouse of Agustin Sastre Perez. Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Agustin Sastre Perez should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1140. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1141. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez visa case number 2020EU31904. 1142. On June 2, 2020 Plaintiff Agustin Sastre Perez submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1143. On June 2, 2020 Plaintiff Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero submitted her DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1144. Plaintiffs Agustin Sastre Perez and Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero have submitted all necessary documentation for adjucation of their DS-260, Inmigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 1145. To date, Plaintiffs Agustin Sastre Perez and Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1146. Agustin Sastre Perez is a nurse with 30 years of experience as a healthcare professional. This year, his unit was converted to a Covid-19 unit for over three months.
1147. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Agustin Sastre Perez and Miren Elixabete Ugalde Ibero immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, 134

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 179 of 308
procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman
1148. Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman is a native of Egypt and DV2020 selectee.
1149. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1150. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman visa case number 2020AS15772.
1151. On June 17, 2019 Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1152. Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman was scheduled for an interview on April 21, 2020.
1153. To date, Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1154. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ahmed Sobhy Elsebaie Mohamed Soliman’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Anu Regmi 135

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 180 of 308

1155. Plaintiff Anu Regmi is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1156. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Anu Regmi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1157. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anu Regmi visa case number 2020AS00012901. 1158. On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Anu Regmi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1159. On December 30, 2019, KCC sent Plaintiff Anu Regmi stating that her documents
were processed and she was ready for interview. 1160. To date, Plaintiff Anu Regmi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.

1161. The adjudication of Plaintiff Anu Regmi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Vaidas Budrys

1162. Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys is a native of Lithuania and DV-2020 selectee.

1163. Plaintiff Karolina Budre is a native of Lithuania and spouse of Vaidas

Budrys. Karolina Budre is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative

beneficiary of Vaidas Budrys should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-

2020 selection.

1164. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys and his derivative beneficiary were

invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant

to his DV-2020 selection.

1165.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys visa case number 2020EU14730. 136

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 181 of 308
1166. On September 6, 2019 Plaintiff Vaidas Budrys submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1167. On September 6, 2019 Plaintiff Karolina Budre submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1168. Plaintiffs Vaidas Budrys and Karolina Budre were scheduled for an interview on April 21, 2020.
1169. To date, Plaintiffs Vaidas Budrys and Karolina Budre have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1170. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Vaidas Budrys and Karolina Budre’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Vitalii Samsonenko
1171. Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1172. Plaintiff Zhanna Syraeva is a native of Russia and spouse of Vitalii
Samsonenko. Zhanna Syraeva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Vitalii Samsonenko should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1173. Plaintiff V.S. is a native of Russia and minor child of Vitalii Samsonenko. Plaintiff V.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Vitalii Samsonenko should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1174. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
137

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 182 of 308
1175. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko visa case number 2020EU16430. 1176. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Vitalii Samsonenko submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1177. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Zhanna Syraeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1178. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff V.S. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1179. Plaintiffs Vitalii Samsonenko, Zhanna Syraeva, and V.S. were scheduled for an
interview on April 28, 2020. 1180. To date, Plaintiffs Vitalii Samsonenko, Zhanna Syraeva, and V.S. have not been
rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1181. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Vitalii Samsonenko, Zhanna Syraeva, and V.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ruben Sanchez Aparicio
1182. Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio is a native of Spain and DV-2020 selectee. 1183. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio was invited to submit a DS-
260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1184. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio visa case number 2020EU00027364.
138

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 183 of 308
1185. On June 1, 2019 Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1186. To date, Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1187. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez Aparicio’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Reenu Mahat
1188. Plaintiff Reenu Mahat is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1189. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Reenu Mahat was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1190. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Reenu Mahat visa case number 2020AS10031. 1191. On July 26, 2019 Plaintiff Reenu Mahat submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1192. To date, Plaintiff Reenu Mahat has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1193. The adjudication of Plaintiff Reenu Mahat’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dr. Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat
1194. Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat is a native of Egypt, a doctor and pharmacist, and DV-2020 selectee. 139

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 184 of 308
1195. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1196. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat visa case number 2020AF52219.
1197. On December 26, 2019 Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1198. KCC has notified Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat that his processing is complete.
1199. To date, Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1200. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Mina Remon El Shahat’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
David Prakash Mukhiya
1201. Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1202. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1203. The KCC assigned Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya visa case number
2020AS8869. 1204. On May 28, 2019 Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
140

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 185 of 308

1205. Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya was scheduled for an interview for April 20, 2020 but that interview was cancelled.
1206. To date, Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1207. The adjudication of Plaintiff David Prakash Mukhiya’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Dhiaeddine Kara

1208. Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee. 1209. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1210. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara visa case number 2020AF20117. 1211. On May 13, 2019 Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1212. Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara was scheduled for an interview on March 23, 2020. 1213. To date, Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara has not been rescheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1214. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dhiaeddine Kara’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.

Jeevan Poudel

1215.

Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 141

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 186 of 308
1216. Plaintiff Sujyana Karki is a native of Nepal and spouse of Jeevan Poudel. Sujyana Karki is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Jeevan Poudel should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1217. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1218. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel visa case number 2020AS00003306. 1219. On May 9, 2019 Plaintiff Jeevan Poudel submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1220. On January 20, 2020 Plaintiff Sujyana Karki submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1221. Plaintiffs Jeevan Poudel and Sujyana Karki were scheduled for and attended an
interview on January 22, 2020, and after the interview their case went into administrative processing. 1222. To date, Plaintiffs Jeevan Poudel and Sujyana Karki have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1223. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Jeevan Poudel and Sujyana Karki’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem Family 1224. Plaintiff Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem is a native of Jordan and DV-2020 selectee. 1225. Plaintiff Ahmad S D Salama is a native of Palestine and spouse of Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem. Ahmad S D Salama is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a
142

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 187 of 308
derivative beneficiary Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem of should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1226. On May 7, 2019, Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1227. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem visa case number 2020AS13653. 1228. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1229. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmad S D Salama submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1230. To date, Plaintiffs Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem, and Ahmad S D Salama have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1231. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Raefa Sufian Ibrahim Ghanayem and Ahmad S D Salama’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage 1232. Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage is a native of Sri Lanka and DV-2020 selectee.
143

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 188 of 308
1233. On May 7, 2019, Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1234. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage visa case number 2020AS00015874.
1235. On May 11, 2019, Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1236. Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage was scheduled for an interview on May 14, 2020 but the interview was cancelled.
1237. To date, Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1238. The adjudication of Plaintiff Malinda Prasad Rathnayake Rathnayake Mudiyanselage’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Anong Saengrit 1239. Plaintiff Anong Saengrit is a native of Thailand and DV-2020 selectee. 1240. Plaintiff Jarus Soontornsing is a native of Thailand and spouse of Anong Saengrit. Jarus Soontornsing is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Anong Saengrit of should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
144

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 189 of 308
1241. Plaintiff T.S. is a nine-year-old native of Thailand and minor son of Anong Saengrit. T.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Anong Saengrit should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1242. This was Plaintiff Anong Saengrit’s third time entering the DV lottery. The family was excited to be chosen, as Plaintiff Jarus Soontornsing’s sister lives in San Ramon, California. The couple told T.S. to prepare himself for a new rewritten future, and he was super excited.
1243. On May 7, 2019, Anong Saengrit and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV2020 selection.
1244. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Anong Saengrit visa case number 2020AS9914. 1245. On October 20, 2019, Plaintiff Anong Saengrit submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1246. On October 20, 2019, Plaintiff Jarus Soontornsing submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1247. On October 20, 2019, the DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
Application for Plaintiff T.S. was submitted by his parent pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1248. Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1249. Last Christmas, Plaintiff Anong Saengrit’s family flew to San Ramon, California and prepared many things with family who live there, such as an opportunity to start a
145

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 190 of 308
business, a school for T.S., and a place to live. That time was like a very heartening moment for the family. Then, they returned to Thailand to get ready for their interview. 1250. Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S. were scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020 but the interview was cancelled. 1251. To date, Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1252. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Anong Saengrit, Jarus Soontornsing, and T.S.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. 1253. Since President Trump’s June 22, 2020 issuance of PP 10052, Plaintiff Anong Saengrit says the family’s “dreams have turned dark.” Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi 1254. Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi is a native of Afghanistan by citizenship, but was born in Saudi Arabia, an intern doctor, and DV-2020 selectee. 1255. On May 7, 2019, Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1256. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi visa case number 2020AS00006784. 1257. On February 1, 2020, Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
146

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 191 of 308
1258. Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1259. To date, Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1260. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dr. Ammar S Ashraf Hashemi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova 1261. Plaintiff Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova is a native of Bulgaria and DV-2020 selectee. 1262. Valentin Bogdanov Spasova is a native of Bulgaria and spouse of Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova. Valentin Bogdanov Spasov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1263. On May 7, 2019, Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1264. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova visa case number 2020EU00051489. 1265. On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
147

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 192 of 308
1266. Plaintiffs Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1267. To date, Plaintiffs Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1268. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Elitsa Stoyanova Yordanova Spasova and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong Family 1269. Plaintiff Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1270. Plaintiff Kome Ivo Ejelle is a native of Cameroon and spouse of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. Kome Ivo Ejelle is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1271. Plaintiff M.P.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. M.P.K is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1272. Plaintiff B.L.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. B.L.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of
148

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 193 of 308
Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1273. Plaintiff E.P.K. is a native of Cameroon and minor child of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong. E.P.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1274. On May 7, 2019, Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1275. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong visa case number 2020AF00010824. 1276. On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong submitted her DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1277. Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong, Kome Ivo Ejelle, M.P.K., B.L.K., and E.P.K. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1278. Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong, Kome Ivo Ejelle, M.P.K., B.L.K., and E.P.K. had an interview on January 21, 2020. However, because they were missing one medical report on that day, the case went into administrative processing. Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong submitted that missing medical report on April 28, 2020. 1279. Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong and her family paid for medical fees for all five family members, interview fees for all five family members, and they had to sell
149

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 194 of 308
their piece of land and increase savings from the little wages they earn back in Cameroon in order to have a smooth process their application process.
1280. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Bijoux Yvette Nsang Titabong, Kome Ivo Ejelle, M.P.K., B.L.K., and E.P.K.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Issa Boubacar Hassane Family 1281. Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane is a native of Niger and DV-2020 selectee. 1282. Plaintiff Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya is a native of Niger and spouse of Issa Boubacar Hassane is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Issa Boubacar Hassane should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1283. Plaintiff L.N.B.H. is a native of Niger and minor child of Issa Boubacar Hassane . L.N.B.H. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Issa Boubacar Hassane should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1284. Plaintiff S.I.B. is a native of Niger and minor infant son of Issa Boubacar Hassane. S.I.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Issa Boubacar Hassane should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1285. On May 7, 2019, Issa Boubacar Hassane was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
150

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 195 of 308
1286. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane visa case number 2020AF68714.
1287. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1288. Plaintiffs Issa Boubacar Hassane , Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya, and L.N.B. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1289. S.I.B. is recently-born infant, and thus, has not yet been added as Plaintiff Issa Boubacar Hassane’s derivative applicant.
1290. To date, Plaintiffs Issa Boubacar Hassane , Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya, and L.N.B.H. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1291. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Issa Boubacar Hassane , Ruth Ibrahim Yahaya, and L.N.B.H.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Jen-Chieh Chang 1292. Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang is a native of Taiwan and DV-2020 selectee. 1293. Plaintiff Yijue Zhang is a native of China and spouse of Jen-Chieh Chang. Yijue Zhang is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Jen-Chieh Chang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1294. On May 7, 2019, Jen-Chieh Chang was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
151

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 196 of 308
1295. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang visa case number 2020AS00017840. 1296. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1297. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Yijue Zhang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1298. Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1299. On March 19, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Jen-Chieh that his case was
documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview. 1300. To date, Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang has not been scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1301. The adjudication of Plaintiff Jen-Chieh Chang Yijue Zhang’s immigrant visa
applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Hlib Litvinov 1302. Hlib Litvinov is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee. 1303. On May 7, 2019, Hlib Litvinov was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1304. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov visa case number 2020EU00023342. 1305. On November 9, 2019, Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1306. Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
152

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 197 of 308
1307. To date, Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1308. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hlib Litvinov’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Marina Opolskaia 1309. Marina Opolskaia is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1310. Plaintiff Anatolii Opolskii is a native of Russia and spouse of Marina Opolskaia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Marina Opolskaia should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1311. On May 7, 2019, Marina Opolskaia was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1312. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marina Opolskaia visa case number 2020EU00018333. 1313. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff Marina Opolskaia submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1314. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff Anatolii Opolskii submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1315. Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia, and Anatolii Opolskii have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1316. Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia and Anatolii Opolskii were scheduled for an interview on April 14, 2020. On March 26, 2020, the United States Embassy in Russia cancelled incoming immigrant visa appointments, including theirs.
153

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 198 of 308
1317. Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia, and Anatolii Opolskii have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1318. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Marina Opolskaia, and Anatolii Opolskii immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Tsz Him Fong 1319. Tsz Him Fong is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee. 1320. On May 7, 2019, Tsz Him Fong was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1321. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong visa case number 2020AS16278. 1322. On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1323. Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1324. Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong had an interview on May 6, 2020 that was cancelled. 1325. To date, Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1326. The adjudication of Plaintiff Tsz Him Fong’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Iryna Molokopoi Family 1327. Iryna Molokopoi is a native of Ukraine and DV-2020 selectee.
154

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 199 of 308
1328. Plaintiff Serhii Ryzhov is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Iryna Molokopoi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Iryna Molokopoi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1329. Plaintiff M.R. is a native of Ukraine and minor child of Iryna Molokopoi. M.R. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Iryna Molokopoi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1330. On May 7, 2019, Iryna Molokopoi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1331. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi visa case number 2020EU14951. 1332. On August 18, 2019, Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1333. Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1334. Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi had an interview scheduled for April 24, 2020 that was
cancelled. 1335. To date, Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1336. The adjudication of Plaintiff Iryna Molokopoi’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Bijayandra Bastola 1337. Bijayandra Bastola is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee.
155

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 200 of 308
1338. On May 7, 2019, Bijayandra Bastola was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1339. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola visa case number 2020AS13351 1340. On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1341. Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1342. To date, Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola has not been scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1343. The adjudication of Plaintiff Bijayandra Bastola’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Chung Ting Amy Leung 1344. Chung Ting Amy Leung is a native of Hong Kong and DV-2020 selectee. Plaintiff Hon Chor Lee, a native of Hong Kong and spouse of Chung Ting Amy Leung, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Chung Ting Amy Leung should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1345. Plaintiffs W.Y.L. and C.H.L. are natives of Hong Kong and minor children of Chung Ting Amy Leung. W.YL. and C.H.L. are eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Chung Ting Amy Leung should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1346. On May 7, 2019, Chung Ting Amy Leung was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
156

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 201 of 308
1347. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung visa case number 2020AS21446.
1348. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1349. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hon Chor Lee submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1350. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff W.Y.L. submitted DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1351. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff C.H.L. submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their mother’s DV-2020 selection.
1352. Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1353. To date, Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1354. The adjudication of Plaintiff Chung Ting Amy Leung’s and her family’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Vadim Gontari Family 1355. Vadim Gontari is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1356. Plaintiff D.G. is a native of Moldova and 15-year-old minor child of Vadim Gontari. D.G.. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Vadim Gontari should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
157

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 202 of 308
1357. On May 7, 2019, Vadim Gontari was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1358. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Vadim Gontari visa case number 2020EU00027641. 1359. Plaintiff Vadim Gontari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1360. Plaintiff Vadim Gontari has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication
of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1361. To date, Plaintiff Vadim Gontari has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1362. The adjudication of Plaintiff Vadim Gontari’s and son D.G.’s immigrant visa
applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi 1363. Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi is a native of Saudi Arabia and DV-2020 selectee. 1364. On May 7, 2019, Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1365. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi visa case number 2020AS00022999. 1366. On Feb. 3, 2020 Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1367. Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
158

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 203 of 308
1368. To date, Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi has not been scheduled for an interview at a US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1369. The adjudication of Plaintiff Duaa Abdulrahman H Alghamdi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohsen Salehkermani 1370. Mohsen Salehkermani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1371. On May 7, 2019, Mohsen Salehkermani was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1372. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani visa case number 2020EU14951. 1373. On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1374. Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1375. Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani had an interview scheduled for January 5, 2020. 1376. To date, Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani has not been re-scheduled for another interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1377. The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohsen Salehkermani’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza 1378. Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee.
159

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 204 of 308
1379. Plaintiff Zuraymis Perez Vilches, a native of Cuba and spouse of Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1380. On May 7, 2019, Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1381. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza visa case number 2020SA00002001.
1382. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1383. Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1384. To date, Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1385. The adjudication of Plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez Mendoza’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Temesgen Hunie Gelaw 1386. Temesgen Hunie Gelaw is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee. 1387. Plaintiff Yideneku Abineh Yitayew, a native of Ethiopia and spouse of Temesgen Hunie Gelaw, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Temesgen Hunie Gelaw should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
160

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 205 of 308
1388. On May 7, 2019, Temesgen Hunie Gelaw and his spouse were invited to submit the DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1389. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Temesgen Hunie Gelaw visa case number 2020AF64279.
1390. Plaintiffs Temesgen Hunie Gelaw and Yideneku Abineh Yitayew submitted their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Applications pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1391. Plaintiffs Temesgen Hunie Gelaw and Yideneku Abineh Yitayew submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Applications.
1392. To date, Plaintiffs Temesgen Hunie Gelaw and Yideneku Abineh Yitayew have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1393. The adjudication of Plaintiff Temesgen Hunie Gelaw and Yideneku Abineh Yitayew’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin Family 1394. Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin is a native of Sweden and DV-2020 selectee. 1395. Plaintiff Juliene Midori Fujimoto, a native of Sweden and spouse of Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin, is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of
161

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 206 of 308
Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1396. On May 7, 2019, Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1397. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin visa case number 2020EU00017107. 1398. On August 18, 2019, Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1399. Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1400. Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin had an interview scheduled for April 6, 2020 that was cancelled. 1401. To date, Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1402. The adjudication of Plaintiff Edvard Mattias Stefan Gezin’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Andrei Savenkov 1403. Plaintiff Andrei Savenkov is a native of Russia and a derivative beneficiary of his wife, a DV-2020 selectee already issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection, and received her green card in January.
162

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 207 of 308
1404. On May 7, 2019, Andrei Savenkov and his spouse were invited to submit DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1405. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Andrei Savenkov visa case number 2020EU1426. 1406. Andrei Savenkov’s spouse was issued a visa and entered the United States of
America pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1407. To date, Andrei Savenkov has not been scheduled for a re-interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1408. The adjudication of Andrei Savenkov’s’s immigrant visa application is suspended
pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ahmad Fahim Nouman and Family 1409. Plaintiff Ahmad Fahim Nouman a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1410. Plaintiff Elaha Nouman is a native of Afghanistan and spouse of Ahmad Fahim Nouman. Elaha Nouman is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ahmad Fahim Nouman should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1411. Plaintiff A.R.N. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Ahmad Fahim Nouman. A.R.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ahmad Fahim Nouman should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1412. On May 7, 2019, Ahmad Fahim Nouman and his derivative beneficiaries wer invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
163

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 208 of 308
1413. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ahmad Fahim Nouman visa case number 2020AS28293.
1414. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Ahmad Fahim Nouman submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1415. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Elaha Nouman submitted her D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1416. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff A.R.N. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1417. Plaintiffs Ahmad Fahim Nouman, Elaha Nouman, and A.N. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1418. To date, Plaintiffs Ahmad Fahim Nouman, Elaha Nouman, and A.N. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1419. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Elaha Nouman and Valentin Bogdanov Spasov’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Mohammadreza Ghaffar and Family 1420. Plaintiff Mohammadreza Ghaffar a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1421. Plaintiff Leila Talei is a native of Iran and spouse of Mohammadreza Ghaffar. Leila Talei is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of
164

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 209 of 308
Mohammadreza Ghaffar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1422. Plaintiff A.G. is a native of Iran and minor son of Mohammadreza Ghaffar. A.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammadreza Ghaffar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1423. On May 7, 2019, Mohammadreza Ghaffar and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1424. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammadreza Ghaffar visa case number 2020AS1431. 1425. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammadreza Ghaffar submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1426. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Leila Talei submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection 1427. On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff A.G. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection 1428. Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1429. Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G. attended an interview, but after the interview they went to administrative processing.
165

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 210 of 308
1430. To date, Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1431. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohammadreza Ghaffar, Leila Talei, and A.G.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Mohammed Ansari and Family 1432. Plaintiff Mohammed Ansari a native of Saudi Arabia and DV-2020 selectee. 1433. Plaintiff Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi is a native of Saudi Arabia and spouse of Mohammed Ansari. Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammed Ansari should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1434. On May 7, 2019, Mohammed Ansari and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1435. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammed Ansari visa case number 2020AS18392. 1436. On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Mohammed Ansari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1437. On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
166

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 211 of 308
1438. Plaintiffs Mohammed Ansari and Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1439. To date, Plaintiffs Mohammed Ansari and Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1440. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohammed Ansari and Nabila Imtiyaz Ahmed Qureshi’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves and Family 1441. Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves a native of Angola and DV-2020 selectee. 1442. Plaintiff Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves is a native of Angola and spouse of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves. Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1443. Plaintiff Y.G. is a native of Angola and minor child of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves. Y.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
167

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 212 of 308
1444. Plaintiff D.G. is a native of Angola and minor child of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves. D.G. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1445. On May 7, 2019, Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1446. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves visa case number 2020AF35213.
1447. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves submitted his D260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1448. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1449. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Y.G. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1450. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff D.G. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1451. Plaintiffs Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves, Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves, Y.G., and D.G. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
168

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 213 of 308
1452. On February 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves that all of his documents had been received and his family was ready for interview.
1453. To date, Plaintiffs Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves, Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves, Y.G., and D.G. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1454. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Pedro Kiala Nanjunjo Goncalves, Celmira de Fatima Domingos Manuel Goncalves, Y.G., and D.G.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Muhammad Adil Tanveer 1455. Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer is a native of Saudi Arabia and DV-2020 selectee. 1456. On May 7, 2019, Muhammad Adil Tanveer was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1457. The KCC assigned Muhammad Adil Tanveer visa case number 2020AS24041. 1458. Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1459. Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1460. To date, Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1461. The adjudication of Plaintiff Muhammad Adil Tanveer’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
169

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 214 of 308
Willem Jacob Verheul 1462. Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul is a native of the Netherlands and DV-2020 selectee. 1463. On May 7, 2019, Willem Jacob Verheul was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1464. The KCC assigned Willem Jacob Verheul visa case number 2020EU00031613. 1465. Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1466. Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1467. To date, Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1468. The adjudication of Plaintiff Willem Jacob Verheul’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sanju Thapa Magar 1469. Plaintiff Sanju Thapa Magar a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1470. Plaintiff Lal Bahadur Magar is a native of Nepal and spouse of Sanju Thapa Magar. Lal Bahadur Magar is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sanju Thapa Magar should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1471. On May 7, 2019, Sanju Thapa Magar and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
170

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 215 of 308
1472. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sanju Thapa Magar visa case number 2020AS2922. 1473. Plaintiff Sanju Thapa Magar submitted her D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1474. Plaintiff Lal Bahadur Magar submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1475. Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar have submitted all necessary
documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1476. Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar attended an interview on December 23, 2019, but were not issued visas, and remain in administrative processing. 1477. To date, Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1478. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Lal Bahadur Magar and Sanju Thapa Magar’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Olimzhon Kurbanov and Family 1479. Plaintiff Olimzhon Kurbanov a native of Tajikistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1480. Plaintiff Munisa Kurbanova is a native of Tajikistan and spouse of Olimzhon Kurbanov. Munisa Kurbanova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Olimzhon Kurbanov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
171

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 216 of 308
1481. Plaintiff A.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Olimzhon Kurbano. A.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Olimzhon Kurbanov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1482. Plaintiff F.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Olimzhon Kurbanov. F.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Olimzhon Kurbanov should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1483. On May 7, 2019, Olimzhon Kurbanov and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1484. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Olimzhon Kurbanov visa case number 2020EU21668. 1485. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Olimzhon Kurbanov submitted his D-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1486. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Munisa Kurbanova submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1487. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff A.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1488. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff F.K. submitted his D-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1489. Plaintiffs Olimzhon Kurbanov, Munisa Kurbanov, A.K., and F.K. have submitted
all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
172

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 217 of 308
1490. To date, Olimzhon Kurbanov, Munisa Kurbanov, A.K, and F.K. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1491. The adjudications of Olimzhon Kurbanov, Munisa Kurbanov, A.K., and F.K’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Natalia Mukhametdinova 1492. Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova is a native of the Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1493. On May 7, 2019, Natalia Mukhametdinova was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1494. The KCC assigned Natalia Mukhametdinova visa case number 2020EU28726. 1495. Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1496. Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1497. To date, Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1498. The adjudication of Plaintiff Natalia Mukhametdinova’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi and Family
173

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 218 of 308
1499. Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi is a stateless Palestinian refugee with residence in Jordan, born in Saudi Arabia, and DV-2020 selectee
1500. Plaintiff Duaa Ibrahim Yousef Abu Alwafa is a native of Jordan and spouse of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Duaa Ibrahim Yousef Abu Alwafa is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1501. Plaintiff A.R.M.I.A. is stateless and minor child of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Plaintiff A.R.M.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1502. Plaintiff S.M.I.A. is stateless and minor child of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Plaintiff S.M.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1503. Plaintiff M.M.I.A. is stateless and minor child of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi. Plaintiff M.M.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1504. On May 7, 2019, Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1505. The KCC assigned Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi visa case number 2020AS00016733.
174

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 219 of 308
1506. On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1507. Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1508. To date, Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1509. The adjudication of Plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Ayaad Alkurdi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hawre Mohammed Hassan Family 1510. Hawre Mohammed Hassan is a native of Iraq and DV-2020 selectee. 1511. Plaintiff Zhilan Mustafa Rasul is a native of Iraq and spouse of Hawre Mohammed Hassan. Zhilan Mustafa Rasul is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hawre Mohammed Hassan should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1512. On May 7, 2019, Hawre Mohammed Hassan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1513. The KCC assigned Hawre Mohammed Hassan visa case number 2020AS00010287. 1514. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
175

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 220 of 308
1515. Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1516. On February 13, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan his documents were processed and he was ready to be scheduled for an interview.
1517. Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan was verbally told on the phone by KCC that he would be scheduled for an interview in May 2020, but that never happened.
1518. To date, Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1519. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hawre Mohammed Hassan’s and his spouse’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Barışcan Demirci 1520. Barışcan Demirci is a native of Turkey and DV-2020 selectee. 1521. On May 7, 2019, Barışcan Demirci was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1522. The KCC assigned Barışcan Demirci visa case number 2020EU00036805. 1523. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1524. Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1525. To date, Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
176

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 221 of 308
1526. The adjudication of Plaintiff Barışcan Demirci’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Oxana Condur Family 1527. Oxana Condur is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1528. Plaintiff Eugen Braila is a native of Moldova and spouse of Oxana Condur. Eugen Braila is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Oxana Condur should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1529. On May 7, 2019, Oxana Condur was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1530. The KCC assigned Oxana Condur visa case number 20202EU00043961. 1531. On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff Oxana Condur submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1532. Plaintiff Oxana Condur has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1533. To date, Plaintiff Oxana Condur has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application. 1534. The adjudication of Plaintiff Oxana Condur’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan 1535. Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan is a native of Armenia and DV-2020 selectee. She is a medical professional, with a doctorate in heart diseases.
177

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 222 of 308
1536. Plaintiff Sergei Vladimirovich Rudenko is a native of Russia and spouse of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan. Sergei Vladimirovich Rudenko is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1537. Plaintiff M.S.R. is a native of Armenia and minor child of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan. Plaintiff M.S.R. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1538. On May 7, 2019, Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1539. The KCC assigned Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan visa case number 2020EU00040406.
1540. On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan submitted her DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1541. Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1542. To date, Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1543. The adjudication of Plaintiff Naira Samvelovna Oganisyan’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Nde Kilean Fru
178

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 223 of 308
1544. Nde Kilean Fru is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1545. On May 7, 2019, Nde Kilean Fru was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1546. The KCC assigned Nde Kilean Fru visa case number 2020Af00033364. 1547. On October 5, 2019, Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1548. Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1549. To date, Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1550. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nde Kilean Fru’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ana Grama 1551. Ana Grama a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1552. Plaintiff Vasile Tataru is a native of Moldova and spouse of Ana Grama. Vasile Tataru is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ana Grama should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1553. On May 7, 2019, Ana Grama was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1554. The KCC assigned Ana Grama visa case number 20202EU00049022. 1555. On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff Ana Grama submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
179

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 224 of 308
1556. Plaintiff Ana Grama has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1557. To date, Plaintiff Ana Grama has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1558. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ana Grama’ immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ina Cucereanu 1559. Ina Cucereanu is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1560. Plaintiff Andrei Badura is a native of Moldova and spouse of Ina Cucereanu. Andrei Badura is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ina Cucereanu should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1561. On May 7, 2019, Ina Cucereanu was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1562. The KCC assigned Ina Cucereanu visa case number 20202EU00025441. 1563. On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1564. Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1565. To date, Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
180

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 225 of 308
1566. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ina Cucereanu’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Diana Grabciuc 1567. Diana Grabciuc is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1568. Plaintiff Eugeniu Mogildea is a native of Moldova and spouse of Diana Grabciuc. Eugeniu Mogildea is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Diana Grabciuc should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1569. On May 7, 2019, Diana Grabciuc was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1570. The KCC assigned Diana Grabciuc visa case number 20202EU00004835. 1571. On February 17, 2020, Plaintiff Diana Grabciuc submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1572. Plaintiff Diana Grabciuc has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1573. To date, Plaintiffs Diana Grabciuc and Eugeniu Mogildea have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1574. The adjudication of Plaintiff Diana Grabciuc’s family’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Stanislav Liaptcev 1575. Stanislav Liaptcev is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee.
181

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 226 of 308
1576. Plaintiff Mariia Liaptceva is a native of Russia and spouse of Stanislav Liaptcev. Mariia Liaptceva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Stanislav Liaptcev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1577. On May 7, 2019, Stanislav Liaptcev was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1578. The KCC assigned Stanislav Liaptcev visa case number 2020EU21454. 1579. On May 19, 2019, Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1580. Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev has submitted all necessary documentation for
adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1581. Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev was scheduled for an interview on May 18, 2020 but it
was cancelled. 1582. To date, Stanislav Liaptcev has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1583. The adjudication of Plaintiff Stanislav Liaptcev’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Anita Nistrean 1584. Anita Nistrean is a native of Moldova and DV-2020 selectee. 1585. Plaintiff Artiom Gologan is a native of Moldova and spouse of Anita Nistrean. Artiom Gologan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative
182

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 227 of 308
beneficiary of Anita Nistrean should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV2020 selection. 1586. On May 7, 2019, Anita Nistrean was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1587. The KCC assigned Anita Nistrean visa case number 20202EU00033229. 1588. On May 19, 2019, Plaintiff Anita Nistrean submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1589. Plaintiff Anita Nistrean has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1590. To date, Anita Nistrean has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1591. The adjudication of Plaintiff Anita Nistrean’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Kenichi Miyagi 1592. Kenichi Miyagi is a native of Japan and DV-2020 selectee. 1593. On May 7, 2019, Kenichi Miyagi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1594. The KCC assigned Kenichi Miyagi visa case number 2020AS20306. 1595. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Kenichi Miyagi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1596. Plaintiff Kenichi Miyagi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
183

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 228 of 308
1597. To date, Kenichi Miyagi has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1598. The adjudication of Plaintiff Kenichi Miyagi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Alissa Afiza Dean 1599. Alissa Afiza Dean is a native of Fiji and DV-2020 selectee. 1600. On May 7, 2019, Alissa Afiza Dean was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1601. The KCC assigned Alissa Afiza Dean visa case number 2020OC00001710. 1602. On March 1, 2020, Plaintiff Alissa Afiza Dean submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1603. Plaintiff Alissa Afiza Dean has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1604. To date, Alissa Afiza Dean has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1605. The adjudication of Plaintiff Alissa Afiza Dean’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Meien Huang 1606. Meien Huang is a native of Taiwan and DV-2020 selectee.
184

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 229 of 308
1607. Plaintiff Chingyen Lin is a native of Taiwan and spouse of Meien Huang. Chingyen Lin is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Meien Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1608. Plaintiff X.L. is a native of Taiwan and minor child of Meien Huang. Plaintiff X.L. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Meien Huang should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1609. On May 7, 2019, Meien Huang was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1610. The KCC assigned Meien Huang visa case number 20202AS9292. 1611. On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Meien Huang submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1612. Plaintiff Meien Huang has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication
of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1613. To date, Meien Huang has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy
or Consulate or issued a decision on her application. 1614. The adjudication of Plaintiff Meien Huang’s family’s immigrant visa applications
is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ibrahim Masoud Dowah 1615. Ibrahim Masoud Dowah is a native of Libya and DV-2020 selectee. 1616. On May 7, 2019, Ibrahim Masoud Dowah was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1617. The KCC assigned Ibrahim Masoud Dowah visa case number 2020AF00040010.
185

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 230 of 308
1618. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1619. Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1620. Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah had an interview scheduled for May 21, 2020 but it was canceled.
1621. To date, Ibrahim Masoud Dowah has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1622. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ibrahim Masoud Dowah’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure 1623. Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure is a native of Camerooon and DV-2020 selectee. 1624. On May 7, 2019, Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1625. The KCC assigned Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure visa case number 2020AF39778. 1626. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
186

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 231 of 308
1627. Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1628. Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure had an interview scheduled for April 21, 2020 but it was canceled.
1629. To date, Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1630. The adjudication of Plaintiff Askadirou Gbetnkom Youmapoure’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Honey Marjan Khan Family 1631. Plaintiff Honey Marjan Khan is a native of Sweden and DV-2020 selectee. 1632. Plaintiff Rauf Ahmad Rajput is a native of Sweden and spouse of Honey Marjan Khan. Rauf Ahmad Rajput is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Honey Marjan Khan should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1633. On May 7, 2019, Honey Marjan Khan and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1634. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Honey Marjan Khan visa case number 2020EU00033834. 1635. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff Honey Marjan Khan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
187

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 232 of 308
1636. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff Rauf Ahmad Rajput submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection.
1637. Plaintiffs Honey Marjan Khan and Rauf Ahmad Rajput have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1638. To date, Plaintiffs Honey Marjan Khan and Rauf Ahmad Rajput have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1639. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Honey Marjan Khan and Rauf Ahmad Rajput immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Hamish Charles Egan 1640. Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan is a native of New Zealand and DV-2020 selectee. 1641. On May 7, 2019, Hamish Charles Egan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1642. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan visa case number 2020OC740. 1643. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1644. Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
188

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 233 of 308
1645. On May 28, 2020, KCC notified Hamish Charles Egan that his case was documentarily complete and eligible to be scheduled for an interview.
1646. To date, Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1647. The adjudications of Plaintiff Hamish Charles Egan’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ailyn Caballero Acevedo 1648. Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 1649. On May 7, 2019, Ailyn Caballero Acevedo was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1650. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo case number 2020SA3763. 1651. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1652. Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1653. To date, Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1654. The adjudications of Plaintiff Ailyn Caballero Acevedo’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mahta Goudarzi 1655. Plaintiff Mahta Goudarzi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee.
189

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 234 of 308
1656. Plaintiff Mohsen Vosughifar is a native of Iran and spouse of Mahta Goudarzi. Rauf Ahmad Rajput is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mahta Goudarzi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1657. On May 7, 2019, Mahta Goudarzi and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
1658. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mahta Goudarzi visa case number 2020AS7025. 1659. On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mahta Goudarzi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1660. On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mohsen Vosughifar submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1661. Plaintiffs Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar have submitted all necessary
documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1662. Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar were scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on March 24, 2020, however the interview was cancelled. 1663. To date, Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1664. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mahta Goudarzi and Mohsen Vosughifar’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
190

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 235 of 308
Alice Kanneh Bility 1665. Plaintiff Alice Kanneh Bility is a native of Liberia and DV-2020 selectee. 1666. Plaintiff Sedekie S. Bility is a native of Libera and spouse of Alice Kanneh Bility. Sedekie S. Bility is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Alice Kanneh Bility should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1667. On May 7, 2019, Alice Kanneh Bility and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1668. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Alice Kanneh Bility visa case number 2020AF44425. 1669. On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Alice Kanneh Bility submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1670. On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Sedekie S. Bility submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1671. Plaintiffs Alice Kanneh Bility and Sedekie S. Bility have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1672. To date, Alice Kanneh Bility and Sedekie S. Bility have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1673. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Alice Kanneh Bility and Sedekie S. Bility’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
191

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 236 of 308
Diana Nery Brana Diaz 1674. Plaintiff Diana Nery Brana Diaz is a native of Cuba and DV-2020 selectee. 1675. Plaintiff Abel Lorenzo Morera is a native of Cuba and spouse of Diana Nery Brana Diaz. Abel Lorenzo Morera is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Diana Nery Brana Diaz should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1676. Plaintiff D.L.B. is a native of Cuba and minor of Diana Nery Brana Diaz. D.B. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Diana Nery Brana Diaz should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1677. On May 7, 2019, Diana Nery Brana Diaz and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1678. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Diana Nery Brana Diaz visa case number 2020SA3199. 1679. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff Diana Nery Brana Diaz submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1680. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff Abel Lorenzo Morera submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1681. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff D.L.B. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1682. Plaintiffs Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.B. have resubmitted their DS-260’s on January 23, 2020.
192

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 237 of 308
1683. Plaintiffs Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.B. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1684. To date, Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.L.B. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1685. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Diana Nery Brana Diaz, Abel Lorenzo Morera, and D.L.B.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Frank Akomeah Addae 1686. Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae is a native of Ghana and DV-2020 selectee. 1687. On May 7, 2019, Frank Akomeah Addae was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1688. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae case number 2020AF57481. 1689. Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1690. Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1691. To date, Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
193

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 238 of 308
1692. The adjudications of Plaintiff Frank Akomeah Addae’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohammad Navidi 1693. Plaintiff Mohammad Navidi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1694. Plaintiff Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi is a native of Iran and spouse of Mohammad Navidi. Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Navidi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1695. Plaintiff S.N. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mohammad Navidi. S.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Navidi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1696. Plaintiff Y.N. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mohammad Navidi. Y.N. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mohammad Navidi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1697. On May 7, 2019, Mohammad Navidi and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1698. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohammad Navidi visa case number 2020AS5560. 1699. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Mohammad Navidi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
194

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 239 of 308
1700. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1701. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff S.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1702. On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Y.N. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1703. Plaintiffs Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1704. Plaintiffs Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N. attended a consular interview on February 4, 2020.
1705. To date, Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N. have not been scheduled for an re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1706. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mohammad Navidi, Azam Emami Ghaleghasemi, S.N., and Y.N.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mohamed Muhumed Hassan 1707. Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan is a native of Ethiopia and DV-2020 selectee. 1708. On May 7, 2019, Mohamed Muhumed Hassan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
195

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 240 of 308
1709. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan case number 2020AF54759.
1710. On November 28, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1711. Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1712. To date, Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1713. The adjudications of Plaintiff Mohamed Muhumed Hassan’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ramin Yousofi 1714. Plaintiff Ramin Yousofi is a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1715. Plaintiff Sadaf Yousofi is a native of Afghanistan and spouse of Ramin Yousofi Sadaf Yousofi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ramin Yousofi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1716. Plaintiff M.Y.Y. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Ramin Yousofi. M.Y.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ramin Yousofi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1717. Plaintiff Y.Y. is a native of Afghanistan and minor child of Ramin Yousofi. Y.Y. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ramin Yousofi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
196

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 241 of 308
1718. On May 7, 2019, Ramin Yousofi and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
1719. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ramin Yousofi visa case number 2020AS15870. 1720. On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff Ramin Yousofi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1721. On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff M.Y.Y. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1722. On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff Y.Y. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1723. Plaintiffs Ramin Yousofi, Sadaf Yousofi, M.Y.Y, and Y.Y. have submitted all
necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1724. To date, Ramin Yousofi, Sadaf Yousofi, M.Y.Y. and Y.Y. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1725. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ramin Yousofi, Sadaf Yousofi, M.Y.Y, and Y.Y.’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Allan George Steve
1726. Plaintiff Allan George Steve is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1727. Plaintiff Eunice Awino Ogutu is a native of Kenya, a medical surgical specialist,
and spouse of Allan George Steve. Eunice Awino Ogutu is eligible to immigrate to the
197

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 242 of 308
United States as a derivative beneficiary of Allan George Steve should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1728. Plaintiff A.C.S. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Allan George Steve. Plaintiff A.C.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Allan George Steve should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1729. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Allan George Steve and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1730. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Allan George Steve visa case number 2020AF00047095. 1731. On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff Allan George Steve submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1732. On July 22, 2019 Plaintiff Eunice Awino Ogutu submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1733. On July 17, 2019 Plaintiff A.C.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her father’s DV-2020 selection. 1734. To date, Plaintiffs Allan George Steve, Eunice Awino Ogutu, and A.C.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1735. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Allan George Steve, Eunice Awino Ogutu, and A.C.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,
198

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 243 of 308
procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Rose Atieno Owiti Family
1736. Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1737. Plaintiff Raymond Omondi Osanya is a native of Kenya and spouse of Rose Atieno
Owiti. Raymond Omondi Osanya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1738. Plaintiff S.A.O. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Rose Atieno Owiti. Plaintiff S.A.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1739. Plaintiff G.V.O. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Rose Atieno Owiti. Plaintiff G.V.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1740. Plaintiff M.T.A.O. is a native of Kenya and minor child of Rose Atieno Owiti. Plaintiff M.T.A.O. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Rose Atieno Owiti should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1741. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
199

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 244 of 308
1742. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti visa case number 2020AF37798. 1743. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff Rose Atieno Owiti submitted her DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1744. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff Raymond Omondi Osanya submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1745. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff S.A.O. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1746. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff G.V.O. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1747. On August 19, 2019 Plaintiff M.T.A.O. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1748. To date, Plaintiffs Rose Atieno Owiti, Raymond Omondi Osanya, S.A.O., G.V.O. and M.T.A.O. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1749. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Rose Atieno Owiti, Raymond Omondi Osanya, S.A.O., G.V.O. and M.T.A.O.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh
1750. Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1751. Plaintiff Saman Sinayifard is a native of Iran and spouse of Bahareh Hemmassian
Etefagh. Saman Sinayifard is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative 200

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 245 of 308
beneficiary of Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1752. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh and her derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1753. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh visa case number 2020AS11068. 1754. On June 30, 2020 Plaintiff Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1755. On June 30, 2020 Plaintiff Saman Sinayifard submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1756. To date, Plaintiffs Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh and Saman Sinayifard have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1757. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Bahareh Hemmassian Etefagh and Saman Sinayifard’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mehdi Emamifar
1758. Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1759. Plaintiff Maryam Khorsand is a native of Iran and spouse of Mehdi
Emamifar. Maryam Khorsand is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative
201

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 246 of 308
beneficiary of Mehdi Emamifar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 1760. Plaintiff R.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mehdi Emamifar. Plaintiff R.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mehdi Emamifar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1761. Plaintiff R.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Mehdi Emamifar. Plaintiff R.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mehdi Emamifar should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1762. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1763. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar visa case number 2020AS1183. 1764. Plaintiff Mehdi Emamifar submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1765. Plaintiff Maryam Khorsand submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1766. Plaintiff R.E. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1767. Plaintiff R.E.(2) submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1768. To date, Plaintiffs Mehdi Emamifar, Maryam Khorsand, R.E. and R.E.(2) have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
202

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 247 of 308
1769. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Mehdi Emamifar, Maryam Khorsand, R.E. and R.E.(2)’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Shahram Davoudi
1770. Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1771. Plaintiff Negar Zarrinfam is a native of Iran and spouse of Shahram
Davoudi. Negar Zarrinfam is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Shahram Davoudi should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1772. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi and his derivative beneficiary were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1773. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi visa case number 2020AS2549. 1774. On May 20, 2019 Plaintiff Shahram Davoudi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1775. Plaintiff Negar Zarrinfam submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1776. Plaintiffs Shahram Davoudi and Negar Zarrinfam attended an interview on December 5, 2019. 1777. To date, Plaintiffs Shahram Davoudi and Negar Zarrinfam have not been scheduled for a re-interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
203

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 248 of 308
1778. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Shahram Davoudi and Negar Zarrinfam’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mouad Zitouni
1779. Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni is a native of Morocco and DV-2020 selectee. 1780. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1781. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni visa case number 2020AF45275. 1782. On August 1, 2019 Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1783. To date, Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni has not been scheduled for an interview at an US
Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1784. The adjudication of Plaintiff Mouad Zitouni’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Nasrin Raeisidehkordi
1785. Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1786. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1787. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi visa case number 2020AS8660.
204

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 249 of 308
1788. On September 30, 2019 Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1789. Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi was scheduled for an interview on April 20, 2020, but it was cancelled by the embassy.
1790. To date, Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1791. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nasrin Raeisidehkordi’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah
1792. Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.
1793. Plaintiff Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia is a native of Egypt and spouse of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1794. Plaintiff F.E.R.I.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Plaintiff F.E.R.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1795. Plaintiff P.E.R.I.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Plaintiff P.E.R.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a
205

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 250 of 308
derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1796. Plaintiff O.E.R.I.A. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah. Plaintiff O.E.R.I.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1797. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1798. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah visa case number 2020AF40345. 1799. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah submitted her DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1800. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1801. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff F.E.R.I.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1802. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff P.E.R.I.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1803. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff O.E.R.I.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection.
206

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 251 of 308
1804. Plaintiffs Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah, and her derivative beneficiaries. submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application, and February 18, 2020, KCC notified them that they are ready to be scheduled for an interview.
1805. To date, Plaintiffs Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah, Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia, F.E.R.I.A., P.E.R.I.A. and O.E.R.I.A. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1806. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Amal Abdelmessih Fawzy Atallah, Emad Rasmy Ibrahim Atia, F.E.R.I.A., P.E.R.I.A. and O.E.R.I.A.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Abdikar Jele Idris
1807. Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1808. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris was invited to submit a DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1809. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris visa case number 2020AF54620. 1810. On August 29, 2019 Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris submitted his DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1811. Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication
of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1812. To date, Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris has not been scheduled for an interview at an
US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
207

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 252 of 308
1813. The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdikar Jele Idris’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Farangis Kurbonova
1814. Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova is a native of Tajikistan and DV-2020 selectee. 1815. Plaintiff Sobirjon Kurbonov is a native of Tajikistan and spouse of Farangis
Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1816. Plaintiff S.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Farangis Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1817. Plaintiff M.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Farangis Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1818. Plaintiff A.K. is a native of Tajikistan and minor child of Farangis Kurbonova. Sobirjon Kurbonov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Farangis Kurbonova should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
208

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 253 of 308
1819. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1820. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova visa case number 2020EU9298. 1821. On Decemember 3, 2019 Plaintiff Farangis Kurbonova submitted her DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1822. On Decemember 3, 2019 Plaintiff Sobirjon Kurbonov submitted his DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1823. On Decemember 3, 2019, Plaintiff S.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1824. On Decemember 3, 2019, Plaintiff M.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1825. On Decemember 3, 2019, Plaintiff A.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his mother’s DV-2020 selection. 1826. Plaintiffs Farangis Kurbonova, Sobirjon Kurbonov, S.K., M.K. and A.K. were scheduled for an interview on March 31, 2020 that was cancelled. 1827. To date, Plaintiffs Farangis Kurbonova, Sobirjon Kurbonov, S.K., M.K. and A.K. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1828. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Farangis Kurbonova, Sobirjon Kurbonov, S.K., M.K. and A.K.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,
209

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 254 of 308
procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva
1829. Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 1830. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva was invited to submit a DS-
260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1831. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva visa case number 2020EU28270. 1832. On April 17, 2020 Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1833. To date, Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1834. The adjudication of Plaintiff Victoria Yuryevna Golubeva’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dipa Khatri
1835. Plaintiff Dipa Khatri is a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1836. Plaintiff Mahesh Bista is a native of Nepal and spouse of Dipa Khatri. Mahesh
Bista is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dipa Khatri should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
210

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 255 of 308
1837. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs Dipa Khatri and Dipa Khatri were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1838. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dipa Khatri visa case number 2020AS00008092. 1839. Plaintiff Dipa Khatri submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1840. KCC scheduled an interview for Plaintiff Dipa Khatri for March 23, 2020, but it
was cancelled. 1841. To date, Plaintiffs Dipa Khatri and Mahesh Bista have not been re-scheduled for an
interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1842. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dipa Khatri and Mahesh Bista’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dániel Kováts
1843. Plaintiff Dániel Kováts is a native of Hungary and DV-2020 selectee. 1844. Plaintiff Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor is a native of Hungary and spouse of Dániel
Kováts. Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dániel Kováts should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1845. Plaintiff M.K. is a native of Hungary and minor child of Dániel Kováts. Plaintiff M.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dániel Kováts should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
211

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 256 of 308
1846. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dániel Kováts and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1847. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dániel Kováts visa case number 2020EU00043673. 1848. On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff Dániel Kováts submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1849. On September 9, 2019 Plaintiff Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor submitted her DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1850. On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff M.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1851. To date, Plaintiffs Dániel Kováts, Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor, and M.O. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1852. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dániel Kováts, Kitty Ágnes Kováts-Kántor, and M.K.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Camille Djiomegni Mbakop
1853. Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee.
212

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 257 of 308
1854. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1855. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop visa case number 2020AF53273.
1856. On May 22, 2019 Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1857. To date, Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
1858. The adjudication of Plaintiff Camille Djiomegni Mbakop’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Babak Ebadian
1859. Plaintiff Babak Ebadian is a native of Iran, and EMT tech, and DV-2020 selectee. 1860. Plaintiff Zahra Mohammad Taheri is a native of Iran and spouse of Babak
Ebadian. Zahra Mohammad Taheri is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Babak Ebadian should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1861. Plaintiff R.E. is a native of Iran and minor child of Babak Ebadian. Plaintiff R.E. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Babak Ebadian should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
213

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 258 of 308

1862. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Babak Ebadian and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1863. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Babak Ebadian visa case number 2020AS11428. 1864. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Babak Ebadian submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1865. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Zahra Mohammad Taheri submitted her DS-260,
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her spouse’s DV-2020 selection. 1866. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff R.E. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection. 1867. To date, Plaintiffs Babak Ebadian, Zahra Mohammad Taheri, and R.E. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.

1868. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Babak Ebadian, Zahra Mohammad Taheri, and R.E.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hamid Ullah Ansari

1869. Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari is a native of Afghanistan and DV-2020 selectee.

1870. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari was invited to submit a DS-260,

Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.

1871.

The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari visa case number 2020AS19146. 214

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 259 of 308
1872. On November 24, 2019 Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1873. On January 20, 2020, Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari submitted all the required documents to KCC, who notified him by email he was ready to be scheduled for an interview.
1874. To date, Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
1875. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hamid Ullah Ansari’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah
1876. Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah is a native of Sudan and DV-2020 selectee. 1877. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah was invited to submit a
DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1878. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah visa case number 2020AS15260. 1879. Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1880. Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah was scheduled for an interview on April 8, 2020. 1881. To date, Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
215

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 260 of 308
1882. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hossameldine Babikar Jubarah’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana
1883. Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana is a native of Fiji and DV-2020 selectee. 1884. Plaintiff Litiana Buadromo is a native of Fiji and spouse of Josese Tulele
Lawaniyasana. Litiana Buadromo is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1885. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1886. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana visa case number 2020OC954. 1887. On November 13, 2019 Plaintiff Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana submitted his DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1888. On November 13, 2019 Plaintiff Litiana Buadromo submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection. 1889. Plaintiffs Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and Litiana Buadromo were scheduled for an interview on April 15, 2020.
216

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 261 of 308
1890. To date, Plaintiffs Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and Litiana Buadromo have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1891. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Josese Tulele Lawaniyasana and Litiana Buadromo’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime 1892. Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime is a native of Togo and DV-2020 selectee. 1893. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1894. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime visa case number 2020AF32069. 1895. Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1896. On March 23, 2020, KCC notified Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime that his documents had been processed and he was ready for an interview. 1897. To date, Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his application.
217

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 262 of 308
1898. The adjudication of Plaintiff Yayra Benjamin Agnessilime’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Dieudonne Hakizimana
1899. Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana is a native of Rwanda and DV-2020 selectee. 1900. Plaintiff Virginie Uwingabire is a native of Rwanda and spouse of Dieudonne
Hakizimana. Virginie Uwingabire is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dieudonne Hakizimana should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1901. Plaintiff R.W.S. is a 7-year-old native of Rwanda and minor son of Dieudonne Hakizimana. Plaintiff R.W.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Dieudonne Hakizimana should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1902. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1903. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana visa case number 2020AF16686. 1904. On May 18, 2020 Plaintiff Dieudonne Hakizimana submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1905. On May 18, 2020 Plaintiff Virginie Uwingabire submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her relation’s DV-2020 selection.
218

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 263 of 308
1906. On May 18, 2020 Plaintiff R.W.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his father’s DV-2020 selection.
1907. Plaintiffs Dieudonne Hakizimana, Virginie Uwingabire, and R.W.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260.
1908. To date, Plaintiffs Dieudonne Hakizimana, Virginie Uwingabire, and R.W.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1909. Both Dieudonne Hakizimana and Virginie Uwingabire are nurses.
1910. The adjudication of Plaintiffs Dieudonne Hakizimana, Virginie Uwingabire, and R.W.S.’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Hashim Mohamud Maalim 1911. Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1912. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1913. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim visa case number 2020AF66270. 1914. On November 28, 2019, Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
219

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 264 of 308
1915. Plaintiffs Hashim Mohamud Maalim have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1916. To date, Plaintiffs Hashim Mohamud Maalim has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1917. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Hashim Mohamud Maalim’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Akmal Wassef Abdalla 1918. Plaintiff Akmal Wassef Abdalla is a native of Egypt, German citizen, and DV-2020 selectee. 1919. Plaintiff Dorothea Stuettgen-Abdalla is a native of Germany and spouse of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. Dorothea Stuettgen-Abdalla is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1920. Plaintiff A.S.A. is a native of Germany and minor child of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. A.S.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1921. Plaintiff M.M.A. is a native of Germany and minor child of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. M.M.A. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1922. Plaintiff M.M.A.(2) is a native of Germany and minor child of Akmal Wassef Abdalla. M.M.A.(2) is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary
220

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 265 of 308
of Akmal Wassef Abdalla should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1923. On May 7, 2019, Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1924. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Akmal Wassef Abdalla visa case number 2020AF57907. 1925. In November 2019, Plaintiff Akmal Wassef Abdalla submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1926. In November 2019, Plaintiff Dorothea Stuettgen-Abdalla submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1927. In November 2019, Plaintiff A.S.A. 1 submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1928. In November 2019, Plaintiff M.M.A. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1929. In November 2019, Plaintiff M.M.A.(2) submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1930. Plaintiffs Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his family have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1931. To date, Plaintiffs Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his family have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1932. The family has lived in Switzerland since 2008.
221

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 266 of 308
1933. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Akmal Wassef Abdalla and his family’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque 1934. Plaintiff Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1935. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1936. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque visa case number 2020AF63191. 1937. On June 9, 2019, Plaintiff Hashim Mohamud Maalim submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1938. Plaintiffs Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1939. To date, Plaintiffs Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1940. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Herve Giresse Tchacounte Nouque ’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
222

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 267 of 308
Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou 1941. Plaintiff Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 1942. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1943. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou visa case number 2020AF59050. 1944. On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1945. Plaintiffs Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1946. To date, Plaintiffs Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1947. Plaintiffs Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou is a nurse. 1948. The adjudication of Plaintiff Jamyla Ibrahim Rakiatou ’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Abdiaziz Mahat Adan 1949. Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee. 1950. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1951. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adanvisa case number 2020AF42877.
223

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 268 of 308
1952. On November 2, 2019, Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adansubmitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1953. Plaintiffs Abdiaziz Mahat Adan has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1954. To date, Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
1955. The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdiaziz Mahat Adan’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sabir Shrestha 1956. Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha a native of Nepal and DV-2020 selectee. 1957. On May 7, 2019, Sabir Shrestha was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1958. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha case number 2020A11985. 1959. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1960. Plaintiffs Sabir Shrestha has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1961. To date, Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1962. The adjudication of Plaintiff Sabir Shrestha’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
224

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 269 of 308
Narges Azar 1963. Plaintiff Narges Azar a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1964. On May 7, 2019, Narges Azar was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1965. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Narges Azar case number 2020AS9425. 1966. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff Narges Azar submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1967. Plaintiffs Narges Azar has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1968. Plaintiff Narges Azar was scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on April 9, 2020, but the interview was cancelled. 1969. To date, Plaintiff Narges Azar has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1970. The adjudication of Plaintiff Narges Azar’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani 1971. Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 1972. On May 7, 2019, Ismail Adan Abdullahi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1973. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani visa case number 2020AF8051.
225

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 270 of 308
1974. On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
1975. Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
1976. To date, Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications.
1977. The adjudication of Plaintiff Sahar Hajirahimi Sichani’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Mokrane Khelifi 1978. Plaintiff Mokrane Khelifi is a native of Algeria and DV-2020 selectee. 1979. Plaintiff Ourida Chaib is a native of Algeria and spouse of Mokrane Khelifi. Ourida Chaib is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mokrane Khelifi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1980. Plaintiff I.K. is a native of Algeria and minor child of Mokrane Khelifi. I.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mokrane Khelifi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1981. Plaintiff Y.K. is a native of Algeria and minor child of Mokrane Khelifi. Y.K. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Mokrane Khelifi should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 1982. On May 7, 2019, Mokrane Khelifi and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
226

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 271 of 308
1983. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Mokrane Khelifi visa case number 2020AF31310. 1984. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff Mokrane Khelifi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1985. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff Ourida Chaib submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1986. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff I.K. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1987. On June 22, 2019, Plaintiff Y.K. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 1988. Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ourida Chaib, I.K., and Y.J have submitted all
necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 1989. Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ourida Chaib and their minor children were scheduled for an interview for April 27, 2020 but it was cancelled by the embassy. 1990. To date, Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ourida Chaib and their minor children have not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 1991. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Mokrane Khelifi, Ourida Chaib, and their minor children’s immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda
227

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 272 of 308
1992. Plaintiff Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda is a native of Egypt and DV-2020 selectee.
1993. Plaintiff Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi is a native of Egypt and spouse of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda. Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1994. Plaintiff M.O.M.R. is a native of Saudi Arabia and minor child of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda . M.O.M.R is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1995. Plaintiff Mo.O.M.R. is a native of Saudi Arabia and minor child of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda. Mo.O.M.R is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1996. Plaintiff M.O.M.R.S. is a native of Saudi Arabia and minor child of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda . M.O.M.R.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
1997. On May 7, 2019, Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda and Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
228

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 273 of 308
1998. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda visa case number 2020af00064284.
1999. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2000. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff M.O.M.R. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2001. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff Mo.O.M.R. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2002. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff M.O.M.R.S.. submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2003. Plaintiffs Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda, Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2004. To date, Plaintiffs Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda, Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2005. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Hend Ahmed Abdelmaksoud Gouda, Ossama Muhamed Rabie Soufi,, M.O.M.R , Mo.O.M.R., and M.O.M.R.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ismail Adan Abdullahi 2006. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi is a native of Kenya and DV-2020 selectee.
229

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 274 of 308
2007. On May 7, 2019, Ismail Adan Abdullahi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2008. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir visa case number 2020AF00005658.
2009. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2010. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2011. Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi had an interview on December 2, 2019, but then went to administrative processing until he could send his passport. He sent his passport, but then the embassy suspended operations and returned his passport.
2012. To date, Plaintiff has not been re-scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications.
2013. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ismail Adan Abdullahi’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Zhanna Samsonenka 2014. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka is a native of Belarus and DV-2020 selectee. 2015. On May 7, 2019, Zhanna Samsonenka was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 2016. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka visa case number 2020EU12220. 2017. On May 27, 2019, Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
230

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 275 of 308
2018. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2019. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka had an appointment scheduled at the US Embassy but it was cancelled on March 13, 2020.
2020. To date, Plaintiff has not been rescheduled for an interview at the US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on her application.
2021. Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka was scheduled for an interview on March 16, 2020. 2022. The adjudication of Plaintiff Zhanna Samsonenka’s immigrant visa application is
suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir 2023. Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir is a native of Iraq and DV-2020 selectee. 2024. On May 7, 2019, Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir was invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2025. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir visa case number 2020AS00026655. 2026. Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2027. Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
231

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 276 of 308
2028. To date, Plaintiff has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on his applications.
2029. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ammar A. Abdul Hussein Alkudhir’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Michel Divine Poundeu Happi 2030. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi is a native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 2031. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi derivative beneficiary was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2032. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi visa case number 2020AF00028291. 2033. On June 1, 2019, Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2034. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 2035. Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi was scheduled for an interview on April 22, 2020, that was cancelled. 2036. To date, Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
232

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 277 of 308
2037. The adjudication of Plaintiff Michel Divine Poundeu Happi’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Gabriel Alexanru Stoita 2038. Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita is a native of Canada, a registered nurse where she practices in the respiratory unit recently treating Covid-19 patients, and DV-2020 selectee. 2039. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita is a native of Canada and spouse of Gabriel Alexanru Stoita. 2040. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2041. Plaintiff B.S. is a native of Canada and minor child of Gabriel Alexanru Stoita at the time of filing. B.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Gabriel Alexanru Stoita should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2042. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2043. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita visa case number 2020EU00019138. 2044. Plaintiff Gabriel Alexanru Stoita submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
233

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 278 of 308
2045. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2046. Plaintiff B.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2047. Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2048. Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. were scheduled for an interview on April 1, 2020.
2049. To date, Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2050. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Gabriel Alexanru Stoita, Mihaela Stoita, and B.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy 2051. Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy is a native of Egypy and DV-2020 selectee. 2052. Plaintiff Mohamed Hatem Swilam is a native of Egypt and spouse of Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy. Plaintiff Mihaela Stoita is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
234

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 279 of 308
2053. Plaintiff S.S. is a native of Egypt and minor child of Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy at the time of filing. S.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2054. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2055. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy visa case number 2020AF42201
2056. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2057. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Hatem Swilam submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2058. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff S.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2059. Plaintiffs Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy, Mohamed Hatem Swilam, and B.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2060. To date, Plaintiffs Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy, Mohamed Hatem Swilam, and S.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2061. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Fatma Ibrahim Elshaarawy, Mohamed Hatem Swilam, and S.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s
235

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 280 of 308
policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absi 2062. Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis a native of Yemen and DV-2020 selectee. 2063. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absi was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2064. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absi visa case number 2020AS6833. 2065. Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2066. Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 2067. To date, Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 2068. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hesham Tawfik Ahmed Al-Absiis’s immigrant visa applications is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadari 2069. Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria native of Yemen and DV2020 selectee.
236

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 281 of 308
2070. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2071. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria case number 2020AS1534.
2072. Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2073. Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2074. To date, Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2075. The adjudication of Plaintiff Abdullah Mohammed Mohammed Alnadaria’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Ferdows Jamali 2076. Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali is a native of Iran and DV-2020 selectee. 2077. Plaintiff Ali Mokhtarabadi is a native of Iran and spouse of Ferdows Jamali. Plaintiff Ali Mokhtarabadi is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
237

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 282 of 308
2078. Plaintiff A.M. is a native of Iran and minor child of Ferdows Jamali at the time of filing. S.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Ferdows Jamali should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2079. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali and her derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2080. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali visa case number 2020AS2018. 2081. Plaintiff Ferdows Jamali submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2082. Plaintiff Ali Mokhtarabadi submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien
Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 2083. Plaintiff A.M. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2084. Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. have submitted all
necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 2085. Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. attended an interview. 2086. To date, Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. have not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 2087. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Ferdows Jamali, Ali Mokhtarabadi, and A.M. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies,
238

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 283 of 308
procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Khamiss Raji 2088. Plaintiff Khamiss Raji native of Morocco and DV-2020 selectee. 2089. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Khamiss Raji was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2090. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Khamiss Raji case number 2020AF33350. 2091. On June 9, 2019, Plaintiff Khamiss Raji submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 2092. Plaintiff Khamiss Raji has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application. 2093. To date, Plaintiff Khamiss Raji has not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications. 2094. The adjudication of Plaintiff Khamiss Raji’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege 2095. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege native of Cameroon and DV-2020 selectee. 2096. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
239

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 284 of 308
2097. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege case number 2020AF26627.
2098. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2099. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege has submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2100. Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege was scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on March 31, 2020, but the interview was cancelled.
2101. To date, Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege has not been rescheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2102. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ngatcha Yosse Brigitte Nadege’s immigrant visa application is suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Sami Ben Ali Sahboun 2103. Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun is a native of Tunisia and DV-2020 selectee. 2104. Plaintiff Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach is a native of Tunisia and spouse of Sami Ben Ali Sahboun. Plaintiff Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 2105. Plaintiff Z.S. is a native of Tunisia and minor child of Sami Ben Ali Sahboun. Z.S. is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary of Sami Ben Ali Sahboun should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
240

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 285 of 308
2106. On May 7, 2019, Sami Ben Ali Sahboun and his derivative beneficiaries were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2107. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun visa case number 2020AS00002402.
2108. On January 12, 2020, Plaintiff Sami Ben Ali Sahboun submitted his DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2109. On January 12, 2020, Plaintiff Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
2110. On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff Z.S. submitted her DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
2111. Plaintiffs Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach, and Z.S. have submitted all necessary documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
2112. To date, Plaintiffs Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach, and Z.S. have not been scheduled for an interview at an US Embassy or Consulate or issued a decision on their applications.
2113. The adjudications of Plaintiffs Sami Ben Ali Sahboun, Houda Bent Ali Lakhrach, and Z.S. immigrant visa applications are suspended pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
DEFENDANTS
241

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 286 of 308
2114. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America. He is sued in his official capacity.
2115. Defendant Michael R. Pompeo is the Secretary of State for the United States of America. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he has the authority to issue regulations to implement the Diversity Visa Lottery Program. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 1154. He also prescribes the Visa Lottery fee, which is $330 per DV winner or derivative. C.F.R. § 42.33(h)(2)(i) He is sued in his official capacity.
2116. Defendant Michael R. Pompeo administers the Diversity Visa Lottery Program through the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Kentucky Consular Center (KCC), located in Williamsburg, Kentucky, which opened in 2000 to administer the program. As of May 2019, KCC had approximately 430 contract staff members working in two shifts and on weekends and 5 Bureau of Consular Affairs direct-hire employees, including a Foreign Service officer Director, all working under the direction of Defendant Michael R. Pompeo. Among those, 21 contract staff members in KCC’s DV unit handle inquiries about the program, process the electronic visa applications from DV selectees, schedule overseas interviews, and work with U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services to process selectees already in the United States.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DIVERSITY VISA IMMIGRANT PROGRAM
2117. The Immigration Act of 1990 created a new immigration category, the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, to increase diversity in the U.S. immigrant population by
242

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 287 of 308
providing 50,000 Diversity visas to nationals of countries that have had low immigration rates to the United States. Public Law 101-649; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c) 2118. The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program has led to a broader mix of nationalities represented in the U.S. immigrant population, creating a U.S. better equipped to understand and relate to the diversity of the world abroad. 2119. The Congressionally mandated program issues visas specifically for immigrants who are natives of countries and regions from where fewer than 50,000 immigrants came to the United States over the previous five years. 2120. Each fiscal year, the Department grants approximately 50,000 diversity immigrant visas to individuals from countries underrepresented in the immigration process, which allow recipients who are granted admission to enter the country as lawful permanent residents who may live and work in the United States indefinitely. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(e), 1153(c)(1). 2121. Hopeful immigrants must submit entries during the application period. 2122. From those entries, the Department then chooses eligible selectees to apply for immigrant visas. 2123. A diversity visa selectee is entitled to apply for an immigrant visa only during the fiscal year for which the entry was submitted. See INA § 204(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). 2124. The diversity visa program is administered at the Department’s KCC. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1)(a). 2125. After their selection, selectee receives a first notifications letter informing the selectee of their selection and visa number. Id.
243

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 288 of 308
2126. The visa number, assigned by the KCC, is an administrative device used by the State Department to ensure that it does not grant more than the statutorily allocated 50,000 visas per year.
2127. Selectees must then submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and various supporting documents. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(1)(a),(b).
2128. When a selectee submits the DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and supporting documentation, KCC considers the case documentarily qualified.
2129. Once the case is documentarily qualified, the Department must schedule the selectee for an immigrant visa interview at a United States Embassy or Consulate.
2130. The Foreign Affairs Manual and associated Handbooks (hereafter collectively referred to as the “FAM”) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM conveys codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive, and Department mandates.
2131. The FAM states that “KCC will schedule an appointment for a ‘documentarily qualified’ applicant when his or her regional lottery rank number is about to become current.” 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2) (emphasis added).
2132. Each month, the Department publishes a Diversity Visa Bulletin summarizing the availability of immigrant visas for diversity visa selectees.
244

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 289 of 308
2133. Selectees with current visas numbers are entitled to an immigrant visa interview to make a formal application for an immigrant visa before a consular officer.
2134. All Plaintiffs have an available immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 program selection.
2135. The Department’s July 2020 Diversity Visa Bulletin demonstrates that all Plaintiffs have an available immigrant visa.

Visa Bulletin for July, Number 43, Volume X, Department of State, Washington, D.C.

available

at

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-

bulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-for-july-2020.html/.

2136. As of July 2020, immigrant visas were available to all Plaintiffs.

245

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 290 of 308
2137. Because the Department must schedule immigrant visa interviews for DV-2020 selectees when their application is about to be current, the Department also publishes the forthcoming months visa bulletin for DV-2020 selectees.
2138. The Department’s Visa Bulletin for July states that on August 1, 2020 all DV-2020 selections will be current and eligible for immigrant visa interviews.
Id. 2139. The entitlement requires the Department to schedule the selectee for a mandatory
immigrant interview at a US Embassy or Consulate to determine the selectee’s qualifications for the diversity visa and admissibility into the United States pursuant to the laws of the United States of America. 2140. At the time of the interview, the consular officer must issue or refuse the immigrant visa application. 2141. If the selectee is admissible to the United States, the consular officer “shall” issue the selectee an immigrant visa and may only refuse a visa “upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations.” See 22 C.F.R. § 40.6.
246

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 291 of 308 2142. Because the diversity visa program restarts each fiscal year, diversity visas may not
be issued after midnight on September 30 of the fiscal year of the selection. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1)(d); see also 31 U.S.C. § 1102. 2143. If a selectee is not issued a visa prior to midnight on September 30 of the fiscal year of the selection, the selectee cannot be issued a visa based on his or her visa selection for that fiscal year. B. DIVERSITY VISA ANIMUS 2144. At 4:30 AM on November 1, 2017, President Donald J. Trump made clear on twitter his hostility towards the Diversity Visa Program.
2145. In a cabinet meeting later that day, the President stated that “I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program.” Also stating, “Diversery [sic] and 247

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 292 of 308 diversity lottery. Diversity lottery. Sounds nice. It's not nice. It's not good. It's not good. It hasn't been good. And we've been against it.”
Available at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926155393490878464). 2146. The next day, recognizing the President did not garner the legislative backing
necessary to end the Congressionally mandated program, the President stated “We're being stopped by Democrats because they're obstructionists. And, honestly, they don't want to do what's right for our country. We need strength. We need resolve. We have to stop it. So, we're going to get rid of this lottery program as soon as possible.”
248

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 293 of 308
2147. On December 15, 2017, while speaking about the Diversity Visa Program the President stated "They give us their worst people, they put 'em in a bin," Trump continued, making a lifting gesture from an imaginary bin. He went on to say, "But in his hand when he's picking these people, it's really the worst of the worst. 'Congratulations, you're going to the United States.' What a system."
2148. It is unclear if the President was referring to career State Department officials at the KCC or foreign services officers at the United States Embassies and Consulates who place both their and their families lives at risk serving the citizens of the United States and enforcing our immigration laws in his statement on giving the United States the “worst of the worst.”
2149. On December 29, 2017, the President made clear in a tweet that “there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.”
2150. On January 4, 2018, the President tweeted “We must BUILD THE WALL, stop illegal immigration, end chain migration & cancel the visa lottery. The current system is unsafe & unfair to the great people of our country – time for change!” He repeated this sentiment in tweets on January 9, 11, 12, 16, and two more on February 6.
2151. On February 8, 2018, the President tweeted “Time to end the visa lottery. Congress must secure the immigration system and protect Americans.”
249

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 294 of 308
2152. On February 10, 2018, the President again detailed his intention of ending the Diversity Visa Program, stating “My Administration has identified three major priorities for creating a safe, modern and lawful immigration system: fully securing the border, ending chain migration, and canceling the visa lottery.”
Available at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/962469767109009408. 250

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 295 of 308
2153. During the President’s 2018 State of the Union address, he reiterated his intention to gut the Diversity Visa Program as part of his immigration overhaul.
2154. In tweets sent on February 15, May 26, June 15, July 29, and July 30, 2018, the President continued to call for ending the DV Lottery program.
2155. In May of 2019, Trump unveiled an immigration proposal, drafted largely by the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Again, the President proposed to end the Diversity Visa Program.
2156. At a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2019, President Trump painted a wildly inaccurate picture of how the diversity visa program works to a ruckus group of his supporters.
2157. The President stated, “And you pick people out of the lottery,” gesturing as if he were picking names out of a hat. “Well let’s see, this one is a murderer, this one robbed four banks, this one I better not say, this one another murderer, ladies and gentlemen, another murderer.”
2158. The President also stated, “You think [countries] are going to put their great citizens [….] into the lottery? Look at the people they put into these lotteries.”
2159. Despite his tenacious twitter campaign, the President again failed to garner the legislative support for ending the Diversity Visa Program.
2160. The President’s longstanding animus towards the Diversity Visa Program and its immigrant participants, failed efforts to garner the Congressional support to end the Diversity Visa Program, and intent to unlawfully end the Congressional mandated program is the basis for the Defendant’s unlawful policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
251

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 296 of 308
2161. Defendants are now relying, in part, on the PP 10014 and PP 10052 to circumvent the Immigration and Nationality Act, federal regulations , preexisting Department policies, and the text of PP 10014 and PP 10052 to unlawfully suspend the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2162. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices are a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act, federal regulations, existing Department policies, and the text of PP 10014 and 10052 governing the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for Diversity Visa Program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
C. DEFENDANTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW AND SUSPENDED THE ADJUDICATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR DV-2020 SELECTEES 2163. The Department has implemented policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees through the DV-2020 deadline – effectively ending the program. 2164. The graph below, prepared by Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares, demonstrates the suspension of immigrant visa adjudication for the DV-2020 through the end of May in comparison to the DV-2019, DV-2018, and DV-2017.
252

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 297 of 308
2165. The Department cannot rely upon any statutory authority, regulations, presidential proclamations, executive orders, or preexisting Department policies to support a lawful implementation of policies, procedures, and practices that suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for eligible DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2166. The Department has suspended adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries at the KCC pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices.
2167. The KCC has suspended assigning visa numbers to DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees.
2168. The KCC has suspended transferring documentarily complete immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of 253

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 298 of 308
immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2169. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended conducting immigrant visa interviews for immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees pursuant to Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2170. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended accepting evidence in support of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2171. United States Embassies and Consulates have ended conducting security checks for immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2172. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended all adjudications for already interviewed immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2173. United States Embassies and Consulates have suspended PP 10014 and PP 10052 exemption determination for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries
254

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 299 of 308
pursuant to policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2174. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries will not restart adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries before October 1, 2020 effectively ending the DV-2020 program. D. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY RELY ON PP 10014 AND PP 10052 TO SUSPEND THE ADJUDICATION AND ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS FOR DV-2020 PROGRAM SELECTEES AND THEIR DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES. 2175. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries relies in part on PP 10014 and PP 10052. 2176. The Department has adopted policies, procedures, and practices directing the KCC, United States Embassies and Consulates, and consular officers to suspend immigrant visas adjudications prior to a final decision to issue or refuse those immigrant visa applications pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052. 2177. PP 10014 and PP 10052 mandate that consular officers “shall determine, in his or her discretion, whether an immigrant has established his or her eligibility for an exception” to the proclamation. 2178. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices preclude consular officers from determining whether PP 10014 and PP 10052 is applicable to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
255

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 300 of 308
2179. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries also conflate the PP 10014 and PP 10052’s suspension of entry with a ban on visa issuance.
2180. PP 10014 and PP 10052 do not preclude the issuance of immigrant visas for DV2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2181. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending immigrant visa adjudications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries violate statutes ,regulations, and preexisting Department policies requiring the issuance of immigrant visas to diversity visa lottery winners who are statutorily eligible.
2182. The Department has failed to adhere to and has implemented policies and procedures contrary to law, regulation, preexisting Department policies, and PP 10014 and PP 10052. CAUSES OF ACTION First Claim for Relief Agency Action That is Arbitrary and Capricious, An Abuse of Discretion, and Otherwise Not in Accordance with Law in Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
2183. Plaintiffs reallege the forgoing allegation as if set forth fully herein. 2184. The Department is an agency subject to the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (hereafter referred to as the “APA”). 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1). 2185. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), courts shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action
that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; or without observance of procedure required by law.
256

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 301 of 308
2186. The implementation of the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas applications for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitutes a final agency action that is reviewable by this Court.
2187. The policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law because the Defendant lacked the statutory authority to unilaterally suspend the adjudications of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries.
2188. The policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries strips the Congressionally mandated entitlements of DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries and it does so by rewriting the immigration laws and contradicting the priorities adopted by Congress.
2189. Defendant also disregarded the serious reliance interests engendered by the DV2020 program. Defendants must, in addition to demonstrating that there are good reasons for the new policy, offer “a reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).
2190. Plaintiffs were harmed and continued to be harmed by these unlawful acts. Second Claim for Relief
Agency Action Without Observance of Procedure Required by Law In Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)
2191. Plaintiffs reallege the forgoing allegation as if set forth fully herein.
257

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 302 of 308
2192. The APA requires administrative agencies to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to promulgate substantive rules. 5 U.S.C. § 553.
2193. The Administrative Procedures Act defines “rule” broadly to include “the whole or part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).
2194. The Department promulgated and relied upon the policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries without authority and without notice-andcomment rulemaking. It is therefore unlawful.
2195. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitutes a substantive rule subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.
2196. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries constitute a substantive rule because it affirmatively circumscribes the Department’s Congressional mandate and nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate and issue decisions for immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees.
2197. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries
258

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 303 of 308
constitute a substantive rule because it is a categorical rule, which applies to all DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2198. In implementing the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for the DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries, Defendant impermissibly announced a new rule without undertaking noticeand-comment rulemaking. 2199. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
Third Claim Agency Action Not Concluded Within a Reasonable Time 5 U.S.C. § 555(b)
2200. Pursuant to the APA, the Defendant has a nondiscretionary duty “to conclude a matter presented to it” “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b),
2201. The Department has failed to adjudicate immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries within a reasonable time.
2202. The Department has implemented policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries since at least March 2020 – six months before the statutory conclusion of the DV-2020 program.
2203. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries is a final agency action. It is the consummation to the Department’s agency on this matter.
2204. The Department has nothing further to do to issue directions to its employees at the KCC or its consular officers at US Embassies and Consulates around the world regarding
259

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 304 of 308
suspending adjudications of immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2205. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudications for and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries will have legal consequences. 2206. The Department will continue to refuse to adjudicate and issue immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries through September 30, 2020, effectively ending the DV-2020 program. 2207. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices directing employees at the KCC and the US Embassies and Consulates around the world to end the DV-2020 program are not authorized by any governing law, and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of law. 2208. Defendant administers the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending the DV-2020 program. 2209. Pursuant to the APA, a court may compel agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) 2210. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
Fourth Claim Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 2211. Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing allegation as set forth full herein. 2212. Defendants have a clear non-discretionary duty to adjudicate immigrant visa applications and issue visas to DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries who
260

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 305 of 308
are eligible to receive them and not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), so long as visas are remain available. 2213. PP 10014 and PP 10052 do no prohibit the issuance of diversity visas that must be issued by September 30. It simply issues a temporary bar on entry to the United States. 2214. Defendant have a mandatory duty to adjudicate diversity immigrant visa applications and issue diversity immigrant visas to statutorily eligible individuals, and there is no legal bar to doing so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have a clear and indisputable right to relief, and Defendants have clear, nondiscretionary duty to act. 2215. No alternative remedy exists to compel Defendants’ action.
Fifth Claim Violation of the Take Care Clause, Art. II, § 3, Cl. 5 2216. Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein. 2217. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices violate the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II § 3, cl. 5. 2218. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Take Care Clause is judicially enforceable against presidential invocations of dispensing power. See, e.g., Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524m 612-13(1838); Angelus Milling CO. v. Comm’r Of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 293, 296 (1945). 2219. The Take Care Clause limits the President’s power and ensures that he will faithfully execute the Congress’s laws – no rewrite them under the guise of executive “discretion.” 2220. In this case, the President has taken action to end the law and its mandated administration Diversity Visa Program by suspending the Department’s adjudication and
261

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 306 of 308
issuance of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. 2221. The Defendant cannot faithfully execute the law by directly contravening Congress’s objectives. 2222. The Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by these unlawful acts.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF “There is no better antidote to the challenges of globalization than to attract self-
selected strivers from every corner of the globe.” – Rep. Bruce A. Morrison, author of the House bill that became the Immigration Act of 1990, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session, June 15,
2005 . Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries;
B. Declare Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries void and without legal force or effect;
C. Declare that the Defendants’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706;
262

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 307 of 308
D. Declare the Defendants’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries are in violation of the Constitution and contrary to the laws of the United States;
E. Preliminarily enjoin and restrain the Defendants to hold diversity visa numbers to process and issue Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications in the event the Court finds the Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to be unlawful;
F. Preliminarily enjoin and restrain the Defendants to hold diversity visa numbers beyond September 30, 2020 to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa application in the event the Court finds the Defendants’ policies, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to be unlawful;
G. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants, the Department, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from implementing or enforcing the Departments’ polices, practices, procedures, or any other actions taken by Defendants to indefinitely suspend the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas for DV-2020 program selectees that is not in compliance with applicable law;
H. Retain jurisdiction over this action to monitor and enforce Defendants’ compliance with all orders of this Court;
I. Award Plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other applicable law; and
J. Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
263

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 5 Filed 07/17/20 Page 308 of 308
// // // // // // Dated: July 17, 2020
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Curtis Lee Morrison Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application forthcoming
264

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DR. MOHAMMED, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS, V. TRUMP, ET AL.

Case No. 20-cv-1856
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

DEFENDANTS.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs hereby move this court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 65 and LCvR 65(c) for the

following injunctive relief:

(1) an order requiring Defendants to reserve visa numbers for the Plaintiffs through the pendency of litigation;

(2) declaring Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for the fiscal year 2020 Diversity Visa Program unlawful;

(3) an order setting aside Defendants’ implementation of policies, procedures, and practices precluding issuance of visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries based on the entry suspension promulgated in PP 10014 and PP 10052; and

(4) an order mandating Defendants to fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, schedule Plaintiffs’ for immigrant visa interviews, and issue visas to eligible Plaintiffs.

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs rely on the accompanying Memorandum, declarations,

and exhibits.

A proposed order is attached.

Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m)

Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted several times to contact

Defendants; counsel to determine if Defendants would consent to the instant motion. Plaintiffs’

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 3
counsel was unsuccessful to ascertain Defendants’ position. Plaintiffs’ counsel efforts are outlined below:
1) Monday, July 13, 2020, 3:04 pm EST Counsel Curtis Morrison emailed Joshua S. Press, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division – Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section, who is known by Plaintiffs' counsel to represent Defendants in like-litigation including Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 1:17-cv-01533-TSC, before this court, and Mr. Press responded, in two emails sent at 3:15 pm EST and 3:22 pm respectively:
"I am not assigned to represent the Defendants in this matter." "To clarify a couple of things: (1) I am not assigned to this case; (2) Please contact the U.S. Attorney’s office; and (3) Your communication does not constitute service upon the U.S. Government under FRCP 4."
(2) Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 9:20 am EST Counsel Curtis Morrison called the US Attorney's office - 202-252-7566 - and left message inquiring as to who would be representing the Defendants, and whether a meet and confer could be arranged within the day on forthcoming motions to be filed Thursday.
(3) Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 9:49 am EST Counsel Curtis Morrison emailed Steven A. Platt, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division – Office of Immigration Litigation, who also represents Defendants in the Almaqrami litigation, seeking to meet and confer, and in the alternative, seeking the identity of who is assigned to represent Defendants. Mr. Platt did not respond.

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 3
(4) Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 9:57 am EST
Counsel Curtis Morrison emailed Diana V. Valdivia, Assistant U.S. Attorney, who is opposing counsel in another case where Mr. Morrison represents plaintiffs. This time, Mr. Morrison explained "I need some help. I have left a voicemail message at duty desk a couple days ago and
have not received a return call." Ms. Validivia responded:
"I have not been assigned to this matter. I will forward your email to my Civil Chief, Daniel
Van Horn, who is responsible for case assignments."
(5) Thursday, July 16, 2020. Defendants were served the complaint in this matter on Thursday, July 16, 2020. Dkt. No.4.
As of the time of this filing, no attorneys for Defendants have responded to Counsel
Curtis Morrison's attempts to meet and confer regarding the pending motions. Dated: July 17, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Curtis Lee Morrison Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application pending

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DR. MOHAMMED, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS, V. TRUMP, ET AL.

Case No. 20-cv-1856
Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

DEFENDANTS.

Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Rafael Urena* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 ru@urenaesq.com Attorney for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application pending
Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 abadir@barrelaw.com Attorney for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application pending

Curtis Lee Morrison The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com Attorney for the Plaintiffs

i

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 II. Relevant Facts ..........................................................................................................3
A. The DV Program................................................................................................3 B. Presidential Animus ...........................................................................................4 C. PP 10014 and PP 10052 .....................................................................................6 D. Myth of Economic Hardship Caused by Immigration ...................................7 E. Diversity Visa Adjudication Process ................................................................8
1. Step 1: Application Processing .............................................................8 2. Step 2: Immigrant Visa Interview Scheduling ....................................9 3. Step 3: Immigrant Visa Interview and Visa Issuance ........................9 F. Defendants Unreasonable Delays and Unlawful Withholding of a Mandatory Entitlement..............................................................................10 III. Legal Standards .......................................................................................................11 A. Injunctive Relief .................................................................................................11 IV. Arguments ................................................................................................................12 A. Standing ..............................................................................................................12 B. Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for permissive joinder .............................13 C. Plaintiffs’ Extraordinary and Irreparable Harm ...........................................14 D. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding claims....................................15
1. TRAC factors warrant a finding of unreasonable delay of a full and proper adjudication of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications ............................................................17 a. Rule of Reason and Congressional Timetable or Indication of Speed..........................................................17
ii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 38
b. Human Health and Welfare are at stake ...........................18 c. Competing Priorities and Nature of Delay ........................19 d. Impropriety ..........................................................................19 E. Defendants policies, procedures, and practices are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law................................................20 1. Defendants policy unlawfully suspends the clear duty to adjudicate visas .........................................................................21 F. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Mandamus Claim ............................23 G. The Doctrine of Consular Non-reviewability does not apply.........................24 1. Consular Non-reviewability does not preclude a challenge to Department’s policies, procedures, and policies .............................24 2. Consular Non-reviewability does not apply when the Department has not rendered a decision on an immigrant visa application....................................................................24 H. A Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest .........................................25
iii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 38
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Alharbi v. Miller 368 F. Supp 3d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).....................................................................21
Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 744 (2019)...............................................................................................14
Altowaiti v. Cissna, No. 18-cv-508 (KBF), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97672 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2018).......................................................................................13
Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................15
Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, Mont Air Chapter No. 29 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 22 F.3d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................16
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................12
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017) .............................................................................................12
Darchini v. Pompeo, No. SACV 19-1417 JVS (DFMx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220037 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2019).......................................................................................13
E.B. v. United States Dep't of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D.D.C. 2019) .........................................................................12
Fla. Audubon Soc'y. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................12
Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................23
Gordan v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722 (D.C. Cir. 2011). ..............................................................................12
Independence Mining Co., Inc., 105 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................19
Iyengar v. Barnhart, 233 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2002) ...........................................................................12 iv

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 38
Maramjaya v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 2008 WL 9398947 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2008)...........................................................25
Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (2014).............................................................................................12
Mogu v. Chertoff, 550 Supp. 2d 107, 109 (D.D.C. 2008) ..............................................................14,15
Mohamed v. Pompeo, No. 1:19-cv-01345-LJO-SKO, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167266 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2019) .............................................................................8, 13, 15
Montgomery v. STG Int'l, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2008) .........................................................................13
Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Serv. v. Kerry, 168 F.Supp. 3d 268, 291-92 (D.D.C.)..............................................................16, 24
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)...............................................................................................25
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004).................................................................................................16
P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F.Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017).............................................................12, 15, 24
Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997)..................................................................................24
Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .........................................................................21, 23
Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir 2011) ................................................................................16
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................17
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)...............................................................................................13
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954)...............................................................................................16
v

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 38
V. Real Estate Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (D. Nev. 2015) ......................................................................13
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)...............................................................................................21
STATUTES 5 U.S.C § 555(b) ................................................................................................................16 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) ...............................................................................................................16 8 U.S.C § 1201(c)(1)............................................................................................................4 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e) ...........................................................................................................1, 3 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1)(E)......................................................................................................3 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c) ...............................................................................................................6 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1)...............................................................................................3, 15, 18 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e)(1).........................................................................................................15 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II) .........................................................................................4. 18 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) .......................................................................................................22, 23 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)........................................................................................................21, 22 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) .............................................................................................................22 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b) ...............................................................................................................3 8 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)...........................................................................................................4 28 U.S.C. § 1361................................................................................................................23 31 U.S.C. § 1102................................................................................................................15 INA § 203(c) ......................................................................................................................24 INA § 203(c)(2) .................................................................................................................22 INA §§ 212(a)(1)-(10) .......................................................................................................22 INA § 212(f) ................................................................................................................21, 23
vi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 38
REGULATIONS 22 C.F.R. § 40.6 ...............................................................................................................4, 9 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a).............................................................................................................3 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1) ............................................................................................4, 14, 15 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(c).............................................................................................................3 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(d) ..........................................................................................................15 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(g) ............................................................................................................3 22 C.F.R. § 42.61-42.67.......................................................................................................3 22 C.F.R. § 42.81 ...............................................................................................................24 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a)...................................................................................................4, 9, 22 DEPARTMENT OF STATE FIELD AFFAIR MANUAL 9 FAM 502.6-4.....................................................................................................................8 9 FAM 502.6-4(b)(3)(a).....................................................................................................18 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1) ..........................................................................................................8 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1)(b).......................................................................................................8 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(2)(c) ...................................................................................................8, 9 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2) ...........................................................................................................8 9 FAM 504.1-3(f).................................................................................................................9 9 FAM 504.1-3(g) ..............................................................................................................10 9 FAM 504.11-2(A)(b) ......................................................................................................10 LEGISLATION Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 131, 104 Stat. 4978 ..................1, 16, 18 S.354 — 115th Congress (2017-2018) ................................................................................6 S. Amdt. 1959 to H.R.2579 (2017-2018).............................................................................6
vii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 38
S. 1720 - RAISE Act-115th Congress (2017-2018) ............................................................6 RULES FED. R. CIV. P. 20(A) ..........................................................................................................13 FED. R. CIV. P 65 ..................................................................................................................8 OTHER AUTHORITIES Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, Presidential Proclamation 10014, Fed. Reg. 23441 (April 23, 2020) ..........................................6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24 Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak, Presidential Proclamation 10052, 85 Fed. Reg. 38263 (June 22, 2020).......................................................................6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24 U.S. Dep’t of State, Visa Bulletin for July 2020 (June 9, 2020) .............................9, 14, 18
viii

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 9 of 38

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

PLAINTIFFS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

1.

WORLD MAP REFLECTING NATIVE COUNTRIES AND REGIONS

2.

NUMBER OF TIMES PLAINTIFFS HAVE ENTERED DV

3.

DIVERSITY VISA ISSUANCES COMPARED BY YEAR

DECLARATIONS

4.

DECLARATION OF AMIN ZAREE

5.

DECLARATION OF YURII ISHCHENKO

6.

DECLARATION OF FARID KURBANOV

7.

DECLARATION OF DMITRII VELIKII

8.

DECLARATION OF MARYAM MALEKZADEH

9.

DECLARATION OF SILVINA ASURMMENDI

10.

DELCARATION OF TAL DROR

11.

DECLARATION OF CHRISTELLE VIRGINIE AUDE MEDA

12.

DECLARATION OF HOANG ANH NGUYEN

13.

DECLARATION OF YUEN TING XENIA WONG

14.

DECLARATION OF KRISTINA SHKRAPI

15.

DECLARATION OF MONIKA PUL

16.

DECLARATION OF NATALIA PAKULSKAIA

17.

DECLARATION OF TIAGO VAZ DUARTE SOARES

18.

DECLARATION OF HICKEM KRIAA

19.

DECLARATION OF SHEREEN ELSAID REZK ABDELAZIZ

NAWARA

20.

DECLARATION OF ANDREI UTKIN

ix

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 10 of 38

21.

DECLARATION OF INA BITRI

22.

DECLARATION OF GIORGI TSIKARISHIVILI

23.

DECLARATION OF DR. ASHRAF AHMED FATHI FAHMI

MOHAMED

24.

DECLARATION OF YASSER ZAID

25.

DECLARATION OF MARYAM HASSAN ALI SULIMAN

26.

DECLARATION OF KHALED ELGHANDOUR

27.

DECLARATION OF AHMET ER

28.

DECLARATION OF RAZMIK MKRTCHAYN

29.

DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE SAMUEL SIVA

30.

DECLARATION OF NOURREDINE NASRI

31.

DECLARATION OF ABBAS VAHDATI PANAH

32.

DECLARATION OF RAEFA SUFIAN IBRAHIM GHANAYEM

33.

DECLARATION OF BIJOUX YVETTE NSANG TITABONG

34.

DECLARATION OF HLIB LITVINOV

35.

DECLARATION OF ANDREI SAVENKOV

36.

DECLARATION OF DIANA NERY BRANA DIAZ

37.

DECLARATION OF AMAL ABDELMESSIH FAWZY ATALLAH

38.

DECLARATION OF SOBIRJON KRBANOV

39.

DECLARATION OF HAMIDULLAH ANSARI

40.

DECLARATION OF ALUA JANBAULIYEVA

PRESIDENTIAL TWEETS

41.

PRESIDENTIAL TWEETS

x

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 11 of 38

STATE DEPARTMENT TWEETS AND COMMUNICATIONS

42.

STATE DEPARTMENT TWEETS COMMUNICATING THE END OF

DV-2020 PROCESSING

43.

STATE DEPARTMENT TWEETS RESUMING VISA SERVICES

44.

STATE DEPARTMENT UPDATE ON PP 10014 AND PP 10052

STATE DEPARTMENT STATISTICS

45.

DV STATISTICS 2016-2018: NUMBER OF ENTRIES RECEIVED

46.

DV-2018 STATISTICS: SELECTED ENTRANTS

STATE DEPARTMENT VISA BULLETIN

47.

JULY VISA BULLETIN

STATE DEPARTMENT POLICY

48.

FIELD AFFAIRS MANUAL 9 FAM 502.6 – DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT

VISAS

49.

FIELD AFFAIRS MANUAL 9 FAM 504.1 – IMMIGRANT VISA

PROCESS OVERVIEW

FOIA REQUEST

50.

FOIA REQUEST

EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS FROM STATE DEPARTMENT

51.

EMAILS INFORMING PLAINTIFFS OF ADJUDICATION

SUSPENSION

xi

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 12 of 38
PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. Introduction
The Diversity Visa (DV) Program, enacted by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush to promote immigration to the United States of America from a greater array of countries, sets a target of 50,000 diversity visa immigrants per year from countries and regions with low rates of immigration to the U.S. to promote a greater diversity of Americans. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e). The DV Program has led to a broader mix of nationalities represented in the U.S. immigrant population, creating a U.S. better equipped to understand and relate to the diversity of the world.1
Plaintiffs in this action are 493 DV-2020 selectees and derivative beneficiaries who have been selected and have applied for immigrant visas pursuant to the Congressionally enacted DV Program. See Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 131, 104 Stat. 4978, 500 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)). Plaintiffs are natives from seventy countries, including Ethiopia, Germany, Hong Kong, Tanzania, Fiji, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Cameroon, Moldova, Nepal, and many more.2
Since assuming office in 2017, President Donald J. Trump has sought to dismantle the DV Program. See generally First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 2144-2162. In a 4:30 AM Twitter
1 Rep. Bruce A. Morrison, author of the House bill that became the Immigration Act of 1990, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session, June 15, 2005, (“There is no better antidote to the challenges of globalization than to attract self-selected strivers from every corner of the globe.” 2 The Plaintiffs are natives from Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), Hungary, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, Ukraine, and Yemen. Ex.1, World Map Reflecting Native Country and Regions of Plaintiffs
1

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 13 of 38
tirade on November 1, 2017, Defendant Trump vocalized his hostility towards the program, asserting “[N]o more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter).” FAC ¶ 2144. In a cabinet meeting later that day, Defendant Trump stated “I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity visa lottery program… Diversity lottery. Sound nice. It’s not nice. It’s not good. It’s not good. It hasn’t been good. And we’ve been against it.” See FAC ¶ 2145. (emphasis added).
Over the next three years, the President spoke frequently of his animus towards the DV Program and his desire to “terminate” it. Id. He frequently lobbied Congress to legislatively end the program by disparaging immigrants, stating that “these people” are “murderers,” “bank robbers,” and “the worst of the worst.” FAC ¶¶ 2147, 2157. However, the President repeatedly failed to garner Congressional support from both Republicans and Democrats to pass legislation to end the DV Program. FAC ¶ 2101. Unable to pass law, the President’s attempts to end the program have culminated in a series of Department of State (hereafter referred to as the “Department”) policies, procedures, and practices unlawfully suspending the adjudications and issuances of immigrant visa applications for DV selectees and their derivative beneficiaries. FAC ¶ 12. These policies, procedures and practices have effectively ended the program for the FY 2020 (hereafter referred to as the “DV-2020 program”). The result is an unlawful withholding of a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate applications from and issue visas to eligible Plaintiffs prior to the Congressionally enacted DV-2020 program deadline of September 30th, 2020. As a result, Plaintiffs will lose their ability to immigrate to the United States without immediate injunctive relief.
In sum, Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices refusing to adjudicate immigrant visa applications and refuse issuance of visas to eligible DV selectees and their derivative
2

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 14 of 38
beneficiaries contravenes existing law and regulations, is arbitrary and capricious, and a unreasonably delays and withholds a clear duty owed to the Plaintiffs. As such, the Court should grant this motion. II. Relevant Facts
A. The DV Program Congress created the DV program in 1990 to promote immigration to the United States of America from countries with historically low rates of immigration. See. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c). The statute sets a target of 50,000 diversity immigrants per fiscal year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(e). To implement the program, the Secretary of Homeland Security first identifies countries and regions with low rates of immigration and applies a statutory formula to allocate available visas to natives of those places. See 8 U.S.C. 1153(c)(1)(E); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a). Over a 34-day application period, the Department invites the natives of these countries and regions to enter into a “lottery” for a chance opportunity to work and live in the United States of America as a Legal Permanent Resident. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(c). In FY 2018, 14,692,258 entrants and 8,396,355 derivative beneficiaries participated in the DV-2018 Program. See Ex. 45, DV Statistics 2016-2018: Number of Entries Received. Of those approximately 23,000,000 participants, 115,968 applicants were selected for a chance at the American Dream and awarded an opportunity to apply for an immigrant visa. See Ex. 46, DV 2018: Selected Entrants. The odds of being selected were less than one percent. After being selected, intending immigrants must submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and supporting documentation, pay necessary fees, and appear for an immigrant visa interview before a consular officer at a US embassy or consulate. See 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b); 22 C.F.R. §§ 42.33(g), 42.61-42.67. By law, the Department must then issue visas to
3

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 15 of 38
applicants who satisfy the eligible criteria. See 8 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 40.6, 42.81(a). The law mandates that DV Program selectees be issued an immigrant visa before the end of the fiscal year of their selection. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(A)(1)(1)(ii)(II); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1). For Plaintiffs, the deadline for adjudication of their immigrant visa applications and issuance of their visas is midnight September 30, 2020. 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). If not issued before September 30th, Plaintiffs cannot be issued a visa and will lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States of America. Once a visa is issued, it is generally valid for up to six months.3 See U.S.C § 1201(c)(1).
B. Presidential Animus President Trump’s animus towards the DV Program is long running and well documented. Since November 1, 2017, the President has taken to Twitter at least 16 times to express his displeasure with the Congressionally mandated Diversity Visa program. See Ex. 41, Presidential Tweets. The President also frequently commented on the DV program in the media and during public appearances. In a cabinet meeting in November of 2017, President Trump stated that “Diversery [sic] and diversity lottery. Diversity lottery. Sounds nice. It's not nice. It's not good. It's not good. It hasn't been good. And we've been against it.” FAC ¶ 2145. He also stated, “I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program.” Id. The next day, President Trump came to the realization that he did not have the necessary Congressional backing to end the statutorily mandated program. Despite bipartisan opposition to ending the program, President Trump stated “We’re being stopped by Democrats because they’re obstructionists. And, honestly, they don’t want to do what’s right for our country. We need strength. We need resolve. We have to stop it. So, we’re going to get rid of this lottery program
3 For example, an immigrant visa issued on July 20, 2020 would be valid until Wednesday, January 20, 2021 – Inauguration Day.
4

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 16 of 38
as soon as possible.” FAC ¶ 2146. Over the next two years, President Trump repeatedly denigrated and demonized immigrant participants of the DV Program in an effort to increase support to end the DV program. The President also repetitively told lies about how career State Department employees operated the program. On December 15, 2017, at a graduation speech for FBI agents President Trump alleged:
They have a lottery. You pick people. Do you think the country is giving us their best people? No. (Laughter.) What kind of a system is that? They come in by lottery. They give us their worst people, they put them in a bin, but in his hand, when he’s picking them is, really, the worst of the worst. Congratulations, you’re going to the United States. Okay. (Laughter.) What a system — lottery system. Remarks by President Trump at FBI National Academy Graduation Ceremony, White House (December 15, 2017) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarkspresident-trump-fbi-national-academy-graduation-ceremony. During the 2018 State of the Union Address, the President reiterated his intention to end the DV Program, stating the he wanted to end “the visa lottery – a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people.” 4 At a “Make Again Great Again” Rally in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2019, the President repeated that he was going to end the program and painted a wildly inaccurate picture of the program.5 FAC ¶ 2156-7. To a ruckus crowd, the President stated, “you put the name in a basket. The country puts the name in the basket. And you pick people out of the lottery. 'Well, let's see, this one's a murderer. This one robbed four banks, this one ... I'd better, not say ... this one, another murderer, ladies and gentlemen, another murderer.” Id.
4 Full Transcript: Trump's 2018 State of the Union Address available at https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-01-30/full-transcript-of-president-donald-trumps-2018state-of-the-union-address. 5 Dale, et al., Fact check: Trump makes more than 20 false claims at Cincinnati rally, CNN Politics (August 2, 2019) available at https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/donald-trump-cincinnati-rally-fact-check/index.html.
5

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 17 of 38
Despite the President’s ill-informed and meanspirited campaign denigrating immigrants and their families, he repeatedly failed to garner Congressional support to end the program. In 2017, Alabama Senator Tom Cotton sponsored a bill that would have ended the program. S.354 — 115th Congress (2017-2018). The bill supported by President Trump and shaped by his advisors Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, did not attract any co-sponsors and did not obtain adequate support to receive a vote in the Senate. 6 In 2018, another immigration bill supported by President Trump attempted to end the program. The bill was overwhelmingly rejected by a 3960 vote in the Senate, receiving bipartisan opposition. S. Amdt. 1959 to H.R.2579. In 2019, Senator Cotton re-introduced his 2017 bill. S. 1720 - RAISE Act-115th Congress (2017-2018). The bill never left committee.
C. PP 10014 AND PP 10052 On April 22, 2020, President Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10014 (PP 10014), which temporarily suspends the "entry into the United States" of certain classes of immigrants who did not already have a valid immigrant visa or travel document as of April 23, 2020, the effective date of the Proclamation. Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak (April 23, 2020), 85 Fed. Reg. at 23, 442-43 §§ 1, 2(a), 5. The Proclamation cites various justifications rooted in the bigoted fallacy that immigrants cause economic harm to American workers to justify the suspension of entry. See 85 Fed. Reg. at 23,441-42. For these alleged reasons, the President suspended the entry of DV selectees and their derivative beneficiaries for a 60-day period starting April 23, 2020. Id. at 23,443 §§ 4-5. The Proclamation provided an exception for "any alien whose
6 In an interview with the New York Times, Stephen Miller cited to the Center for Immigration Studies, a known hate group that circulated racist materials from white nationalists and anti-Semites some 2,000 times. See Stephen Miller, While Defending Racist Immigration Bill at Press Conference, Cites Hate Group (August 2, 2017)
6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 18 of 38
entry would be in the national interest." Id. at 23,443 § 2(b)(ix). The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security are tasked with implementing the Proclamation as it applies to visas and aliens, respectively. Id. at 23,443 § 3. However, the State Department has repeatedly stated there is no exceptions for entry for the DV-2020 program. Ex. 42, State Department Tweets Communicating the End of DV-2020 Processing. On June 22, 2020, the President issued a follow-up proclamation, which extended PP 10014 through December 31, 2020 -- effectively ending the DV-2020 Program pursuant to Defendants’ scheme. See Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak (June 22, 2020)(PP 10052).
D. Myth of Economic Hardship Caused by Immigration Study after study has found that immigration creates economic benefits. The notion that a migrant worker displaces an American worker is a fallacy rooted in xenophobia. In fact, research finds that there is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. Rather, studies show that migration can be a compliment to native workers, or stated differently migration creates more jobs than existed before. Picture a busy restaurant, efficient and available workers boost productivity and expand the business. This creates a demand for more workers and in turn more managers. Immigration also boosts innovation. Foreign born engineers, scientists, doctors, and other highly skilled workers create much of our country’s innovation. This innovation creates new products and markets and expands our economy. This fact is unsurprising when analyzing who leaves their home to make it in the United States, people with grand ambition, necessary gumption, intelligence, and grit. The research is clear that immigration drives economic growth and creates more winners in our country.
7

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 19 of 38
E. Diversity Visa Adjudication Process The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), its implementing regulations, and preexisting Department policies implemented in the Department’s Field Affairs Manual7 (FAM) impose a nondiscretionary mandatory duty to adjudicate and issue decisions on immigrant visa applications made pursuant to the program. Mohamed v. Pompeo, No. 1:19-cv-01345-LJO-SKO, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167266 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2019)( issuing a mandatory injunction ordering the State Department to complete adjudications of both immigrant diversity visa applications and PP 9645 waiver adjudications prior to the end of the FY-2019). These laws, regulations, and policies reflect that DV adjudications must take place before the statutory deadline and sets forth a clear timeline and procedure to complete the process. 9 FAM 502.6-4, Diversity Visa Processing.
1. Step 1: Application Processing First, DV entries are processed at the Department’s Kentucky Consular Center (KCC). 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1), KCC Role. KCC will hold the case until those selected are entitled to make a formal application for a visa at a U.S. consular office abroad. 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1)(b). Then, the “KCC will schedule an appointment for a ‘documentarily qualified’ applicant when his or her regional lottery is about to be current”. 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2)(setting forth the timetable for adjudication)(emphasis added). “Applicants are considered ‘documentarily qualified’ for purposes of visa appointment scheduling when KCC confirms that the applicant has properly completed and submitted the DS-260.” 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(2)(c)(emphasis added). .
7 “The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.” available at https://fam.state.gov/default.aspx#.
8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 20 of 38
2. Step 2: Immigrant Visa Interview Scheduling The State Department promulgates a visa bulletin for the purposes of tracking and communicating visa availability. The monthly “bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant visa numbers” for immigrant visa applicants. See Ex. 47, State Department July 2020 Visa Bulletin. “Each month visa numbers will be allocated to applicants who are within the applicable rank cut-off [reflected on the visa bulletin] for that month and have been reported documentarily qualified.” 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(2)(c)(again demonstrating a monthly pace of adjudication for applicants). Because the Department must schedule a DV selectee for an immigrant visa appointment when his or her visa is about to be current to ensure a timely adjudication, the Visa Bulletin also shows the available DV visas for the forthcoming month. Id. (providing a clear monthly pace of adjudication). All Plaintiffs have current visa numbers.
3. Step 3: Immigrant Visa Interview and Visa Issuance At the interview, a consular officer must issue a visa to an eligible applicant. Under 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a), “when a visa application has been properly completed and executed before a consular officer in accordance with the provisions of the INA and the implementing regulations, the consular officer must issue the visa [or] refuse the visa under INA 212(a) or 221(g) or other applicable law.” (2019). In addition, 22 C.F.R. § 40.6, states that “[a] visa can be refused only upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations.” The FAM also states that “[d]ecisions to issue or refuse an immigrant visa application must be based on a personal interview, during which the consular officer must ensure that all required documentation has been provided, that there is a legal basis for the applicant to immigrate, and there are no ineligibilities that would affect the visa issuance.” 9 FAM 504.1-3(f), Application Processing (emphasis added). “Once an application has been executed, the consular officer must either issue the visa or refuse
9

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 21 of 38
it. A consular officer cannot temporarily refuse, suspend, or hold the visa for future action. If the consular officer refuses the visa, he or she must inform the applicant of the provisions of law on which the refusal is based, and of any statutory provision under which administrative relief is available.” 9 FAM 504.1-3(g); 9 FAM § 504.11-2(A)(b) ([t]here is no such thing as an informal refusal or a pending case once a formal application has been made.); see also Alharbi v. Miller, 368 F.Supp.3d 527 (2019) (holding that consular officers have a nondiscretionary binary duty to issue or refuse visas). When read together, the INA, regulations, and the Department policy require Defendants to process and issue visas to eligible visa applicants.
F. Defendants Unreasonable Delays and Unlawful Withholding of a Mandatory Entitlement
Without the necessary support in the U.S. Congress to lawfully end the DV Program, Defendants have implemented a series of policies, procedures, and practices that unlawfully suspend the adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV Program selectees and their derivatives and withhold a decision on those application through the program’s statutory deadline. Department policies, procedures, and practices suspend all stages of the processing of immigrant visa applications for selectees and their beneficiaries, including (1) application processing at the KCC; (2) transferring of applications to U.S. embassies and consulates, (3) mandatory scheduling of immigrant visa interviews, and (4) decision-making on already interviewed applications. The result is an unreasonable delay of adjudication and an unlawful withholding of a decision on Plaintiffs’ visa applications.
The Department has shrouded the substance of the policies, procedures, and practices in secrecy. Plaintiffs’ counsel has attempted to request information regarding PP 10014 and PP 10052’s implementation, but those efforts have been fruitless. Ex. 50, FOIA Request. However, the end result of the policies, procedures, and practices have been made clear by the Department
10

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 22 of 38
in a series of public social media posts and embassy e-mail’s to Plaintiffs. Ex. 51, E-mails Informing Plaintiffs of Adjudication Suspension. On July 14, 2020, an official Department Twitter account thrice tweeted, “We will not be issuing DVs while the recent Presidential Proclamation is in effect. The Proclamation’s restrictions expire December 31, 2020. The September 30, 2020 deadline for DV-2020 visas has not been extended.” See Ex. 42, State Department Tweets Communicating the End of DV-2020 Processing. Consular Officers have also taken to Facebook to communicate the suspension of diversity visa processing.8 In the video, Department Senior Foreign Service Officer Michael Fitzpatrick, states “If a [diversity] visa has not been issued, we are unfortunately unable to do anymore processing due to a Presidential Proclamation through the end of this year. So, if you have not already gotten the visa, we will not be able to move forward with your case.” He further explained, “We are not allowed to do any further [diversity] visa processing through December 31, 2020 and to be able to be issued a visa for diversity visa 2020 you have to have that visa by September 30th unless they are some legal changes. Unfortunately, if you have not gotten the visa you will not be able to get one for visa lottery 2020.” These communications make clear that the DV-2020 program has been unlawfully ended. Should the resulting delay and withholding not be judicially cured, the Department will suspend adjudications through the DV-2020 statutory deadline and Plaintiffs will lose their opportunity to immigrate to the United States. III. Legal Standards
A. Injunctive Relief To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
8 Ask the Consul, U.S. Embassy Yaounde, Cameroon. The video is available at https://www.facebook.com/yaounde.usembassy/videos/289067918877581/.
11

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 23 of 38
(3) the balance of the equities tip in its favor, and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Gordan v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 724 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The standard for obtaining an injunction is “heightened when a plaintiff requests affirmative injunctive relief.” P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017). IV. Arguments
A. Standing "A plaintiff asserting a procedural violation must show 'a causal connection between the government action that supposedly required the disregarded procedure and some reasonably increased risk of injury to its particularized interest.'" Iyengar v. Barnhart, 233 F. Supp. 2d 5, 1213 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting Fla. Audubon Soc'y. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 664 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). A plaintiff need not show that the agency would have acted any differently. Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1010 (2014). In the context of a procedural injury, injury is in fact is required. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Once a plaintiff clears that hurdle, through, "the normal standards for immediacy and redressability are relaxed." E.B. v. United States Dep't of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d 81, 86 (D.D.C. 2019)(citing Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1010). All Plaintiffs have incurred a procedural injury. Plaintiffs have loss the entitlement of a full and proper adjudication of their immigrant visa applications pursuant to their DV-2020 selection and submission of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application . This injury is caused by Defendants’ unlawful implementation of policies, procedures, and practices implemented pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052. The procedural rights are obviously linked to their concrete interest in the issuance of their visas. Plaintiffs have also expended time and money participating in the diversity visa lottery. Even the loss of a small amount of money is
12

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 24 of 38
enough to satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact requirement. Id. at 86-87 (citing Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 983, 197 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2017) (holding that "For standing purposes, a loss of even a small amount of money is ordinarily an 'injury.'")). They also plainly fall within the zone of interest of the Diversity Visa Program. Mohamed v. Pompeo, No. 1:19-cv-01345-LJOSKO, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167266, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2019)(citing V. Real Estate Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1206 (D. Nev. 2015) (inquiring, in APA challenge to visa adjudication, whether plaintiff fell within zone of interest of "relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act" and acknowledging that in the APA context the test is not "especially demanding")). Therefore, all Plaintiffs have standing to sue.
B. Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for permissive joinder. Rule 20(a) allows multiple claims to be joined if (1) the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Permissive joinder is used to promote convenience and expedite resolution. Montgomery v. STG Int'l, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29, 31 (D.D.C. 2008). The Supreme Court has stated that "[u]nder the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged." United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966); See Darchini v. Pompeo, No. SACV 19-1417 JVS (DFMx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220037 at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2019)(finding joinder was appropriate to a challenge to a challenge to implementing policies to PP 9645’s suspension of entry); Altowaiti v. Cissna, No. 18-cv-508 (KBF), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97672, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2018)(finding Plaintiffs challenge to the unreasonable delays and policies relating to USCIS’s Yemeni I-130 scheme was proper).
13

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 25 of 38
All plaintiffs submitted entries in DV-2020 lottery and were selected to apply for an immigrant visa. All plaintiffs have submitted a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and submitted all necessary documentation to be found documentarily qualified to be scheduled for visa interview and a decision pursuant to such an interview. All Plaintiffs have visa numbers available to them per the Department’s July Visa Bulletin. See Ex. 47. The cause of the unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of the mandatory, non-discretionary adjudication for every Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa application is the caused by the same unlawful policies, procedures, and practices implemented by Defendants pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052 suspending the adjudications and issuances of diversity visas. Therefore, joinder is proper in this action.).
C. Plaintiffs’ Extraordinary and Irreparable Harm Plaintiffs face the imminent prospect of an injury that cannot be cured should this Court not issue a preliminary injunction. See Ex. 4-40, Plaintiffs Declarations. The INA and its implementing regulations state that “[u]nder no circumstances may a consular officer issue a visa or other documentation to an alien after the end of the fiscal year during which an alien possesses diversity visa eligibility.” 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(A)(1). The end of the fiscal year for the DV-2020 Program is September 30, 2020. “The strict interpretation of the diversity visa statute has been adopted by every Circuit Court to have addressed the issue.” Mogu v. Chertoff, 550 Supp. 2d 107, 109 (D.D.C. 2008). A recognized exception to the statutory bar is where the visa applicant seeks and obtains injunctive relief before the year concludes. See Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 744 (2019). Should this Court not issue an injunction in this matter prior to the September 30th deadline, no subsequent judgement will be able to cure the lost opportunity to immigrate to the
14

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 26 of 38
United States. Absent court intervention, all Plaintiffs will lose their chance to immigrate. The extremely low odds of selection, demonstrated by the amount of times many of the Plaintiffs have already entered the DV program and have not been selected and the likelihood future selection, make it extremely unlikely that Plaintiffs will have this opportunity again. P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2017)(finding the loss of the opportunity to immigrate to the US was irreparable harm); see also Mohamed v. Pompeo, No. 1:19-cv-01345-LJO-SKO, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2019)(finding that absent an injunction the loss of the DV opportunity would irreparably harm Plaintiffs); Ex. 2, Plaintiff’s Chart Demonstrating Number of Entries Before Securing Opportunity to Apply. While the odds of selection in any given year is less than one percent, the odds of being selected in the subsequent year fall to .00025%. The injury to their employment and educational prospects alone would be sufficient injury to make the lost opportunity adequate irreparable harm to support an injunction. Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014)(“Plaintiffs’ inability to obtain drivers’ licenses likely causes them irreparable harm by limiting their professional opportunities.”).
D. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding claims.
Department policies, procedures, and practices implemented pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052 have unlawfully suspended the processing of immigrant visa applications for the DV-2020 program. The Department has halted these adjudications through December 31, 2020. Since immigrant visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivatives must be issued prior to midnight on September 30th of the fiscal year of the selection, the Congressionally mandated program has effectively been terminated by the Defendants. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), (e)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(a)(1), (d); see 31 U.S.C. § 1102. Defendants cannot rely on any authority, statutory or
15

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 27 of 38
regulatory, to support a suspension of the adjudications and issuances of immigrant visas pursuant to the Congressionally mandated program.
It is well established that the APA authorizes legal actions like the instant one challenging withholding of mandatory entitlements and unreasonable delays in agency actions. See 5 U.S.C § 555(b) (requiring agencies to, “within a reasonable time … conclude the matter presented to it”); 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) (authorizing courts to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed”). To state such a cause of action, Plaintiffs need only to point to an agency’s failure to take discrete action that it is required to take. See Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (holding that “law” that generates a mandatory duty need be a statute but can also be agency regulation that has the force of law).
Plaintiffs state a cause of action for unreasonable delay here because Defendants are mandated by the Immigration Act of 1990, regulations, and preexisting internal Department policy to adjudicate DV-2020 visa applications, but have failed to do so within a reasonable time. See Nine Iraqi Allies, 168 F. Supp. 3d at 293 n. 22, 295-96 (D.D.C. 2016)(holding that plaintiffs had stated a claim for unreasonable delay in processing their immigrant visa applications given agencies’ mandatory duty to adjudicate visa applications). Under, the Accardi Doctrine, agencies must follow their own regulations and policies. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). The D.C. Circuit has recognized that the language, such as “shall” and “will,” found throughout the statutes, regulations, and policies governing the required adjudication and issuance of visas pursuant to the DV program, impose a clear duty to act. See Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848, 856 (D.C. Cir 2011)(internal quotation marks omitted); Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, Mont Air Chapter No. 29 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 22 F.3d 1150, 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Therefore, the INA, regulations, and policies, set forth in detail above, mandate the
16

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 28 of 38
Defendants adjudicate diversity visas. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on this claim because all
Plaintiffs’ visa applications have been unlawfully suspended and Defendants do not have the
discretion to suspend the processing of, withhold decisions on, or unreasonably delay Plaintiffs’
applications.
1. TRAC factors warrant a finding of unreasonable delay of a full and proper adjudication of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications.
The D.C. Circuit, in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC (“TRAC”),
established guidelines to consider when determining whether an agency delay warrants mandamus
compelling the agency to act. 750 F.2d 70, 77-78 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The court stated that “[i]n the
context of a claim of unreasonable delay, the first stage of judicial inquiry is to consider whether
the agency’s delay is so egregious as to warrant mandamus.” Id at 79. The court then enumerated
several factors to consider when answering this question:
(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a “rule of reason;”
(2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason;
(3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake;
(4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority;
(5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and
(6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
a. Rule of Reason and Congressional Timetable or Indication of Speed
17

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 29 of 38
The Immigration Act of 1990 and its implementing regulations and policies provide a clear timetable and indication of speed of adjudication. The DV program’s implementing statute imposes a clear deadline of September 30th for the adjudication and issuance of diversity visas. 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II). The text makes clear that visas are to be made available to eligible selectees and must be issued before the deadline. Id; see also 9 FAM 502.6-4(b)(3)(a), Diversity Visa Application Validity.
Implementing regulations and Department policy also make clear that the processing and interview must be done with haste due to the statutory deadline for the adjudication of the visa. See Supra Section (II)(E)(1)-(3), Diversity Visa Adjudication Process.
First, the INA mandates that “diversity immigrants shall be allotted visas each fiscal year.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1); INA § 203(c)(1)(emphasis added). After the Attorney General determines the allotment per country and region, immigrant visas “shall be issued to eligible qualified immigrants strictly in a random order established by the Secretary of State for the fiscal year involved.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1); INA § 203(c)(1)(emphasis added).
Next, Department policy sets forth a scheduling timeline based on the availability of the visa. The Department “will schedule an appointment for a documentarily qualified applicant when his or her regional lottery is about to be current.” 9 FAM 592.6-4(2)(creating a duty to schedule diversity visas before they are current). The Department’s July 2020 Visa Bulletin states all of Plaintiffs are already current. Because the Congress and the Department have set a timetable for adjudication of diversity visa and Department policy creates a mandatory adjudication of those visas pursuant to this timetable, the Court should find that this factor tips in the favor of the Plaintiffs.
b. Human Health and Welfare are at stake.
18

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 30 of 38
As to the human health and welfare implicated by the delay, the loss of gainful employment, educational opportunities, and the chance at the American Dream, are concrete and severe. See Ex. 4-40, Plaintiffs’ Declarations. Many Plaintiffs have sold the majority of their property to finance the immigrant visa application process. Others have borrowed large amounts of money that they will never be able to pay if they remain in their native countries. Many of the Plaintiffs are fleeing war, disease, and famine and live in third countries as refugees, some are considered stateless. Others suffer discrimination from oppressive authoritarian regimes. Due to the dramatic loss of opportunity and the clear danger in remaining in their native countries, this factor clearly tips in the favor of the Plaintiffs.
c. Competing Priorities and Nature of Delay. The “court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority” and “the nature and extent prejudiced by the delays.” Independence Mining Co., Inc., 105 F.3d 502, 507 n.7; TRAC v. FCC at 80 (citations omitted). Here, the nature, extent, and prejudice of the delay easily overcome competing priorities. Consular sections at embassies around the world have resumed adjudications of immigrant visa application for applicants not subject to PP 10014 and PP 10052’s suspension of entry. Ex 44, State Department Communications Regarding Resuming Services. Further, the Department’s Foreign Service Officers have largely ceased emergency repatriations of American citizens abroad due to COVID19 and routine commercial flights have resumed to the United States. Also, the interest of other visa applicants will not be prejudiced because the adjudication of most of those applications are not time sensitive. The timely adjudication of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, given the drastic consequences of the failure to issue their visas prior to the September 30, 2020 deadline, clearly outweigh the current competing priorities and tips in the favor of the Plaintiffs.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 31 of 38
d. Impropriety Although the Court need not find any impropriety lurking behind the agency lassitude in order to hold the agency action is unreasonably delayed, the President and Department have clearly implemented policies, procedures, and practices that circumvent the will of Congress in order to effectuate the President’s failed legislative goals. Time and time again, the President has pledged to “terminate” and “cancel” the DV Program. He has maliciously disparaged and vilified diversity immigrants and their families and lied about the how the program functions. Unable to pass legislation, the Defendants have implemented unlawful policies, procedures, and practices to delay immigrant visa applications so to effectively end the DV program. This Court should find that the President and the Department have acted with impropriety in delaying the Plaintiff’s visa applications and find that the factor tips in favor of the Plaintiffs. E. Defendants policies, procedures, and practices are arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law. Further, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims against Defendants that violate § 706(2)(A) and (D) of the APA. The APA bars federal agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or is conducted “without observance of procedure required by law.” Id. The Department’s policies, procedures, and practices implementing PP 10014 and PP 10052 are contrary to law and must be set aside. Id. (permitting district courts to set aside final agency action “not in accordance with law.”). First, the INA, regulations, and existing Department policies require the Department to make visas available to DV selectees, adjudicate their visa applications, and issue visas to the statutorily eligible applicants. The Department cannot rely on any statutes, regulations, or policies to support its current suspension of these mandatory adjudications.
20

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 32 of 38
Second, PP 10014 does not call for a blanket suspension of the adjudications of diversity visas. In fact, it explicitly calls for consular officers to continue adjudications and to make determinations as to whether visa applicants fall into exemptions set forth in the proclamation. PP 10014 § 3. The result is additional restrictions and eligibility requirements for decisions on diversity visa applications that cannot be not be found in the statutes, regulations, or executive orders governing their adjudications. Defendants’ actions contravene the INA, regulations, department policies, and executive orders and breach a clear duty owed to Plaintiffs to process and issue visas to eligible Plaintiffs. Therefore, these policies should be enjoined and set aside.
1. Defendants policy unlawfully suspends the clear duty to adjudicate visas “Congress has plenary power to create immigration law” and Congress has created “ a clear distinction between issuance and admissibility determinations under the INA.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 679 (2001); Alharbi v. Miller, 368 F. Supp 3d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Upon a noncitizen’s arrival to the U.S., an immigration official can still determine that the noncitizen is suspended from entry, notwithstanding that they have been issued an immigrant visa pursuant to the nondiscretionary process. Id. In fact, two independent agencies are tasked with the administration of each determination. The Department make determinations as to admissibility, while Customs and Border Protection is tasked with determinations over entry to the United States. Section 212(f) of the INA does not grant authority to the President to suspend the issuances of visas. The statute states:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restriction she may deem appropriate.
21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 33 of 38
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f); INA § 212(f). Rather, the INA and governing regulations have imposed on the Defendants a duty to allocate diversity visa, adjudicate diversity visa applications, and issue diversity visas to those eligible to receive them.
Congress did not impose an entry qualification for the issuance of diversity visas. Rather, Congress sets forth two qualification for eligibility for issuance of a diversity visa. “If it appears to the consular officer, from statements in the application, or in the papers submitted therewith, that such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 1182 of this title or any other provision of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). The operative subsection, § 1182(a), states “except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States. Section 1182(a) then sets forth a list of ineligibilities. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a); INA §§ 212(a)(1)-(10). Section 1182(f) is a separate subsection and not included in the relevant paragraphs of 1182(a). In addition to ineligibilities set forth in INA § 212(a), congress imposed an additional education or workexperience requirement for diversity visa selectees. See INA § 203(c)(2)(requiring a high school equivalent education or 2 years work experience in a field that requires two years of training). If a diversity visa selectee satisfies those requirements, then a immigrant visa must be issued. C.F.R. § 42.81(a).
In addition, PP 10014 and PP 10052 does not direct the Department nor does it impart the authority to suspend the adjudication of diversity visas. The proclamation, entitled “Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak,” is based entirely on an allegedly perceived threat to the economy by diversity immigrants once they enter the United States. In fact, the implementing statement by the President only pertains to entry, stating that
22

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 34 of 38
“that the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.” PP 10014. No where in the text of the PP 10014 and PP 10052 does the President suspend or grant the any Secretary or officer the discretion to suspend the adjudication of visas applications, nor is such a discretion inherent.9 Rather, the proclamation imparts a clear, nondiscretionary duty upon consular officers to continue to adjudicate visas and determine whether an immigrant has established his or her eligibility for an exception in section 2(b) of this proclamation. Ex. 44, State Department Update on PP 10014 and PP 10052.10 Given the plain language of PP 10014 and PP 10052 and the contextual evidence of an adjudicative step put forth in § 3 of PP 10014, there is no basis to conclude it prescribes a suspension of visa issuance.
In sum, an entry suspension under INA § 212(f) is not a ground for denying a visa under § 1182(a) and PP 10014 does not suspend adjudication or issuance of visas. Therefore, Defendants’ policy for refusing to process visas for applicants like Plaintiffs, who would be “otherwise eligible” but for the suspension of entry pursuant to PP 10014 and PP 10052, is contrary to law and should be set aside.
F. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Mandamus Claim The mandamus statute grants district courts "jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform
9 It is unnecessary for the Court to find whether or not such a suspension if implemented by Presidential Proclamation would be lawful, because it has not happened. 10 The most recent State Department updates states “Applicants for immigrant visas covered by Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, including Diversity Visa 2020 (DV-2020) applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23 are subject to the proclamation's restrictions unless eligible for an exception. No valid visas will be revoked under this proclamation.” Available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/exceptions-to-p-p-10014-10052-suspending-entry-ofimmigrants-non-immigrants-presenting-risk-to-us-labor-market-during-economic-recovery.html.
23

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 35 of 38
a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is proper only if: "(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). As explained above, Plaintiffs have a right to have their visa applications processed in accordance with the INA, the Defendants have a clear non-discretionary duty to adjudicate their diversity visas, and without relief the Plaintiffs will lose their opportunity to immigrate and this Court will be unable to offer adequate relief. As such, this Court should find that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Mandamus claim. INA § 203(c); 22 C.F.R. § 42.81; see generally 9 FAM § 502.6-4, Diversity Visa Processing; Mogu, 550 Supp. 2d at 109 (holding that courts do not have the authority to mandate adjudication of a diversity visa after the September 30 deadline).
G. The Doctrine of Consular Non-reviewability does not apply. 1. Consular Non-reviewability does not preclude a challenge to Department’s policies, procedures, and policies.
The doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not apply to Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices. P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F.Supp. 3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997)) As in P.K. v. Tillerson, Plaintiffs do no challenge consular discretion. Rather, Plaintiffs challenge the legality of the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices implementing PP 10014 and PP 10052 unlawfully suspending the adjudication and issuance of diversity visas. Thus, the doctrine of consular non-reviewability bars neither calms nor the relief Plaintiffs seek. Id.
2. Consular Non-reviewability does not apply when the Department has not rendered a decision on an immigrant visa application.
24

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 36 of 38
The doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not apply where the government has not made a final decision. See P.K., 302 F.Supp at 11 (citing Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Serv. To the United States v. Kerry, 168 F.Supp. 3d 268, 291-92 (D.D.C. 2016). In Nine Iraqi Allies, the court held that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability did not apply where the applications were not formally refused. 168 F.Supp. 3d 268. In Patel v. Reno, the Ninth Circuit held that mandamus relief where the Plaintiffs application had only been provisionally refused was also not precluded by the doctrine of consular non-reviewability. 134 F.3d 929, 932-33 (9th Circ. 1997); see also Maramjaya v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 2008 WL 9398947, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2008). Like these cases, all of Plaintiffs immigration visa applications have not received a full and proper adjudication of their immigrant visa applications and remain suspended before a final decision has been rendered. Therefore, the doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not preclude judicial review.
H. A Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest. The balance of equities and the public interest, which merge in cases against the government, support the issuance of the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). Granting the requested injunction would impose no injury on the government or the public. As noted above, the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications and availability of the visas for Plaintiffs is Congressionally mandated. Congress sets forth a clear indication of speed in which the adjudications should occur. Consular officers will assess the eligibility of all Plaintiffs and refuse those found inadmissible, including national security grounds which involve interagency background checks. Assuming this Court were to order the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ visa and set aside the unlawful preclusion of issuance of visas to eligible applicants, Plaintiffs would still be unable to enter the United States for the duration of the
25

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 37 of 38

President’s suspension of entry. Simply processing Plaintiffs’ visa application according to the law will prevent a severe and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs without injuring the government or public in any sense. Therefore, this Court should find that granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

V. Conclusion

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ for Preliminary Injunction should be grant the following

injunctive relief:

(1) an order requiring Defendants to reserve visa numbers for the Plaintiffs through the pendency of litigation;

(2) declaring Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for the fiscal year 2020 Diversity Visa Program unlawful;

(3) an order setting aside Defendants’ implementation of policies, procedures, and practices precluding issuance of visas for DV-2020 selectees and their derivative beneficiaries based on the entry suspension promulgated in PP 10014 and PP 10052; and

(4) an order mandating Defendants to fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, schedule Plaintiffs’ for immigrant visa interviews, and issue visas to eligible Plaintiffs.

Date: July 17, 2020

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Curtis Lee Morrison Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application pending

26

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-1 Filed 07/17/20 Page 38 of 38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the below date, I electronically filed the Plaintiffs’ Motion, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and all attached exhibits with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, using the CM/ECF System. The Courts CM/ECF System will send an electronically email all noticed parties to the action who are registered with the Court’s CM/ECF System. Plaintiffs will initiate service of process via USPS Express Mail and file proof of service.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Curtis Lee Morrison Curtis Lee Morrison Rafael Urena* Abadir Barre* The Law Office of Rafael Urena 925 N. La Brea Ave, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (703) 929-4424 Fax: (929) 286-9584 curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ru@urenaesq.com abadir@barrelaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs * Pro hac vice application pending
27

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-2 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 1
World map showing the diverse range of 70 countries from which Plaintiffs are natives
Prepared by: Amir Naderi.

ase 1:20-cv-01856-TSC DoEcXumHeIBntIT8-32 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of
DR. MOHAMMED V. TRUMP (20-cv-1856)

DV winner plaintiffs were polled to find out of how many times they entered into the DV lottery prior to winning the
2020 draw

The average is 4.5

Out of 214 submissions

Ten Times (or more) 11.4%
Nine Times 4.4%
Eight Times 5.2%
Seven Times 4.8%
Six Times 6.1%

Five Times 10%

Four Times 9.6%

One Time 17%
Two Times 16.6%
Three Times 14.8%

Prepared by: Amir Naderi July 14, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-4 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 3
Prepared by: Plaintiff Tiago Vaz Duarte Soares
• Data was gathered throughout the years for visualization of the progress of the DV lotteries • Data was gathered legally through the appropriate legal channels supplied by the US Department of State • The data digested to create these plot points was obtained from a unofficial source, dvcharts.xarthisius.xyz • The data from dvcharts.xarthisius.xyz was obtained through official channels - CEAC's own 'Visa Status Check' page at
ceac.state.gov/CEACStatTracker/ • Points of interest in this graph would include the two times document procedures were modified at KCC. • Note that since the time gap between KCC scheduling an interview and the interview itself is usually 6-8 weeks, the effects of the changes
are delayed by a similar timeframe. • The raw data comprised data points representing individual case numbers, and their given status at the time the data was scraped. It details,
for each case number, its current status (how many visas had been issued, refused, in administrative processing, ready, in transit, transfer or at NVC), and which consulate the case pertained to - all as given by the consular electronic application center (CEAC). • Only data which concerned issued visas was considered for these charts. • Number of visas issued were aggregated programmatically by date, and a cumulative count was created based off of these numbers.

Exhibits 4 through 40
Exhibits 4 through 40 are not being released to the public as they comprise 37 declarations from the 2020 diversity winner plaintiffs and their families and contain personal information.
Of note: declarations come from a diverse mix of plaintiffs who are natives of 26 countries, including:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Georgia, Iran , Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam.

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT 41
PRESIDENTIAL TWEETS
Jul 30, 2018: We must have Border Security, get rid of Chain, Lottery, Catch & Release Sanctuary Cities - go to Merit based Immigration. Protect ICE and Law Enforcement and, of course, keep building, but much faster, THE WALL!
Jul 29, 2018: I would be willing to “shut down” government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!
Jun 15, 2018: The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda. Any Immigration Bill MUST HAVE full funding for the Wall, end Catch & Release, Visa Lottery and Chain, and go to Merit Based Immigration. Go for it! WIN!
May 26, 2018: Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS.
Feb 15, 2018: ...lottery, continues deadly catch-and-release, and bars enforcement even for FUTURE illegal immigrants. Voting for this amendment would be a vote AGAINST law enforcement, and a vote FOR open borders. If Dems are actually serious about DACA, they should support the Grassley bill!
Feb 10, 2018: My Administration has identified three major priorities for creating a safe, modern and lawful immigration system: fully securing the border, ending chain migration, and canceling the visa lottery. Congress must secure the immigration system and protect Americans.
Feb 8, 2018: Time to end the visa lottery. Congress must secure the immigration system and protect Americans.
Feb 6, 2018: We need a 21st century MERIT-BASED immigration system. Chain migration and the visa lottery are outdated programs that hurt our economic and national security.
Feb 6, 2018: Polling shows nearly 7 in 10 Americans support an immigration reform package that includes DACA, fully secures the border, ends chain migration & cancels the visa lottery. If D’s oppose this deal, they aren’t serious about DACA-they just want open borders.
Jan 16, 2018: ....we need to keep America safe, including moving away from a random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit-based.

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 21
Jan 16, 2018: The Democrats want to shut down the Government over Amnesty for all and Border Security. The biggest loser will be our rapidly rebuilding Military, at a time we need it more than ever. We need a merit based system of immigration, and we need it now! No more dangerous Lottery.
Jan 12, 2018: The so-called bipartisan DACA deal presented yesterday to myself and a group of Republican Senators and Congressmen was a big step backwards. Wall was not properly funded, Chain & Lottery were made worse and USA would be forced to take large numbers of people from high crime.....
Jan 11, 2018: The Democrats seem intent on having people and drugs pour into our country from the Southern Border, risking thousands of lives in the process. It is my duty to protect the lives and safety of all Americans. We must build a Great Wall, think Merit and end Lottery & Chain. USA!
Jan 9, 2018: Thanks to all of the Republican and Democratic lawmakers for today’s very productive meeting on immigration reform. There was strong agreement to negotiate a bill that deals with border security, chain migration, lottery and DACA.
Jan 4, 2018: Thank you to the great Republican Senators who showed up to our mtg on immigration reform. We must BUILD THE WALL, stop illegal immigration, end chain migration & cancel the visa lottery. The current system is unsafe & unfair to the great people of our country - time for change!
Dec 29, 2017: The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!
Nov 2, 2017: I am calling on Congress to TERMINATE the diversity visa lottery program that presents significant vulnerabilities to our national security.
Nov 1, 2017: We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter). @foxandfriends
Nov 1, 2017: The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 9 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 10 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 11 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 12 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 13 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 14 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 15 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 16 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 17 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 18 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 19 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 20 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-42 Filed 07/17/20 Page 21 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-43 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 42
STATE DEPARTMENT TWEETS SUSPENDING DV VISA ADJUDICATIONS
July 14, 2020: @ferdina44124710 We will not be issuing DVs while the recent Presidential Proclamation is in effect. The Proclamation’s restrictions expire December 31, 2020. The September 30, 2020 deadline for DV-2020 visas has not been extended. June 24, 2020: DV-2020 applicants must obtain their visa or adjust status by September 30, 2020. The deadline has not been extended. There is no carry-over of DV benefits into the next year for persons who are selected but who do not obtain visas by September 30, 2020. June 21, 2020: Hello, at this time, the DV-2020 program has not been extended past its anticipated end date at midnight on September 30, 2020. Please monitor the Embassy’s website to determine whether appointments for routine visa services have resumed.
`

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-43 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-43 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-43 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-44 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 43
STATE DEPARTMENT TWEETS RESUMING VISA SERIVCES July 14, 2020: @mabaldwin Hi Mary – Beginning July 15, US Embassies and Consulates may begin the phased resumption of routine visa services depending on local conditions. Please monitor the embassy/consulate website for the status of their services.
`

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-45 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 44

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 45

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-46 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-47 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 46

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-47 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-47 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 47

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-48 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 48

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC 1D2o3c4u5m6e6n78t 789-
50ÿ1F
iled 07/17/20 Page 1 of 5
ÿ8E5X3H9IB6ÿI6T 4792ÿ
ÿ85ÿ 7752ÿ765ÿ3966ÿ979
-../0!1"ÿ2#.$ÿ%-&3'/4&/5(ÿÿÿÿÿ&'#$6*+-$*67&6*8&,,
ÿ85ÿ9ÿÿ651:ÿ52
ÿ9145:ÿ51;7796
ÿ85ÿ95
ÿÿ7<<=>?@A=BCÿ@CDÿ2@A=BC@E=AFÿ5GA
 !"#$%(ÿÿÿ%%$%H$*&%I, NNJUKNZVWL[OVÿ]NXNPPVO^QÿNNRRRRPZYYQOÿÿRJJZPKKNPLL^SRÿÿRZZRÿYOZPÿT]NJÿKPPU_`LRVRWÿÿÿZPPVTZXTÿaÿVUUÿÿNVPVWTNWVÿOVXUXNVVVPÿWÿNQNVNRXZP[OVNÿ]NSNPPRZ_`RROYRRaÿRYJYÿRKJÿVKJLKLÿLZÿZOÿZONZ]ÿPZPTP`ÿQRURÿPÿVPTWTÿVUXÿUVVWÿVNWVNXVX[VÿVNNÿNRNYZ[ÿOJ]KZPLP`QÿRZRRRYOYÿZJÿJKPK\LLRÿÿZÿPZTOZÿaUZÿPPVTW\ÿRVUXÿPVVTWÿNÿVUNXV[VWÿZNVPXN\V[RÿaNRYRZÿYOJÿKJZKLP\LÿZRÿZROYZ]ÿÿNPJ^PKQRLÿRPÿÿTPZTÿZUÿZUVPWV^WVRXVÿXVPTV
ÿ85ÿ9b
ÿÿ3BDcÿBdÿ8cDc?@Eÿc>eE@A=BCf
 !"#$%(ÿÿÿ%%$%H$*&%I, ZZZZÿÿXXgghhÿÿaaZOVVSSiYÿYZÿZZZÿXÿXghghÿaÿZaVZaVNTYNÿVZZÿXghÿaZV[NYÿZZÿXghÿaZV[ZYÿZZÿXghÿaZV[[YÿZZÿXghÿaZVSZYÿZZÿXghÿaZVS]YÿZZÿXghÿaZVS[P\RY
ÿ85ÿ9jÿÿ995473572ÿ396672
 !"#$%&'&(ÿÿÿ&'$*+$*&*&, QVÿ6cCD=C>ÿ7CfA?eGA=BCÿ@Gk@>cl
PNRÿÿ2|hm^^rxs`Q3rsrÿxrlXnsÿUp^oQoÿmsQsnro^nopouÿÿÿÿpPQQ^Kxuq|ÿ^tQXrromxRrÿsÿoJÿwno`_sÿyÿs^Qx{oso^ÿuÿxÿQrQ^omvo`rm^uÿpoJÿnwsÿ{tw^^{ÿurQQ`ÿsvmprÿ^Qx^osos^rÿss\mrnÿ^xvo^zoÿÿs^r`s__ÿ^prQqQpoÿroQP}s_pzrn}ÿospÿ`nws{ÿÿQs^^QopÿvJÿ}Qo^ÿvÿx~rr^soQpoÿqyQÿqrmw^smrsnwÿv}]o^rLÿo~uR`QrÿQÿoq_snn^Qspÿrÿ`p_Q^}^ÿrvtÿoQPrs`_xrnÿQtspV^{wÿÿÿ^nP^ÿWp\pÿv^m^}^opÿ^ÿ~^_Q_^ÿrqgqpLr^Q^opsq}ÿÿ]^[ÿnRÿOxÿ_anÿspQVp^aÿsqyK^ZxrnzPmÿLsssr{RÿqnV^^R_ÿÿÿKns{_Q^srnoQv PZRÿÿ8puy^QoB^{`sv?mn^^QÿQÿxÿp{PpxucsrQÿ_vwuA^tÿx=rx^A^pyxÿ=^o\BmÿqnspCsV^_n^ÿÿfqÿtuÿsr8ÿÿn{u\s=y^^nE}cÿusÿÿx{QDsÿ{^{ÿ^ÿont^p@yÿyrÿAsuKwvÿ{u^|^ÿ^oBQXÿpqrfvroz^xqÿAnÿQQlnyÿÿÿvÿmÿ_trvÿprpr^wnx^noQpytrÿsÿsÿrrrmwuQxspvÿs^^n^yrÿnwoqsxo{^ss^ÿRr^xsxoÿxÿvr^^Jsxroooÿuÿs^`xuÿnsQsÿÿÿnpmspryw{ÿvnrrq^^wxwsÿpsrrwÿznorsÿ`o{nxrp`sÿpQQ~pÿpoysoQQ{ÿqsqos^ÿs{sqrrÿn^QpvqQÿoÿ`vQxQÿ^`xmxQÿr^sQx_snro^rqq_ÿsÿrQrq_VwQnsQr`pnswÿ^rognÿrVr`o_vÿnrÿpzoÿpQx`ÿnoJsÿy|psLÿ^ÿÿtmxQxr{mxmxnvrQmroqyÿv`QrQvquÿmsQsrÿm{notvQo^srqxsxpÿQÿrÿs_r^ow{}xsÿ^sxws}Q{ÿQÿ\^Qxouvs{rÿuxrnsQ{ÿ{ysn^^^vsuuÿv{}Qÿÿ^\sÿmsQp}mnxÿvÿÿs^ryQq{ÿmmQo^mnonovsÿrqQÿxpQqÿ^mosrpsnyrxno^pxrss}z \Vÿ
oyBwGe\<^pcÿqCQAo@ÿ?\=^EFÿQÿvvnes@s^E=udÿ=PcrD_ÿloÿ^ÿq^oxqx^Qÿsp{}^RÿÿQ\o^uoÿ^Q_orqÿrQQmpm}ÿnnro_ÿsQwoÿ^Qomsmÿxpqn{t^^uuyÿmv^^usVrsrnoÿrxÿqnoxru^p^uÿunqyw^osQprv}ÿyQvr_r^uzÿQoÿJ| PNRÿÿgxsn^pmÿmx^srsrnoxÿ_rv^uÿQsÿmnxszÿQoÿQmmvrqQosÿrxÿqnoxru^p^uÿsnÿ\^ÿunqyw^osQprv}ÿyQvr_r^uÿQ_s^pÿqnwmv^sro`ÿs{^ÿsnÿ_nvvnro`
PQRÿÿnQ{o\^suQÿQrovr^^uoÿÿQ{vQvÿxnÿ_pÿ^s{sy^pÿop^^uyÿgrpn^puwÿuÿnqWywZO^OoNsxzÿzKÿnnpsÿr{_rQqxQÿsnrns{o^ÿnp_ÿLrxm^mÿovrqnQsro_rs^ÿhuÿ^mQnuxrsoÿ^s{xQxzsÿÿQ{o^uÿnÿupÿ^xq{v^Qÿpr^xuÿmÿsp{^QmsQÿp{^^uÿnÿ_pnÿpxÿ{ro^sÿ^{pQtxr^Y P\Rÿÿ\u{^n_q^nyÿpmw^nÿ^xQsoÿÿts{QrQxpQxrvÿÿ}qonywwyQm\vv^r^_prs^ÿ^uuÿrÿvQQvÿmv\vmÿ^pv^ÿrqQQtyoQrsprvx^QVu\Rÿvq^vÿ^_nQppÿQso{q^^ÿQÿmmpmnvqrq^QuoyspV^ÿÿxPzWÿn^p^ÿÿ{QÿxgÿLp^Qÿ[xnOoaÿVsanÿ[\ÿ^pv^r^`tQ^puÿsr{oQ`sÿÿss{{^^ÿ}p^ÿmnrvpvÿs\ro^`ÿqÿnn_wmv^s^u PZRÿÿg_nnypÿpmÿ_^nsvrvsnrnorox`ÿmÿxpns^qm^xxx^uÿs{pny`{ÿK|XzÿQoÿQmmvrqQosÿrxÿqnoxru^p^uÿsnÿ\^ÿunqyw^osQprv}ÿyQvr_r^uÿQ_s^pÿqnwmv^sro`ÿs{^ PQRÿÿ~QruÿQvvÿp^yrp^uÿ_^^xY
0

123ÿÿ58687989

$Cÿ
a6s7eÿ1:20-cv-ÿ01895
6ÿ-T8S8C9D6ocÿu6mÿe7n7t 8-50ÿFileÿd07ÿ/197
/2ÿ0!
Page62oÿf65ÿ
"ÿ#
9 13ÿÿ567ÿ8%9
88
6ÿÿÿ
6%%7

ÿÿÿ816
8

ÿ,9ÿ&
ÿ6-7ÿ89*
.
*(ÿ3
ÿ667ÿÿ'
ÿ(ÿÿ/""#ÿ0ÿ6ÿÿ*%818631(ÿ3)ÿ8
89ÿ

$ÿ6ÿ*+ÿ6ÿ"
ÿ 13ÿÿ!2
%
ÿ6
ÿÿ"99
ÿÿ

1%8
6ÿ8&6ÿ9
2ÿ9

ÿ1

ÿ,ÿ

ÿ-6ÿ2ÿ
(."(ÿ(13#3
ÿ93.ÿ889ÿÿ
1%
ÿ2&ÿÿ5
!ÿ(.213ÿ6ÿ#929
 .ÿÿ64"6""5
ÿ


98&
ÿÿ5"87
ÿ
#666ÿ676
78F

9
ÿ"ÿ
:
&ÿ9%&ÿ;ÿ7ÿÿ=ÿ
"
26ÿ
8#
>
ÿ66ÿ9E6ÿ9
9?ÿÿÿ626@ÿ"/"69ÿ
5
ÿÿÿÿ8ÿ#ÿA866B"9&
8%
ÿÿ>ÿÿ97ÿC661ÿ%ÿ8ÿ9
27987D66&9"/2ÿ
8
99ÿ
&69ÿ6&ÿÿÿ86ÿ
1%6

&ÿ%7.ÿ7ÿÿ/
ÿÿ
9#D"".6

9ÿ
ÿÿ7ÿ.1ÿÿÿ%ÿÿ96"&
8ÿÿ
81%
ÿ
9%%97,
7ÿÿ

9
262
-ÿ9
99ÿ.
ÿ2ÿÿ&96ÿ&ÿÿ+ÿ61%6.9ÿ(%6
"ÿ.ÿ3ÿ9ÿ#ÿ"ÿ

ÿ%,ÿ92ÿ
ÿ7
2ÿ6679
-ÿ2
ÿÿ92
ÿÿÿÿ7(6
"ÿ7.
F6
8+ÿÿ6
%
"

ÿ1
398&"ÿ63ÿÿ
ÿ1ÿ2ÿ6ÿ"#7


ÿ
ÿÿ
%ÿ
,%ÿÿ8ÿ
8788
99&-&ÿ9ÿÿEÿÿ66%"
2
ÿ6ÿ*ÿ
7#.%(ÿÿ#6/
692"362"
ÿÿÿÿ98ÿ9
&6ÿÿÿ68

#ÿ%9ÿ9
67".8/ÿ

72ÿÿ

"ÿ
 .ÿGHIBJ@K6:7ÿLMMN6:;5B:;>C 1*3ÿÿ0"88%ÿ"887685

66ÿ6ÿÿÿ28/6"6
%
.96977
9
#ÿÿ
2

ÿ6ÿ.

ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ
97ÿ"
"""


68
ÿ
ÿÿ
#ÿÿÿ%"

7ÿ6ÿ6ÿÿ&ÿ186
ÿ6666"ÿ978
6

ÿÿ990%
&"99&ÿ
ÿÿ3569ÿ6ÿÿ8
.6ÿÿ
"ÿ"6R
8ÿ6

8
"9%%96ÿ


%69
"9ÿÿÿÿÿ#7ÿ7"
ÿ"ÿ
ÿ
ÿ768"ÿ%ÿ66
ÿ6%ÿ%.7ÿ%%"ÿ267
2ÿ960

ÿ
7Q#ÿÿ7
586ÿÿ.8ÿ
ÿ"ÿÿ99P
9"8&ÿ6ÿÿ
ÿ871"ÿÿ97%7"ÿ
/

ÿÿ
998O99696%
&ÿ
%9ÿÿÿ6&
ÿ66ÿÿÿÿ#
6ÿ878ÿÿÿ895ÿ
#ÿ66ÿ8
76Qÿ9ÿ6ÿ86ÿÿ9
7/

.ÿQÿ96
ÿ
7
Pÿÿ2967ÿÿQ&2/
ÿÿ&&.
ÿÿÿÿ8ÿÿ&08D
8
8".96ÿ
8

5ÿ
#ÿ6ÿ7!ÿ8#8
ÿ8

16976ÿ
0ÿÿ
ÿ6ÿ#8/9ÿ5
376
8.ÿÿÿ9ÿ6/
99ÿÿ
ÿ0
ÿ"
ÿÿ5"Pÿ7ÿ
ÿ6ÿ
"/#
%ÿ9


&
9
9ÿÿÿ9#"2ÿÿ





6ÿ
%
%9Eÿ


999&9 13ÿÿR8
96
"
ÿ6ÿ"6%ÿÿ98ÿ8
6ÿ
/7ÿ99ÿ
"2

ÿÿÿ8
8
6
ÿ#
ÿ7ÿ
"6
7ÿ%ÿ09

ÿ5ÿ1.
6"ÿ
ÿ2.ÿ&ÿÿ
06ÿ5ÿ8686ÿ8673
ÿ6ÿÿÿ"
9
%9ÿ
6ÿÿ"%62%O
"ÿÿ06ÿ5%ÿ7"

ÿ9
ÿ9ÿ79
ÿ6ÿ"

SÿTLUÿVWXYZ[\ÿÿ4=ÿL]]^4_L`4a?ÿ]ba_cGG4?d
efghijklmnopqÿÿÿsnmtsmustnv .ÿw8B8x69:6;6N6:ÿ|Nÿx
ÿy15%9
z6ÿ:"7
ÿ9ÿ:8ÿ8659567ÿ896}:;ÿ{6>9ÿ9MMK6H9;6N:Yyÿ
6ÿÿ77ÿ#ÿ13ÿ889ÿ|7Eÿÿ#
1*3ÿÿP&ÿ"
ÿ8
 2
ÿ8896ÿ

$ 13ÿÿ6878
89
ÿ
ÿ8ÿ
676ÿÿ
F
8ÿÿ6ÿÿ667
9ÿÿ7O%&ÿ/#
6ÿÿ"2
&ÿÿ8ÿ86
%9
ÿÿ66ÿ
"9$
ÿ%
ÿ"
ÿ
ÿ6ÿ*(ÿÿ%27ÿ 1+3ÿÿ)".
ÿ.O75%.ÿÿ*"ÿ*69ÿ9/ÿÿ"66ÿ"7ÿ8&ÿ6#6
8ÿ
6ÿ7ÿÿ"
8

ÿÿ69ÿ&ÿ6
ÿÿ7&ÿ6Eÿÿ99ÿ"ÿ
ÿÿ)
.97.
ÿ
ÿ6#
ÿ7
77


ÿÿ6%$ÿÿ%ÿ"
ÿÿÿ
9
#ÿ
6/ÿ%7

ÿ%ÿ
ÿÿ%2&Oÿ
7ÿ6
ÿ*ÿ/'" 1(3ÿÿ367ÿ8
"&99&99ÿ&ÿ8ÿ"2
9
.ÿ8896ÿ%
ÿ6"ÿ2&ÿ86#ÿÿ
8ÿÿ6#
ÿ"
ÿ
ÿ6ÿ*(ÿ9
99&ÿ678

 2.ÿ]86N8ÿ;NÿLMMN6:;5B:;Cÿ 1*3ÿÿR"

ÿ688.ÿ
ÿD"
ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿ""
6ÿ%898ÿ68%99
ÿÿ7ÿ

#ÿ6
/ÿÿ""

ÿÿ687869ÿ#7
ÿ8ÿ986ÿ7
ÿÿ
ÿÿ9
8ÿ8896ÿÿ6ÿÿ"

ÿ89
86ÿ6ÿ7


ÿ#
ÿ8
.678 13ÿÿD
"#
ÿ
/6ÿ9%9ÿ6
ÿ7
ÿ7
%9.ÿ
ÿ%9 
ÿ7
9ÿ6ÿ"
ÿ6%7
ÿ"
E
ÿ6ÿ
#
/.ÿÿD"
ÿ6%9ÿ6
ÿ7% .ÿwP6N679
7H8@8ÿ9ÿ529ÿ6"
%"6B

%:6ÿ9ÿ;6
ÿÿ8_8ÿ%8.I8ÿÿ9ÿ9B
ÿÿH"ÿz"

ÿ66
ÿ9:6
ÿÿ6~778ÿCÿ5ÿ2ÿÿ6ÿ
6R97ÿÿ!"&"
8.

ÿ
97ÿ
ÿÿD1ÿ6"5ÿ"
E9
ÿÿÿÿ5
6"ÿ8ÿ3
6ÿ8%%ÿ797ÿ88
889ÿ
68969
ÿÿ87ÿ"ÿ8

6"96

6
E.ÿ

ÿÿ6
ÿ"ÿ
8%"
"676ÿÿ
7/%
ÿÿ96"ÿÿ
ÿ%ÿ"7ÿ
ÿ%


E

6ÿ
6ÿÿ7ÿ7"ÿ"
6"%
ÿÿÿ1ÿ688%"ÿ68

.
9ÿÿ6ÿÿ8876ÿ
8%9
ÿÿÿ66"
ÿÿ
ÿ9
"66ÿ6
8ÿÿ7&28E"9ÿÿÿ""Eÿ

ÿÿ6ÿ6

66ÿ6#%ÿ%ÿ"ÿ77"ÿ6


"ÿÿ5
2
6ÿ
ÿ~ÿ
!"66
%
ÿ69ÿ8E6

/ÿÿ7

&.ÿ .ÿ=B86x6H9;6N:ÿNxÿwNH@5B:;>ÿAÿ_N:>@K98ÿaxx6HB8Cÿ 1*3ÿÿR
"
"

6ÿÿ"ÿ

ÿÿ6ÿÿ"
96
ÿ768ÿ889ÿ&

ÿ/6
.%ÿ"ÿ7
ÿ6
ÿÿÿÿ%8ÿ622"82
6

ÿ6ÿÿ6688ÿ
7&"ÿ86

ÿÿ
"ÿÿ2&
&ÿÿ1ÿ67%6ÿ8
"%
9ÿÿ
6ÿÿ1"%%

7ÿ

67ÿÿ8
6ÿ
ÿ6"%7ÿ6ÿ"
"
ÿ
#89
.6ÿÿ9ÿÿ2
ÿ


ÿÿ%ÿ%ÿ8"9
68
ÿ
ÿ
6ÿÿÿ5
"
9ÿ
!"ÿÿ
("ÿ6
.6ÿ621%2999&3ÿÿÿ9ÿÿ
"6ÿÿ7ÿ6ÿ286
ÿ6
70%%9

1'3828431#81ÿ3(4ÿ
5)

3
ÿ*6ÿ1ÿ96344ÿ8#446ÿÿ93
4
89ÿC4413
a3ÿ8
4s

41eÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ11

94:
329ÿÿÿ93#01


-c4
1
vÿ39-ÿ'ÿ04ÿ3
51
1384
995ÿ

456ÿ294-ÿ54T4
ÿ
S4331Cÿ
ÿ33
9ÿ8ÿ4+94843Dÿ4

o39c4ÿ9ÿ9u38mÿ33
48ÿe
1ÿ4n
4ÿt3
8ÿ8ÿÿ
4-"5ÿÿÿ53#3088ÿ44$4ÿ$ÿF1$
2il%1e133d&ÿ4ÿ
ÿ15
0ÿÿ7ÿÿ313
/841457ÿ3ÿ/ÿÿ
2
90ÿÿ4
59Pÿ433a481g3441ÿeÿ
ÿ13ÿÿo58fÿ
15
3ÿÿ31ÿ144444ÿ4!1ÿ96ÿ4ÿ11ÿ1ÿÿ994

4ÿ53ÿ4

358ÿ444
5ÿ %$&ÿÿ,393388



ÿ4459
1ÿÿ94555ÿ4ÿ24334
ÿ8
3ÿ149ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ939
ÿ4

83ÿ4943ÿ3ÿÿ9159ÿ!9ÿ9494
4ÿ3
4334ÿÿÿ4938484ÿ1ÿ233831ÿ
ÿ14299ÿÿ
ÿÿ9

99
544
2ÿÿ
5443ÿ33348384444ÿ413ÿÿÿ4ÿ3ÿÿ8948


-3
91439.32ÿÿÿ5ÿÿ15
ÿ434
3ÿÿ
33ÿ
83833ÿÿ4441ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ34,348

4!3ÿ44ÿ91

84ÿ
95ÿ
3ÿÿ

45
ÿ53
4
3ÿ9ÿÿÿ4ÿ3
343885ÿ43
44ÿ94ÿ1ÿ41ÿ2ÿ343458ÿ194834
4ÿ14ÿ1ÿ9519
4ÿÿ1
4414ÿ
ÿÿ431

8ÿ4
1ÿ34ÿ44ÿ

ÿ490994ÿÿ4ÿ15
13194ÿ3ÿ849334ÿ
2ÿÿÿ15119ÿÿ9
#49(-82.ÿ
4ÿ4ÿ14/
4ÿÿ94ÿ34ÿ,

ÿ5ÿ
ÿ3.894ÿ
415ÿ
3131ÿÿ94&ÿ
ÿ3338ÿÿ%444446
%&ÿÿ935
91
8


93
13455453ÿÿ344ÿ!ÿ
134918ÿ494ÿ54443ÿ6ÿ858ÿ6
ÿ114


34ÿÿ4ÿÿ8933
43
ÿÿ5ÿÿ39
3
ÿ4
44
55ÿÿ493ÿ4416ÿ4ÿÿ332ÿ9443ÿ71ÿ9ÿÿ3ÿ53488ÿ82ÿ
9164444ÿ2ÿ
ÿ3
-9
ÿ12ÿ113

.3ÿÿ3ÿ
ÿ3
!95ÿ18441ÿ424ÿ4913611ÿÿÿÿÿÿ3
9ÿ9
4ÿ
9
ÿÿ9492ÿÿ94ÿ4ÿ3
19ÿÿ1
93ÿ432
44ÿÿ91
ÿ4434ÿ3ÿ-83ÿ18ÿ34.ÿ1389941
ÿÿ44436ÿÿÿ48ÿ9ÿÿ3
3434

ÿ11ÿ3149198234ÿÿÿÿ98ÿ333+4844ÿÿ
33ÿ
48
83ÿ1ÿÿ
4
44ÿ1ÿÿÿ
9ÿ+459ÿ
'
33989#4
35ÿ444+
5ÿ5ÿ4ÿÿ6ÿ'ÿ344
38!
39831ÿ4444834133ÿÿÿÿ4ÿ98111ÿ11
ÿ3
11ÿ84ÿ11ÿ84
1
341
ÿ4ÿ934ÿÿ4


383ÿ4313ÿ4ÿÿ3
343ÿ!ÿ48ÿ80
44
49ÿ43ÿ3ÿÿ4ÿ3ÿÿÿÿ9

33
8838ÿ!4
9444439ÿÿ4345ÿ359
5ÿ5
ÿ349583444

44
ÿ39
ÿÿÿÿ3052ÿÿ
1ÿÿ
ÿ41433ÿ44228348144ÿÿ94ÿ13#14ÿ4ÿ
!464ÿ(ÿ8ÿÿ34ÿ348
443446ÿÿÿ4ÿ3
18
413 %&ÿÿ841293ÿÿ3894
ÿ18
ÿ38
43ÿ3844134ÿÿÿ


913!145ÿ
454314ÿ1334ÿ
ÿ5ÿ333844
ÿ4432
43ÿ9ÿ3
ÿ9ÿ44ÿ

2!3ÿ3

ÿ53ÿ44
3411ÿ
3ÿ
ÿ.ÿÿ3
81443ÿ16ÿÿ18ÿ

99
36ÿÿ31ÿ
4ÿ(41
9
441ÿ3ÿ1ÿ
95
431ÿ341ÿ13
4 %:&ÿÿ181588881
45
ÿ95
ÿ3-8

ÿ9ÿ;18ÿ
154ÿ

ÿ34ÿ34ÿÿ31!ÿ

ÿ134
199
ÿÿ4
ÿÿ4
%ÿ3
8
394&11ÿ654ÿÿÿ
5
ÿ42ÿ

3424991
ÿÿÿ!15434

44553ÿÿÿ41ÿ3398ÿÿ3
14

14ÿ49ÿ154ÿ1ÿÿ34311
8ÿ11494

49
ÿÿÿ94
15
3ÿÿÿÿ4
44ÿÿ312131ÿ84ÿ
ÿ
934
ÿ33ÿ83

ÿ3ÿ
481!9
4ÿ
43ÿÿ4ÿ
4
39ÿÿÿ93
85ÿ354
84ÿÿÿ344ÿ8343ÿ3383ÿÿ

4
ÿ38ÿ331489
3ÿÿÿÿÿ
33#23
ÿ1ÿ6ÿÿ9ÿÿ
;
ÿ45
143
ÿÿÿ14


!
333944ÿÿ6ÿÿ624
53ÿÿ
38434ÿ35ÿ384491ÿ

ÿ2ÿ1ÿÿ331
ÿÿ43848ÿ
4381ÿ
ÿ3ÿ
9451
4ÿ13ÿ48932ÿ844
ÿ639ÿ4
36 4ÿ<=>>?@ABCDÿF??GHÿ %I&ÿÿ#8444ÿ11441ÿ953443
444ÿ4ÿ3!
ÿ439ÿÿ4
4
ÿÿ11ÿÿ45ÿ
95928
ÿ551
3ÿ454ÿ2!ÿ

ÿ9323
ÿ8ÿ
!54
1ÿ
ÿ4ÿÿ
ÿ!9
4ÿ1391ÿ8431481ÿ41ÿ49ÿ
41ÿ4ÿ313ÿÿÿ3
8ÿÿ44
ÿÿ1
4394ÿ4ÿ541ÿ81141ÿ3
ÿÿÿ3414ÿ84ÿÿÿ1
11ÿÿÿ3488149ÿ44ÿÿ1
3384ÿ43
ÿ8ÿ134
4ÿÿÿ5
!253ÿ384
ÿÿÿ3-18ÿ434ÿÿ!
131324ÿ#ÿ
#1ÿ1338ÿ133ÿÿ!3ÿ
!ÿ951459ÿ
4413323ÿ

 %$&ÿÿJR81584ÿK3
!8<4
4ÿ
ÿ
<ÿ43.ÿÿ
=54
4>514>ÿ?33ÿ8@5324Aÿ
ÿRÿBÿ"=+448C+4
+ÿ
-4=.5Lÿ3ÿ
9ÿ6ÿ4M1ÿ
N3
ÿT
3349ÿN8
9R14334B4D443O
4ÿÿPÿ3Cÿ4ÿ
A3ÿÿ18ÿ!3Kÿ84B4ÿ2G4ÿÿP!ÿ
4F344ÿ?

1?3ÿÿG59

H43ÿ6ÿ11ÿÿ347ÿ41
1
ÿ1ÿ11
393ÿ48ÿ9934
ÿ14ÿ48ÿ
14434ÿ833844ÿ4ÿ4952ÿÿÿ13ÿ84
444ÿ9ÿÿ44"ÿ1ÿ831184+ÿ416
ÿÿÿÿ3484

ÿ
ÿ8ÿ4188ÿ9ÿÿ
3344
834ÿ4ÿ4ÿÿÿ
"ÿ9188314+4ÿ3ÿÿ8ÿÿ4814ÿ13ÿÿÿ38"848ÿ343ÿÿ+8ÿ348Q4144ÿÿ
ÿÿ.88"9
481511+3ÿ1ÿS6ÿ444
ÿ414ÿ349ÿ
2
 %:&ÿÿU18
348
4P44ÿ
1V
5ÿ9ÿ5ÿ3B14ÿÿ
Cÿ4#1-3Dÿ1383335ÿ4
5814U(99ÿ4$O8ÿÿ3ÿÿ=3Wÿ3
834
@*358234?ÿ4ÿ4ÿ5ÿÿÿÿ"G1ÿ34!!ÿGÿ88
89-4B4+14
4Cÿ55ÿ85ÿD(ÿÿÿÿ$ÿ-
.ÿ1F3
ÿW
9ÿ
4
54?*1ÿ53(?4
534ÿ$ÿ1ÿ1436PW8ÿ4ÿ333*A44ÿ8ÿ63U
4ÿÿ
ÿ3ÿ9=ÿ198
1G2

9446A1
4ÿ4
H9ÿ1334ÿÿ48ÿÿ39ÿ5484534
ÿÿ4631ÿ9ÿÿ189ÿ5
1894393
44ÿÿ!1145ÿ4ÿ
139
148ÿÿÿ9ÿ2
4ÿ3
3ÿÿ4ÿÿ

X39
3ÿ98ÿ89ÿ454344#1
4ÿ19117ÿ1ÿ4341384ÿ4ÿÿ)
4ÿÿÿ*83ÿ
5ÿ98ÿ35
ÿ413
W314ÿ8ÿ1883(ÿ438
4)
ÿÿ44%3
8ÿÿSÿ
ÿÿ!22#3&
4ÿ48(69ÿYÿ3
433ÿ4ÿ88ÿÿ5ÿ"ÿ4443
8884ÿÿ4496
+ÿ2ÿ
1ÿÿ3631939ÿ
41838
ÿÿÿ848395

4
8ÿ419441ÿ!9ÿÿ453434
9413ÿ4

91ÿÿ4614ÿ11ÿÿ334ÿÿÿ184


4ÿ
8ÿÿÿ
39549ÿ
ÿÿ9
8ÿ34419
9ÿÿ4
443

811
949
ÿÿ14449ÿÿ
ÿ93
ÿÿÿ9838ÿ44
4
4ÿ
38ÿ3ÿ4
3544
ÿÿ
9314ÿ86ÿ
ÿÿ4
ÿÿ
ÿ1ÿ53
ÿ8ÿ9ÿ3

443414891
33ÿ4ÿ1!9ÿ4

342ÿ3
13 ÿM3C8A84?ÿ9O8ZÿB3?8
[49ÿH9ÿ
ÿ3-ÿ341
9ÿ
15
ÿ5
1ÿ39
4ÿ341ÿ516ÿ41ÿ3
ÿÿ43ÿ8413ÿ31484ÿ43ÿ84ÿ3ÿÿ54

5ÿÿ4
ÿ43
4ÿ!ÿ1

ÿ93451ÿ
4389333ÿ3


ÿ5ÿ8
ÿ113ÿÿ44494ÿ3ÿ!ÿ114
ÿ!ÿ1
14ÿ6ÿÿ9348413
ÿ384
ÿ4ÿ341ÿ!ÿ
446ÿ
ÿ11ÿ
 %I&ÿÿ+1
919414

31ÿ33!ÿ
ÿ
43ÿÿ55994
4ÿ13411
ÿ(ÿÿ
54ÿ11583ÿ4598ÿÿ3
444ÿ14ÿ6
3ÿ!
4ÿ15121ÿÿ452ÿ3
834

39ÿ
33
5ÿÿ
ÿ94ÿ
ÿ33484ÿÿ1933ÿ3!
8\416ÿ9
ÿ3ÿÿÿ
ÿ43ÿÿ4993
!144315
ÿ1!4ÿ48431ÿ254
26ÿÿÿ33881434ÿÿÿ9
ÿ4
ÿ
91!44

1ÿ514ÿ

1ÿ3ÿÿ9
#5
42ÿ21ÿ
#ÿ49ÿ423ÿÿ43318145ÿ
518


3
8
9ÿÿ41ÿ4
ÿÿ4!4
0

123456778ÿ
34
Cÿa34s1e31:ÿ205ÿ-cv4-ÿ0
1483564-
TÿSCÿD2oÿcu4mÿ2ent ÿ85-53ÿ04ÿF5i
le2d7ÿ2017/1
7ÿ/1220
ÿ4Pÿa56g77e8ÿ4o1f654
4ÿÿ44ÿÿ ! ÿÿ"(&6
6344#36#44

ÿ''
ÿÿ42#ÿ
4ÿ342ÿ362ÿ$42ÿ7ÿ+$13$2473214425
61
ÿ7ÿ2)ÿ
7ÿ74+ÿ
3ÿ
ÿ4*#4ÿ3
215ÿÿÿ
*%3(42ÿ,6ÿ
14


ÿ#56ÿ67327ÿ2#233ÿÿ45355522ÿ17
34ÿ3ÿ4%-
3ÿÿ4445ÿ
5$421
ÿ##44'ÿ4
ÿ21

7643

#4#ÿ
ÿ&
4#ÿ'ÿ1ÿ233
4(1ÿ625373ÿ2
6)#7ÿÿ7ÿ
454ÿÿ355
41
ÿ43%ÿÿ22ÿ314)ÿÿ2$42ÿ7326#3744' #ÿ.1$5/33
0ÿ21
'6ÿ/2722433
ÿ44ÿÿ3536ÿ52ÿ365
41774448433ÿ95ÿÿÿ1
ÿ2:6


11ÿ4
ÿÿ2ÿ25
43ÿ2$$
ÿ$734213ÿ32227$8$ÿ
3474ÿÿ1352642
744ÿÿ'5ÿÿ45ÿ46ÿ
2ÿ$44ÿ42;$
47321'6ÿ7443ÿÿÿ'
ÿ7ÿ44ÿ45ÿÿÿ1724ÿ
ÿ
ÿ6
27ÿ2ÿÿ
53ÿ3ÿ515561ÿ46ÿ353ÿ443ÿÿÿ23641546ÿÿ43
4257ÿÿ6ÿ4"35ÿ2ÿÿ7ÿ2$4364ÿ141ÿ'4ÿ
24
66ÿ3724ÿÿ32ÿ52ÿ
ÿ255
3ÿ18ÿ43ÿÿ43ÿ53624564ÿ6=ÿ438ÿÿÿ!4 ÿ>
8187164473ÿ?849ÿÿÿ5*774ÿ

2#1ÿ

54@334222
7D4ÿ#32
ÿ2ÿA"B ÿÿ$3
4ÿ
ÿ4ÿ24ÿ244ÿ57ÿ64ÿ53ÿC"Bÿ2
  ÿÿE#32$1ÿ22ÿ26ÿ4ÿ#32
ÿ2ÿ2$$712
F !ÿÿ"4
;5$3322

Fÿ26ÿ4ÿ#32
ÿ2ÿ475ÿ6
#ÿ$'ÿ2ÿ8$4'ÿ124ÿ
643'ÿ24ÿ5ÿ62
14ÿ2
ÿ24ÿ5 =ÿÿ*4ÿ34#32
ÿ
643ÿ@
643ÿ2#
4ÿÿ4ÿ#32
F  ÿÿ2$
$87ÿ21
2

H2ÿ2
ÿ4

4ÿ34ÿÿ4ÿÿ3I45
7414ÿ
ÿ22443Fÿ3ÿ43ÿ
532
ÿ64567ÿ53ÿ4ÿ$3ÿ5ÿ4
38ÿ+:G ÿ6$
ÿ4  ÿÿÿ#J4ÿ$ÿ5ÿ4ÿ2ÿ341$4
Fÿ2
 K ÿÿ*
ÿ7
4ÿ5ÿ21
4@342274ÿ22ÿ
1ÿ
77ÿ4ÿ12

4ÿ8ÿ4ÿ#32
ÿ55143ÿ2ÿ4ÿ+:G ÿÿL?M184N89 ÿÿ*5315!4

7ÿ5
7ÿ4!6
3ÿ
24644
ÿ7ÿ221'4ÿÿ332ÿÿÿ44$ÿÿ3ÿÿ3$ÿ5
ÿ!57244!1417ÿÿ4742
42ÿÿ32
;$'#$ÿ1$1ÿ2ÿ4$27ÿ
$771ÿÿ4123"274Cÿ2#
5K
6ÿ
ÿÿÿ7!2ÿ647!ÿÿÿÿ
$4@ÿ3ÿ5#24441ÿ
7ÿÿ4ÿ3744ÿÿ6'2
7ÿÿ61ÿ4
31ÿ3
44ÿ3#32ÿÿ2ÿÿ82ÿÿ

2ÿÿ6ÿ#8

444'7ÿÿ831ÿÿ4'644ÿÿÿ$
ÿ26243
ÿÿ3ÿ836ÿÿ4ÿÿ
45235ÿ42467ÿÿÿ544522644

$$ÿ6ÿÿ2
$$2
74ÿ77ÿÿÿ1$4;ÿ
ÿ23
ÿÿ3
444ÿÿ7
4#322ÿ)ÿ
2ÿ
2
ÿ
744ÿ#ÿÿÿÿ16
54ÿ224
"2
2ÿ7C4ÿ8D82
4ÿÿÿ
ÿ3
ÿ5
$ÿ!ÿÿ3ÿ
1ÿÿ!$444ÿÿ2
336ÿ$3738ÿ4ÿ234ÿ31(ÿÿ2623$8743ÿ
$ÿ4$$ÿÿ7$7$143ÿ4623ÿ434ÿ4$$$7
43ÿ23ÿ
41ÿ
4ÿ*5ÿ'ÿÿÿÿ4625;ÿ53747ÿ44ÿÿ"ÿ3$1ÿC
462(ÿÿ463ÿ!)3ÿÿ4
6!6#444ÿ2ÿ546
2'3ÿ72482ÿ
ÿ2
2 ÿÿÿ124ÿÿ412778ÿ454334F  ÿÿ*4ÿ$ÿ34(64ÿ2
ÿ238ÿ$

ÿ53ÿ4ÿO4$234
F 1 ÿÿ*4ÿ$ÿ414ÿÿ2)4ÿ2
27ÿ7127ÿ
(634ÿ3ÿ1
61ÿ2ÿ5677ÿ
4#2
Fÿ3  ÿÿ*4ÿ
78ÿ4514
18ÿÿ2ÿ174232
14ÿ53ÿ2
43ÿ$ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ*434ÿÿ
ÿ61ÿ
#ÿ2ÿ2
ÿ
5327ÿ345627ÿ3ÿ2ÿ$4

#ÿ124ÿ
14ÿ2ÿ5327ÿ2$$712
ÿ2ÿ44
ÿ24 ! ÿÿP477?Qÿ27ÿL?M1827Sÿ.TTN2347589 2 ÿÿU34456ÿ61ÿ24345ÿ661727ÿ

ÿ1ÿ4
ÿÿ4ÿ4283$ÿ8$ÿ422$ÿ33ÿ4
35624
2
7ÿ
ÿ
ÿ3ÿ4427ÿ28
$2ÿ44
414ÿ
6ÿÿ543ÿ$ÿÿ22


4ÿ3ÿÿ4*ÿ$4ÿ$6272

4
3ÿÿ
5ÿÿ
4ÿ1ÿÿ12ÿ62$
$37812ÿÿU
6ÿÿ2634  ÿÿU1344
62
ÿÿ41;4$6

772ÿ'2ÿÿ
21ÿ1443ÿ5ÿ1742237ÿ
ÿ2ÿ3ÿ
ÿ4$24ÿ23$527'86ÿ35ÿ322ÿ47ÿ
U4'ÿÿÿ618ÿ741263$762874
ÿ434'ÿ51$4ÿ334ÿ6ÿÿ5$6343ÿ3ÿ4
5486
742ÿÿ7
'ÿ2314ÿÿ
44ÿ
777)ÿ14ÿ'
ÿ52ÿ
ÿ41ÿ424ÿ$ÿ$247ÿ12

ÿ475'#ÿÿ
3474ÿÿ3244$
56$ÿ7231ÿ72ÿ
3ÿ2Uÿ7'ÿ62ÿ3ÿÿÿ6427
VÿW.PÿXYZ[\]Zÿÿ^_`a>.bÿ_Lca`deL`^
VÿW.PÿXYZ[\]Zf.gÿÿL?h63452678
VÿW.PÿXYZ[\]Zf.gf\gÿÿij?7ÿP4kÿ4ÿl284ÿm?ÿL?h6n?/o
pqrstuvwxyzÿÿÿyyxy{x|}y~ U6ÿ234ÿ263J4ÿÿ34)4ÿ2
ÿ#32
ÿ2ÿ"B ÿ6
43ÿ4ÿ577

#ÿ3234ÿ13162
14D
 ÿÿU34$63ÿ4)
4
'2ÿ3ÿ
2'5ÿ434ÿÿ
477567#ÿ12
1
4ÿ22734ÿ4
2ÿ55ÿ42ÿ'ÿ2423ÿ27ÿ452ÿ1'2ÿÿ
3ÿ2ÿ$433ÿ61
67324
ÿ5687ÿÿ534226
'ÿF2ÿ
7756778ÿ5274ÿ3ÿ742
# ! ÿÿU
26ÿÿ624
ÿF
ÿ5332
ÿ427
#ÿ2ÿ4ÿ274
ÿ
2ÿ43
4ÿ
47#74ÿÿ34144ÿ4ÿ$2316723ÿ2ÿ2ÿ4ÿ04ÿ

123ÿÿ586ÿ7
96ÿ68ÿÿ
9

ÿ
ÿÿ
6
Cÿa
ÿsÿ9ÿe6
619ÿ:2ÿ099
-c
8v9ÿ-06185ÿÿ96-
T9SÿC8789Do7ÿcum97ÿe96nÿtÿ9
8-ÿÿ5
07
F6iledÿÿ660
ÿ79/16ÿ7ÿ/12
0ÿ3
ÿPÿ6aÿg67e75ÿo69
fÿÿ5
689ÿ6ÿ
6ÿ
ÿ1!3
"ÿ$%&ÿ'()*+,)-%.-/.ÿÿ01234567189:634ÿ3;ÿ01<329:634
=>?@ABCDEFGÿÿÿFFEFIEJKFLM 
ÿN78ÿ
99ÿÿ8
ÿÿ9
Oÿ
ÿ9
9ÿÿ66ÿ79ÿÿ
6ÿ
ÿ9996ÿÿ66ÿ
96ÿ6
ÿ9
P9ÿÿÿ6
99ÿ6ÿ
Sÿ19QRÿ
3ÿÿ5ÿ67ÿ7679ÿ
6ÿÿ66ÿ

ÿ96 8ÿQ
ÿ67ÿ
ÿ9
9ÿ9ÿÿÿ7

9ÿ96ÿ66ÿ9ÿ8
ÿ
6ÿ6
96ÿ67ÿ67ÿ7ÿ9ÿ
ÿ
ÿSÿQR
1T3ÿÿUÿ9
ÿ96ÿ
Oÿ9ÿ
6
9ÿ69
96ÿ6
ÿ9ÿ
96ÿ9
Oÿ
ÿ9ÿ
6ÿ9
6ÿÿ9ÿ
ÿ
 1V3ÿÿQ9
ÿÿ6
7ÿ
6ÿ

9ÿ
69ÿ

99ÿ669ÿ9
ÿ996ÿÿ6
7ÿ
ÿÿ97ÿWÿ

ÿ9SÿQR9ÿ
P6ÿ9ÿ7ÿ6

ÿÿ9ÿ
86ÿ7
ÿ ÿÿXÿYÿZ[ÿ\]^_`^ÿ67ÿ
ÿ69ÿ69ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ696ÿS9ÿ9ÿ

96ÿ
6ÿ6ÿ7
ÿ6
ÿ
ÿ9
9ÿ

"ÿ$%&ÿ'()*+,)-a.ÿÿb18c649:634ÿ3;ÿ01d65:89:634
=>?@ABCDEeFfGÿÿÿKIEKIEJKFeM 
ÿgQh1ÿV4]ÿ92ÿ1i93ÿ5
1ÿ9ÿ65ÿÿi
34567
189o17ÿjk492:6<1lmÿÿÿ

96ÿ86ÿ78n9ÿ96ÿ68ÿ9
96ÿ6
ÿ9
96ÿ7
1T3ÿÿp


ÿ6ÿ6699ÿÿ

9ÿÿ9ÿ6
9ÿ9ÿ

ÿ9O6ÿÿ9

ÿ99ÿ86ÿSÿ

9
ÿ6
96ÿÿ

6ÿ6ÿ

ÿÿ
ÿ8ÿ9ÿQÿ6ÿ9
ÿ9
ÿR9ÿ
ÿ6
7ÿ6
9ÿ9ÿQ9ÿ99
ÿÿN9ÿRÿ8


 1V3ÿÿW9
769ÿ
ÿÿ6
9ÿ
969ÿÿ
66
ÿ9ÿÿ9966ÿÿÿ9

ÿ
ÿ
Sÿ6
96ÿ9
ÿ6
ÿ9ÿÿ6

9ÿ
ÿ6
ÿÿ9
7ÿ96ÿÿS979ÿ9ÿS9ÿÿQ6ÿ9Sqÿ
9ÿR7
ÿÿ
66999ÿX9ÿ

O9
ÿ
ÿÿ


ÿ96ÿÿ99
O
9 123ÿÿQ66ÿÿ
76
ÿÿÿÿ9N
9ÿ9ÿÿQ6ÿÿÿV9VT
1ÿ3Sÿÿ76ÿ8ÿÿQr99qÿÿV6VT1ÿ3
ÿ
ÿ9ÿ
ÿ
ÿ96ÿ
ÿ6
9ÿÿ67ÿS99ÿÿÿ9ÿ6ÿ6
6
68ÿÿ97ÿ69
7
ÿ9ÿ6S9 1^3ÿÿZ
ÿ96ÿ6ÿS9ÿ9ÿZ66S`7ÿQ9796ÿX
O
ÿ
6ÿQ
9ÿR
ÿ
9ÿS9ÿ6ÿ
 8ÿ%Ss69s6
tÿ6
2
994ÿ6:5ÿÿ6g
ÿh93
59ÿ1
ÿÿi
9

59815ÿ998ÿÿ61

ÿÿu
vÿwx`1
2ÿ16:ÿ:36ÿÿbS186ÿcÿ64
9:ÿ683
4ÿ9yÿ4ÿ
7198ÿÿÿX/
(zO-6d9ÿ.^mÿÿ6ÿQÿ9X`
8ÿ
VO]29ÿ1ÿ^13
ÿ336ÿÿ1
!79ÿÿYSÿÿZ
6ÿ[ÿ
\ÿ]96^ÿÿ
^`\1{
31T933 ÿ
y|i}%uuk$k~ÿ-y.
0

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-51 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 3
FOIA Request F-2020-05671 EXHIBIT 41
Robinson, Kellie N <RobinsonKN@state.gov>
Tue 6/30/2020 6 44 AM <CToFc:O: ICFAuOSrIttAaistPuMrso@ogrsrraitsamoten<.g<Foocvuia>rptirso@grcaumrt@issmtaotreri.sgoonvl>aw; F.cOoImAr>equest <FOIArequest@state.gov>; FOIA Status
1 attachments (39 KB) F-2020-05671_Acknowledgement.pdf;
Dear Mr. Morrison:
Our records indicate that your request was received and the attached acknowledgement was sent to you on June 1, 2020. The FOIA Control Number assigned to your request is F-202005671. Please reference the control number on future correspondence. If you have any questions regarding the status of your request, you may contact our FOIA Requester Service Center or our FOIA Public Liaison via email at FOIAstatus@state.gov or by telephone at (202) 261-8484.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to guidance received from the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Information Programs and Services has implemented maximum telework flexibilities to protect its employees and their communities. The Department’s
ability to acknowledge receipt, and process documents in response to requests or appeals has been greatly diminished. The grave impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has limited the Executive Branch work in the office workplace to mission-critical functions. The Department’s paramount concern for the safety of its employees and the necessity to access Department worksites of the systems the Department uses to process FOIA off-site, further delays may be incurred.
Sincerely,
Kellie N. Robinson U.S. Department of State FOIA Program Manager/FOIA Public Liaison Office of Information Programs and Services Office: (202) 485-2199 Mobile: (202) 705-6786 RobinsonKN@state.gov
From: Curtis Morrison <curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:09 AM To: Robinson, Kellie N <RobinsonKN@state.gov> Subject: Fw: FOIA Request Letter
Ms. Robinson,
Hello. Can you check the status of this FOIA request for me?
Sincerely,

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-51 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 3
Curtis Lee Morrison 714-661-3446 (whatsapp / telegram / twitter)
Law Office of Curtis Morrison, PO Box 7140, Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Law Office of Rafael Ureña (Of counsel) 925 N. La Brea Ave., 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90038
‫ﺳﻼم ﻣﻮرد ﺗﻮﺟﮫ اﯾﺮاﻧﯿﺎن ﻋﺰﯾﺰ ﮐﮫ ﻓﺎرﺳﯽ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﻣﯿﮑﻨﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﯾﺎن ﻣﺸﺮﻗﯽ ﻣﺤﻤﺪی ﭘﺎراﻟﯿﮕﺎل ﺑﺮای ﮐﻤﮏ ﺑﮫ ﺷﻤﺎ اﻣﺎده ھﺴﺘﻨﺪ‬ Hola, estimados clientes de habla hispana, el asistente legal Rodolfo está listo para ayudarlos...
From: State Department FOIA <noreply@mail.foia.state.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:48 PM To: Curtis Morrison <curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com> Subject: FOIA Request Letter
Thank you for filing your FOIA request online on 5/27/2020. Here is a review of your request.
The records I request can be described as follows:
I hereby request the following records: (1) Any internal guidance, orders, memos, emails, or flowcharts regarding how Covid-19 could impact the administration of the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery, labor contractors who are involved with administering the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery, or the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery Winners. (2) Any internal guidance, orders, memos, emails, or flowcharts that deal with the stopping of second notification letters (often called "2NL" letters) to 2020 Diversity Lottery Winners. (3) Any internal guidance, orders, memos, emails, or flowcharts that include a reference to White House advisor "Stephen Miller". (4) Emails, letters, or written correspondence by KCC to any other U.S. government agency or member of U.S. Congress on how KCC's operations for the 2020 Diversity Lottery program are impacted by Covid-19 All the records above could either be held at (1) the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) in Williamsburg, Kentucky, and include emails sent and received by the KCC Director, KCC’s Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs), and Government Technical Monitors (GTMs) that include the search terms "Covid" and ("DV" or "Diversity") or "coronavirus" and ("DV" or "Diversity"); or (2) the Department of State in D.C., and would include a search of records of the State Department employees in D.C. who deal with the Diversity Visa Program.
The time period of my request is from 11/01/2019 to 05/27/2020
I am Affiliated with a private corporation and seeking information for use in the company's business.
I am willing to pay $25 for my request.
I request a waiver of all fees for this request. Reason: The requester, an immigration attorney, intends to disseminate the information to the DV Lottery winners who need the information to make choices about their safety and livelihood in uncertain times. This is analogous to how a news media outlet would request the information if a news media outlet existed that communicated with the audience of DV Lottery winners. However, that news media outlet does not exist, and thus, they are being left in the dark, without hope, as to the future of their visas. They deserve to have good information as to make their best decisions.
With the closures of embassies, Presidential Proclamation 10014, and other factors beyond their control, 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery winners are at higher risk of not being able to procure visas before the September 30 deadline at which time the opportunity for them expires. Many are currently physically located close to embassies, away from their home cities or countries, awaiting the opportunity to interview. Whether they should remain where they are, or risk travel back to their homes far away from the U.S. embassies, impacts their physical safety. They deserve to have information to make these decisions. However, all 2020 DV Lottery Winners are without any information as to what will or not will

Case 1:20-cv-01856-TSC Document 8-51 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 3 be done by the State Department to accommodate the continued processing of their visa applications, and some fear the applications will be abandoned with no accommodations. For those reasons, this request warrants expeditious handling so the 2020 Diversity Visa Lottery winners will not be left in the dark all the way up until their September 30 deadline. Upon production of this request, the requester, who works closely with this community, intends to disseminate the information via his blog and social networks, and the blogs and social networks of his colleagues.
My additional comments are as follows:
N/A
Contact Information Mr. Curtis L Morrison Law Office of Curtis Morrison PO Box 7140 Huntington Beach, California 92615 P: N/A F: N/A curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01856-APM Document 26 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ

)

ABDUL MOHAMMED, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-01856 (APM)

ORDER

The court finds that this matter is related to Gomez v. Trump, ECF No. 20-cv-1419. “[T]he

related case rule embodies the principle that in certain instances, the interests of judicial economy

outweigh the fundamental interests served by” the general rule that new cases are randomly

assigned. Autumn Journey Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F. Supp. 2d 135, 139 (D.D.C. 2010).

Civil cases are related if, among other things, they “involve common issues of fact,” or “grow out

of the same event or transaction.” LCvR 40.5(a)(3).

The instant case and Gomez include similarly situated Plaintiffs (2020 diversity visa

selectees), raising similar claims (Administrative Procedure Act claims to Defendants’ refusal to

process and issue diversity visas pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10014 and Presidential

Proclamation 10052), and seeking similar relief (preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

enjoining Defendants from unlawfully delaying the processing and issuance of 2020 diversity

visas). Accordingly, each case “grow[s] out of the same event” and involves “common issues of

fact.” LCvR 40.5(a)(3); see Singh v. McConville, 187 F. Supp. 3d 152, 156 (D.D.C. 2016)

(concluding that cases were related where both “challenge the same . . . regulations” and “seek the

same relief”); Autumn Journey Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140 (D.D.C. 2010)

Case 1:20-cv-01856-APM Document 26 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 3
(finding that six cases shared “common factual issues and ar[o]se out of a common event or transaction” where each case raised identical challenges to the same regulation).
Plaintiffs’ objections to the contrary are unavailing. First, Plaintiffs note that, at the time Plaintiffs filed the instant case, the complaint in Gomez had not been amended to include challenges pertaining to the 2020 diversity visa program. See Pls.’ Objection to Defs.’ Notice of Related Cases, ECF No. 19 [hereinafter Pls.’ Opp’n], at 13–14. But Plaintiffs identify nothing in Local Rule 40.5 that limits the relatedness inquiry to the time when a case was first filed, nor would such a rule serve the interests of judicial economy.
Second, Plaintiffs assert that because the claims in Gomez also pertain to other visa categories, that case is “too broad” for a related case designation to conserve judicial resources. Id. at 14–15. However, a case “need not present entirely identical factual issues and legal claims to be sufficiently related.” Comm. on Judiciary v. McGahn, 391 F. Supp. 3d 116, 122 (D.D.C. 2019). As both cases’ APA challenges to Defendants’ processing and issuance of 2020 diversity visas are substantially similar, designating the two cases as related furthers judicial economy by avoiding the necessity of multiple judges having to familiarize themselves with these overlapping issues, even if both cases may also raise separate issues that do not overlap.
Finally, Plaintiffs suggest that this case is not related to Gomez because, unlike the Gomez plaintiffs, they allege that the adjudications of their visas have been unreasonably delayed. Pls.’ Opp’n at 16. But Plaintiffs’ allegations that their visas have been unreasonably delayed are predicated on their APA claim that Defendants have arbitrarily and unlawfully refused to process and issue diversity visas pursuant to Proclamations 10014 and 10052. See Pls.’ Am. Compl., ECF No. ¶¶ 2200–2210; Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 8-1, at 20. That issue is common to both cases.

Case 1:20-cv-01856-APM Document 26 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 3

Dated: August 3, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 149

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA

AFSIN AKER,
CEVIZLI NEIGHBORHOOD, GUVENLI STREET, NUMBER:10/A ROOM: 36 MALTEPE ISTANBU TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER,
MEVLANA NEIGHBORHOOD ANAYURT STREET 24/31 TALAS TOWN KAYSERI CITY 38280 TURKEY
PLAINTIFF(S),
DILARA AYAYDIN,
97 RUE DE MEAUX, 74019 PARIS FRANCE
PLAINTIFF(S),
EMRE TARMAN,
FATIH MAHALLESI, MALATYA CADDESI NO:217,

) ) ) Civil Action No. 20-1926 ) ) ) Complaint for Declaratory and ) Injunctive Relief and for Writ of ) Mandamus ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
i

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 149

MERKEZ,

)

ADIYAMAN 02200

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ERDAL TARMAN,

)

)

TATLISU MAHALLESI,

)

CETIN CADDESI ELITE

)

LIFE SITESI D BLOK

)

DAIRE 20 34774

)

ISTANBUL

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S)

)

)

MUSTAFA MADAZLI,

)

)

ALPASLAN MH BAHAR CD,

)

BAHAR SIT. C BLK. 14/15

)

MELIKGAZI KAYSERİ

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S)

)

)

UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV

)

)

2022 FAWNS CREEK XING,

)

MOUNT JULIET

)

37122 TN

)

USA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

DANAT SHEKHE , MARINA KARPOVA, )

VIKTORIIA SHEKHE, ANNA SHEKHE, )

ii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 149

)

3 LYZHNYY PEREULOK,

)

APT 344,

)

SAINT-PETERSBURG, 197345, )

RUSSIA

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S)

)

)

HATICE DEMIR, IDRIS DEMIR,

)

MEHMET ALI DEMIR, SINAN CAN, )

DEMIC, ELMAS ZEYNEP DEMIR,

)

)

FETIH MAHALLESI SONMEZ )

SOKAK IKRA APT. NO 9

)

14 KARATAY, KONYA

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

LAILA FAIZI SOHAIL,

)

HEDAYATULLAH SOHAIL,

)

)

CAMLICA MAH. BORA,

)

SOK. NO.4 DAIRE 1

)

NILUFER BURSA

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

SAYFIEV ORIFJON

)

)

QORASUV 2,

)

7 JOMBOY DISTRICT

)

SAMARKAND REGION

)

iii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 149

UZBEKISTAN

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

MOHAMED MAHMOUD DAHY

)

MAHMOUD,

)

)

FLAT 42, BUILDING 77,

)

GROUP 74, MADINATY ,

)

FIRST SETTLEMENT, CAIRO

)

EGYPT

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ZUHAL KAYA,

)

)

CEVIZLI MAHALLESI,

)

FATIH CADDESI HUZURLU

)

SOKAK PALMIYE

)

APARTMAN NO 4 DAIRE 11

)

MALTEPE İSTANBUL

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

CELALETTIN CAN CENGIZ,

)

)

YAVUZ MAH. 100

)

YIL PARK CAD. ÇAÇAN APT.

)

AĞRI

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

HAYAL YETKIN,

)

)

iv

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 149

UGURMUMCU MAH. AKASYA, )

SOK. YUNUS EMRE CAD. NO: 20 )

MAVIKENT KONUTLARI

)

A BLOK DAIRE: 11

)

KARTAL ISTANBUL

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

KUBRA DOGAN, FAITHIGAN DOGAN, )

)

GUZELYALI DISTRICT,

)

TEOMAN STREET,

)

NO:28/1 PENDIK,

)

ISTANBUL 34903

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

PELIN DINCOL,

)

)

MERDIVENKOY MH.,

)

KARAMAN SK. NO.10,

)

D. 14 GOZTEPE

)

KADIKOY ISTANBUL, 34732

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

SERVAN YILMAZ,

)

)

STEFAN STAMBOLOV,

)

NO :21 APT:8

)

6600 KARDZHALI

)

BULGARIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

v

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 6 of 149

)

IBRAHIM ALBATRACK,

)

)

MERKEZ MAHALLESI,

)

PEYMAN SOKAK, NO 7/15,

)

GAZIOSMAPAŚA

)

ISTANBUL 35245

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

OZGE PELIN KUYUMCU,

)

)

STREET EZGIN , NO: 4/2 FLOOR:2

)

BURSA , HAMIDIYE , SEZGIN

)

MUSTAFAKEMALPASA BURSA

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

EFE ARSLAN,

)

)

STREETN6/9

)

DIKMEN CADDESI HARBIYE

)

MAHALLESI VEZNEDAR SOKAK

)

6/9 ANKARA /URKIYE, DIKMEN

)

AVENUE VEZNEDAR

)

ANKARA

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

PELIN KOROGLU,

)

)

ESENTEPE NEIGHBORHOOD,

)

vi

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 7 of 149

CENGAVER STREET, NO:9/3

)

YENIMAHALLE

)

ANKARA 06170

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

BURCIN DURSUN, CEM DURSUN, )

ELA DURSUN, OZAN BATUR DURSUN )

)

CUKURAMBAR MAHALLESI,

)

OGRETMENLER CADDESI

)

MENEKSE SITESI 23/10

)

CANKAYA ANKARA 06510

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ELENA NOVOSPASSKAIA,

)

)

JOHN REED 12,

)

STREET 118

)

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG

)

RUSSIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

METIN ALADAG, OKSANA ALADAG, )

ROJDA GULDEN ALADAG,

)

DENIZ ALADAG,

)

)

ZUMRUTEVLER MAH. SEHER, )

SOK. NO 45-3,

)

MALTEPE ISTANBUL 34852

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

vii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 8 of 149

)

NIKITA GALIMZYANOV, VLADA

)

CHERNADCHUK,

)

)

18 SOLNECHNYJ,

)

GOROD KVARTAL, APT. 11,

)

MIRNOE,

)

HABAROVSKIJ KRAJ 680539, )

RUSSIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

AYSIN GUNAY,

)

)

ISKELE MAH BARIS CAD NO 7A, )

IC KAPI NO 1,

)

MUGLA, DATCA, 48900,

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S)

)

)

ADIL UGUR TUNCER, GAMZE

)

TUNCER, ARDA TUNCER,

)

)

FULA MAH. HÜSEYIN CAHIT )

YALCIN SOK.B AYIRBASI

)

APT. A BLOK NO:18 DAIRE : 21 )

SISLI/ISTANBUL 34394

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S)

)

)

GOZDE GEDIK YURDUM, HASAN

)

BERK YURDUM,

)

)

ULUS DISTRICT,

)

OZTOPUZ AVENUE

)

viii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 9 of 149

TEKERLER STREET NO:5/3

)

BESIKTAS, ISTANBUL 34340 )

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

DOGUKAN ORUC,

)

)

199 SOKAK NO:2 KAT:2 DAIRE:16 )

KAZIM DIRIK MAHALLESI

)

FATIH SULTAN

)

MEHMET CADDESI

)

BORNOVA IZMIR 35100

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

BERKAY AYNAGOZ,

)

)

4 ÇARŞI STREET,

)

APT/1,

)

KOCAELİ KANDIRA 41600

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

HUSEYIN KUS, YASMIN HASSAN

)

ABDELMONEAM ELGAMAL,

)

ZEINA MAMDOUH MAHMOUD

)

ELAZAB ELKHOULI,

)

)

ESENTEPE MAH,

)

SECKIN SITESI 12.BLOK,

)

4.DAIRE İNEGÖL,

)

BURSA

)

TURKEY

)

)

ix

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 10 of 149

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ALI KADAYIFCI,

)

)

8-1 PULKOVSKAYA STREET,

)

APT 169

)

SAINT PETERSBURG 196158

)

RUSSIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

OZAN GOZUBUYUK,

)

)

MEHMET AKIF MAH,

)

OSMANGAZI CAD. NO:29, D:9

)

UMRANIYE ISTANBUL 34774

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

CEVDET AYDIN SUN,

)

)

176 SOKAK NO 2 DAIRE 4,

)

KUCUKYALI IZMIR

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

OZGUR DINC, BAHAR YALÇIN DİNÇ, )

BAŞAK NAZ KOÇYİĞİT,

)

BERRAK SU KOÇYİĞİT,

)

)

BARIŞ MAHALLESI,

)

EGEMENLIK CADDESI TÜZE )

SITESI 3 C BLOK KAT:1 NO: 5 )

BEYLIKDÜZÜ, 34540

)

TURKEY

)

x

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 11 of 149

)

PLAINTIFF(S)

)

)

BAKARYUKIN VIACHESLAV,

)

SVETLANA VIACHESLAV,

)

)

AICHINGHAI HOUSE,

)

B. 13, UNIT 1, ROOM 1704,

)

COUNTRY GARDEN

)

SILVER BEACH,

)

GUANGDONG PROVINCE,

)

HUIZHOU CITY,

)

CHINA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

HASSAN KHADER NASSAR,

)

)

KUWAIT HAWALLY BLOCK 7, )

KUWAIT HAWALLY

)

KUWAIT

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ELKHOULI MAMDOUH,

)

)

31 PARKVIEW, RIVER ROAD,

)

RATHBORNE, DUBLIN 15

)

DUBLIN

)

IRELAND

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

OLGA KORMILINA,

)

)

AVIAKONSTRUKTORA

)

xi

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 12 of 149

PETLYAKOVA 29, APT 54,

)

MOSCOW 108850

)

RUSSIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

AHMED ESSAM ABD ELAZIEZ

)

MAHMOUD YOUSSEF,

)

)

ELMASGD STREET MANSHA, )

ALGADIDA ELBEDA,

)

KAFR ELDAWAR

)

ELBAHERA 22624

)

EGYPT

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

JOSEPH YOUSSEF,

)

)

EL MINYA,

)

GOVERNORATE,

)

EGYPT

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

AHMED AGLAN, MAHA SAMY

)

ALI ABDULHAMID, YOUSEF AHMED )

MOHAMED KHALIFA AGLAN, NOUR )

AHMED MOHAMED KHALIFA AGLAN, )

)

61 ABDULLAH AL

)

HAMATHANI STREET,

)

ALMALAZ, RIYADH, 12836,

)

SAUDI ARABIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

xii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 13 of 149

SULIMAN SHAATH,

)

)

UMM AL HAMMAM ALSHARQI

)

BILDING 4 ALABALA ST.

)

RIYADH CITY

)

SAUDI ARABIA

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

EVGENIA GAVRILOVA,

)

)

ARGAYASH DOROZNYJ PER 27, )

CHELYABINSK REGION,

)

RUSSIA,

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

NAIRA OGANISYAN,

)

)

CALLE FELIP II, 50 AT 2,

)

BADALONA, BARCELONA 08917 )

SPAIN

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

NORA ABDELKHALEK ABDELSALAM )

ABDELSALAM, HANY ABDELGHANI )

AHMED ABDELGHANI, JELAN HANY )

ABDELGHANI AHMED ABDELGHANI, )

MARIAM HANY ABDELGHANI

)

AHMED ABDELGHANI, KAREEM

)

HANY ABDELGHANI AHMED

)

ABDELGHANI,

)

)

BUILDING 8493, IBRAHIM AL

)

QURTUBI STREET,

)

AL WIZARAT DISTRICT,

)

xiii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 14 of 149

RIYADH, RIYADH,

)

SAUDI ARABIA.

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ALI OZKILIC, SERDEST HEVAL

)

OZKILIC, SERDAR ARAM OZKILIC, )

)

MEZOPOTAYA MH.

)

FIRAT BULVARI. OZAY YAPI

)

SITESI. D. BLOK. KAT:3.NO:15.

)

KAYAPINAR DIYARBAKIR,

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

TUNCAY BAHRI OZTURK,

)

)

GUZELTEPE MH. UCEVLER

)

USTU CD. NO:37/1

)

EYUPSULTAN

)

ISTANBUL 34060

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

SHROUK MOHAMED IBRAHIM

)

ABDELHAMID IBRAHIM, AYMAN )

AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD, MAYA )

AYMAN AHMED MOHAMED

)

MASOUD,

)

)

223 ELBANAFSG BUILDINGS, )

NEW CAIRO, CAIRO

)

EGYPT

)

)

xiv

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 15 of 149

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ESAT UNAL, GULCIN BIR UNAL,

)

DENIZ UNAL

)

)

PROF HIFZI OZCAN CD

)

KARDELEN SITESI B / 21 K.

)

BAKKALKOY MAH,

)

ATASEHIR ISTANBUL 34752 )

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

KATSIARYNA LASHHEUSKAYA,

)

YAUHENI LASHCHEUSKI, MILANA )

LASHCHEUSKI,

)

)

60 LOBANK ST,

)

APT 25,

)

MINSK 220136

)

BELARUS,

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ANDREW SAVENKOV,

)

)

23 CHERTANOVSKAYA STR., )

BLD. 2., APT. 41,

)

MOSCOW 117525

)

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

YULIYA KUZNETSOVA, SERGEY

)

KUZNETSOVA, NIKITA

)

xv

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 16 of 149

KUZNETSOVA, BOGDAN

)

KUZNETSOVA, EGOR KUZNETSOVA, )

)

DOM 26A, KV 81.

)

MICRO DISTRICT 1.

)

ALMATY,

)

KAZAKHSTAN

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

MARINA DUBOVA,

)

)

ADMIRALA MAKAROVA ST. 5-1, )

APP, 125,

)

NIZHNY NOVGOROD 603132 )

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

YAUHEN PALEI, ALIAKSANDRA

)

PALEI,

)

)

50 LET POBEDY STR, APT. 69

)

220056 5/1

)

POLAND

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

EMRE DURMAZ, ELIF DURMAZ,

)

SIMAY DURMAZ,

)

)

CUMHURIYET MAHALLESI

)

NECMETTIN KIRBAS SOK.

)

NO: 29 KAT 3 D:7

)

IZMIT-KOCAEL

)

TURKEY

)

)

xvi

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 17 of 149

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

EREN DEYIS,

)

)

HACILAR REGION INCEK LOFT )

RECIDENCES B2 BLOCK NO:4 )

06830 GOLBASI/ANKARA

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ESRA PAKER, ANIL PAKER,

)

)

KARAMAN NEIGHBORHOOD )

1717/1 STREET FLOOR :4

)

DENIZLI

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ISKANDAROVA NARZISAHKON

)

NUMONOVA ISKANDAROV

)

AKMALKHOJA, AKMAL

)

ISKANDAROV, ANISA ISKANDAROV, )

ANVAR ISMANDARIV, DAMIR

)

ISKANDAROV,

)

)

BOBOKALONOV STREET 132,

)

GOZYON VILLAGE, PULOT,

)

BOBOJON GAFUROV DISTRICT

)

REPUBLIC OF TAJIKASTAN

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

GOKMEN MAYA, BURCIN MAYA, )

DEFNE MAYA,

)

)

xvii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 18 of 149

ISMETPASA MAH. SEVREN

)

SOK. NO:4-12

)

MERKEZ YALOVA 77100

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

GENCAY ERTUNK,

)

)

IDEALTEPE MAH. RIFKI

)

TONGSIR CAD. NO:11/ B6 34841 )

MALTEPE – ISTANBUL

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

SEVİL KOÇ, GÜRHAN KOÇ,

)

YAĞIZHAN KOÇ,

)

)

GAZANFER BİLGE CAD.

)

ERENLER CEDİT KENT

)

KONUTLARI B/4D:1

)

İZMİT/KOCAELİ 41300

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

NIYAZ BÜYÜKGÖKMEN, CEMAL

)

BÜYÜKGÖKMEN,

)

)

YILDIZ MAH. 243 SOK. ALTINAY )

APT. NO:13/5

)

MURATPAŞA ANTALYA

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

xviii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 19 of 149

)

YULIYA HIL, MAKSIM INDZIUKOU, )

)

3 MYASTROVSKAYA STREET )

APT. 56,

)

REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

FATIMA AYKUT, ÖZKAN AYKUT, )

ELIF ECE AYKUT,

)

)

ORHANTEPE MAH BANKALAR )

CAD BAYRAKTAR

)

APT NO 35 D 4

)

KARTAL İSTANBUL 4865

)

TURKEY

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

ECEMNAZ ALCIN SASMAZ, TAHA )

YASIN SASMAZ,

)

)

YILDIRIM MAHALLESI

)

CANDARLI SOKAK NO:7/5

)

BAYRAMPASA, ISTANBUL 34045 )

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

VOLHA AMELCHANKA, ULADZIMIR )

AMELCHANKA, ANASTASIA

)

AMELCHANKA, KATSIARINA

)

AMELCHANKA,

)

)

DOLGOBRODSKAYA STREET 7/3 )

xix

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 20 of 149

APARTMENT 23.

)

MINSK CITY,

)

REPUBLIC OF BELARUS,

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

OYTUN LACIN, SELIN LACIN,

)

)

MADEN NEIGHBORHOOD

)

YUNUS EMRE STREET,

)

NUMBER 37/2

)

SARIYER / İSTANBUL 34450

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

VALERIYA NOGAYTSEVA,

)

)

DZERGINSKOGO ST., B.164,

)

APARTMENT 44.

)

NOVOROSSIYSK,

)

KRASNODARSKIY

)

RUSSIA,

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

OLEG KAMANEV, VIKTORIIA

)

GROZEVA, VERONIKA KAMENEVA, )

ROMAN GROZEV

)

)

811, BAY DRIVE 900,

)

MIAMI BEACH

)

FLORIDA 33141

)

UNITED STATES

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

VALERY PADLIPSKI, VOLHA

)

xx

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 21 of 149

PADLIPSKAYA, TATSIANA

)

PADLIPSKAYA,NATALLIA

)

PADLIPSKAYA,

)

)

M.D. 16, HOUSE 25, APR. 117, )

ZHLOBIN GOMEL

)

REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

NESLIHAN BENAN YUKSEL,

)

OMAYKAN YUKSEL,

)

)

BARBAROS MAH.

)

TOPHANELİOĞLU CAD.

)

D BLOK NO: 60D İÇ KAPI NO: 17 )

ÜSKÜDAR / İSTANBUL

)

TURKEY

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

TATYANA KRASHEVSKAYA,

)

ALEXANDER KRASHEVSK, NIKITA )

KRASHEVSKY,

)

)

VANKOVICHA ST. 53-6,

)

220076 MINSK

)

BELARUS

)

)

PLAINTIFF(S),

)

)

YEVGENIY PANKEVICH,

)

)

16 ORBIT 3 APT 130,

)

ALMATY CITY

)

REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

)

)

)

V.

)

)

xxi

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 22 of 149

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, President

)

of the United States of America,

)

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

)

Washington, D.C. 20500;

)

)

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary

)

of the U.S. Department of State,

)

c/o The Executive Office, Office of

)

the Legal Advisor, Suite 5.600, 600 19th St., )

NW, Washington, D.C. 20522

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………1 THE PARTIES……………………………………………………………………..8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE…………………………………………………..98 OVERVIEW OF THE LAW……………………………………………………...99 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS……………………………………………………103 CAUSES OF ACTION…………………………………………………………..113 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS…………………………………………………..123 REQUEST FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………..124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………..127

xxii

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 23 of 149
“This is America. . . a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.” President George H. W. Bush1
“Why are we having all these people from s***hole countries come here?” President Donald J. Trump2
INTRODUCTION 1. On March 13, 2020, in response to the Coronavirus (“COVID-19”)
pandemic, President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) declared a general “national emergency”. 2. On April 22, 2020, President Trump issued a proclamation (“PP 10014”) suspending all entries to any “alien” without an immigrant visa valid on April 22, 2020, citing “impact” (without saying what the impact was) on immigration to the U.S. labor market.3 3. The Proclamation supposedly accounted for exceptions for immigrant visa holders that are physicians, nurses, or other healthcare professionals and for “any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by
1 Associated Press, LA TIMES, December 1, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bush-quotes20181130-htmlstory.html (Last Accessed July 16, 2020). 2 Josh Dawsey, WASHINGTON POST, January 12, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacksprotections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af31ac729add94_story.html (Last Accessed July 16, 2020). 3 WHITE HOUSE, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, April 22, 2020 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/proclamation-suspending-entry-immigrants-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-economic-recovery-followingcovid-19-outbreak/ (Last Accessed July 16, 2020).
1

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 24 of 149
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees. No policies, instructions or directions for such exceptions were ever published 4. Plaintiffs here are 149 Diversity Visa program selectees and their derivative beneficiaries from 14 different countries and their derivative beneficiaries, who live outside of the United States. Contrary to Defendant President Trumps opinion of Diversity Visa winners, these individuals include successful business people who intend to create jobs for American workers in the United States, healthcare professionals who could help fight the hold that the Coronavirus Pandemic has on our country, engineers, academics, and more and they are spouses and children who too hope to come to America to live, learn, grow, and share with us in the dream that this country gives to all who find themselves fortunate enough to live here. 5. Individuals to whom the Proclamation applied included pending Diversity Visa applicants at various stages of the application process as well as individuals whose visas had already been approved and issued, but which have expired without admission to the United States due travel restrictions put into place because of the pandemic. These include (1) Diversity Visa recipients who have confirmed their qualifications, submitted their Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application and supporting
2

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 25 of 149
documents, and are awaiting interviews; (2) Diversity Visa recipients who have been interviewed and are waiting for a decision; and (3) Diversity Visa recipients who have passed their interviews, had visas issued, and need only arrive in America during the time allotted on their approved visas (usually six months).4 6. The April 22, 2020 proclamation was set to expire on June 23, 2020, unless extended by President Trump, rendering the proclamation amorphous and potentially unending in its expiry date due to the ongoing pandemic. At least one lawsuit related to Diversity lottery winners was filed over this proclamation but was dismissed because the proclamation was time limited and would expire prior to the time that the Diversity lottery winners had to be adjudicated and enter the United States (September 30, 2020). 7. On June 22, 2020, President Trump issued a new proclamation extending PP 10014 through December 31, 2020.5 8. The new proclamation extended the initial bans in the April proclamation until December 31, 2020. Like the April 22, 2020 proclamation, the June 22,
4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Diversity Visa Program, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/usvisas/immigrate/Diversity-visa-program-entry/Diversity-visa-interview/Diversity-visa-after-theinterview.html#:~:text=A%20Diversity%20visa%20is%20usually,for%20less%20than%20six%20months. (Last Accessed July 16, 2020). 5 WHITE HOUSE, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak, June 22, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamationsuspending-entry-aliens-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/ (Last Accessed July 16, 2020).
3

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 26 of 149
2020 proclamation extension has particularly harsh effects on Diversity Visa selectees. 9. The United States issues approximately 1.1 million new green cards each fiscal year. It is estimated that of those included in this number and affected by President Trumps proclamations are more than 44,000 Diversity selectees. 10.Diversity Visa selectees are now racing against the clock to obtain their visas prior to the end of the 2020 Fiscal Year on September 30, 2020. Without judicial intervention, those who have not already entered the United States will not be able to pursue the Diversity Visa any further, nor pick up where they left off in the following Fiscal Year. 11.For Diversity Visa recipients, the harm caused by Trump’s proclamations is immediate and particularly severe. Due to this extension, Diversity Visa recipients will, absolutely and irrevocably, lose their ability to immigrate to the United States, and specific and very difficult hardships on families and employers will result. Many of these Diversity Visa selectees and especially those who have actual visas, or have been interviewed, or were awaiting a scheduled interview had made substantial plans and had detrimentally relied on the actions of the US government prior to this Immigration Ban.
4

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 27 of 149
12.Some Diversity Visa selectees can Adjust Status through the Diversity Visa program (meaning they were previously lawfully admitted into the United States and have not accrued unlawful presence). The Proclamation does not apply to these selectees, as they are already located within the United States. The Proclamation does however apply to the vast majority of Diversity Visa selectees who are consular processing from abroad, meaning that they must obtain their visa stamps from a U.S. Embassy or Consulate, governed by the U.S. Department of State.
13.In a FAQ released by the Department of State, the Department acknowledged the potential for President Trumps proclamation to be extended indefinitely. It states that “[t]he [Diversity Visa] Program has multiple stages. [Diversity Visa]-2021 applicants won’t be interviewed until FY 2021. However, the suspension does apply to [Diversity applicants], with certain exceptions. The Proclamation will expire on December 31 unless extended.” (emphasis added).
5

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 28 of 149
14.A Notice on the Department of State website states that individuals who were issued visas for the Diversity Visa-2020 Program that was valid effective April 23, 2020, but which expired due to an inability to travel, should contact the Embassy or Consulate where your visa was issued for further information.6 No solutions are offered, and when recipients contacted their assigned Embassy or Consulate regarding their visas, they are generally told that their Embassy or Consulate is closed until further notice, with no estimated time of reopening, or, worse, that no visa would be reissued to them.
15.The Department of State (and federal immigration law) states that all Diversity Visa-2020 entrants who were selected must be found eligible for, and obtain, their visa by September 30, 2020.7 However, because of the proclamation, tens of thousands of Diversity Visa selectees are now unable to get their interviews, and it appears clear that such individuals will lose eligibility if the ban is not lifted (and subsequent visa processing is completed) prior to September 30, 2020.
16.The Department of State has arbitrarily and capriciously taken the proclamation's suspension of entry as a suspension on the visa issuance,
6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Diversity Visa Instructions, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/usvisas/immigrate/Diversity-visa-program-entry/Diversity-visa-instructions.html (Last Accessed July 16, 2020). 7 Id.
6

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 29 of 149
reissuance, and adjudication of Diversity Visa-2020 cases. Specifically, the Department of State has refused to reissue visas that have expired due the inability to travel to the U.S. during the Coronavirus pandemic, suspended processing of applications for Diversity Visa Applicant selectees, cancelled and/or suspended interviews at U.S. Embassies and Consulates, and has suspended final adjudications pre- and post-interview. This, despite the fact that the consulates remain staffed and clearly operating, given their statements that they can be contacted for undetermined emergency processing cases. 17.The proclamation, though potentially endless, is currently slated to expire on December 31, 2020—a duration four months longer than the predecessor proclamation. 18.Because the fiscal year expires September 30, 2020, the remainder of the Diversity Visa program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 will be eliminated. 19.The inability to immigrate to the United States for the Diversity Visa-2020 entrants has caused enormous hardship. Fees for visas will be lost and medical examinations for green cards will expire. Many applicants have quit their jobs and sold their homes due to their reliance on the ability to migrate to the United States through the Diversity Visa Program. Tens of thousands of applicants, including all 75 Plaintiffs, will be denied their
7

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 30 of 149
opportunity to immigrate based solely on the fact that President Trump proclamation bars them from entering the country or because their visas expired prior to their ability to obtain transportation to the United States because of travel bans (some of which have now been lifted).
THE PARTIES 20.Plaintiffs Afsin Aker, Mustafa Dogan Eker, Dilara Ayaydin, Emre Akin,
Erdal Tarman, Mustafa Madazli, and Utkirbek Abdumominov are Diversity Visa recipients and their derivative beneficiaries who have received their visas, but have been unable to enter in the United States within the time allotted on the visa due to President Trump’s proclamation. Many of them have sold their homes, left their jobs, and are accruing devastating financial losses due to their inability to complete their immigration process caused by the presidential proclamation. 21.Plaintiffs Danat Shekhe, Hatice Demir, Laila Faizi Sohail, Sayfiev Orifjon, Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud, Suliman Shaath, Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam, Ali Ozkilic, Fatima Aykut, Oleg Kamanev, and Andrew Savenkov are Diversity Visa recipients and their derivative beneficiaries who have had their interviews at the Consulates or Embassies, but who have yet to receive their visas due to President Trump's proclamation. Many of them have sold their homes to pay for filing
8

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 31 of 149
fees, left or lost their jobs because of their intention to immigrate, and are accruing devastating emotional, personal and financial losses due to their inability to complete their immigration process caused by the presidential proclamation. 22.Plaintiffs Zuhal Kaya, Celalettin Can Cengiz, Hayal Yetkin Sale, Kubra Dogan, Pelin Dincol, Sercan Yilmaz, Ibrahim Albatrak, Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu, Efe Arslan, Pelin Koroglu, Burcin Dursun, Elena Novospasskaia, Metin Aladag, Nikita Galimzyanov, Aysin Gunay, Adil Ugur Tuncer, Gözde Gedik Yurdum, Dogukan Oruc, Berkay Aynagoz, Huseyin Kus, Ali Kadayifci, Ozan Gözübüyük, Cevdet Aydin Sun , Ozgur Dinc, Bakaryukin Viacheslav, Hassan Khader Nassar, Elkhouli Mamdouh, Olga Kormilina, Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef, Joseph Youssef, Ahmed Aglan, Evgenia Gavrilova, Naira Oganisyan, Tuncay Bahri Ozturk, Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim, Esat Unal, Katsiaryna Lashheuskaya, Marina Dubova, Yauhen Palei, Emre Durmaz, Eren Deyis, Esra Paker, Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova, Iskandarov Akmalkhoja, Gokmen Maya, Sevil Koç, Niyaz Büyükgökmen, Yuliya Hil, Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz, Volha Amelchanka, Valeriya Nogaytseva, Yuliya Kuznetsova, Gencay Ertunk, Oytun Lacin, Valery Padlipski, Neslihan
9

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 32 of 149
Benan Yuksel , Tatyana Krashevskaya, Yevgeniy Pankevich are Diversity Visa applicants and their derivative beneficiaries who have submitted the required visa documentation and were advised of their interview dates, and began to make plans to immigrate to the United States, that were subsequently cancelled as a result of President Trump’s proclamation.
PLAINTIFFS Plaintiff Afsin Aker
23.Plaintiff Afsin Aker is a citizen of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee 24.Plaintiff Afsin Aker was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 25.The KCC assigned him the case number DV2020EU00002767 26.Plaintiff Afsin Aker submitted all required documentation for adjudication
of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 27.On November 25, 2019 Plaintiff Afsin Aker received his American Visa
with the expiration date of May 5th, 2020. 28.Plaintiff Afsin Aker, in preparation for his immigration to the U.S., left his
company, sold his car, and canceled his lease. 29.On April 26th, 2020, Plaintiff Afsin Aker’s flight from Istanbul to the
United States was cancelled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic outside of his control.
10

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 33 of 149
30.Plaintiff Afsin Aker made numerous attempts to contact the U.S. Embassy before his Visa expired and only received automatic replies from the closed embassies.
31.Plaintiff Afsin Aker, was denied entry due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Mustafa Dogan Eker 32.Plaintiff Mustafa Dogan Eker is a citizen of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 33.Plaintiff Mustafa Dogan Eker was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 34.The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00009478. 35.Plaintiff Mustafa Dogan Eker submitted all the requested documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 36.Plaintiff Mustafa Dogan Eker received his visa in his passport several days later. 37.Plaintiff Mustafa Dogan Eker would be denied entry due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending
11

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 34 of 149
adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin 38.Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin is a Turkish national currently living in Paris France and a DV-2020 selectee 39.Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 40.The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00006631. 41.Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 42.On January 8th, 2020, Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin attended her interview at the U.S. Embassy in Paris 43.On January 14th, 2020, Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin received her approved visa. 44.On April 22nd, 2020, Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin was denied entry due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. 45.On June 10th, 2020, Plaintiff Dilara Ayadin’s visa expired.
12

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 35 of 149
Plaintiff Emre Akin 46.Plaintiff Emre Akin is a citizen of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 47.Plaintiff Emre Akin was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 48.The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00002393. 49.Plaintiff Emre Akin completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 50.Plaintiff Emre Akin attended his interview in November 2019. 51.In March 2020, Plaintiff Emre Akin received his Visa for entry to the U.S.. 52.On April 22nd, 2020, Plaintiff Emre Akin was denied entry due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. 53.On May 1st, 2020, Plaintiff Emre Akin’s visa expired.
Plaintiff Erdal Tarman 54.Plaintiff Erdal Tarman is a citizen of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 55.Plaintiff Erdal Tarman was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
13

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 36 of 149
56.The KCC assigned him the case number DV2020EU00001598. 57.Plaintiff Erdal Tarman completed and submitted the documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 58.On October 3rd, 2019, Plaintiff Erdal Tarman was issued his Visa for entry to the U.S. 59.Plaintiff Erdal Tarman, sold his belongings to prepare to immigrate to the United States. 60.Plaintiff Erdal Tarman’s flights to the U.S. were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic outside his control 61.Plaintiff Erdal Tarman attempted to contact the US embassy before his visa expired and only received automatic replies from the closed embassies. 62.On April 1st 2020, Plaintiff Erdal Tarman’s visa expired. 63.On April 22nd, 2020, Plaintiff Erdal Tarman’s adjudication of his visa ended due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli 64.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli is a citizen of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
14

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 37 of 149
65.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
66.The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00004359. 67.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli completed and submitted the documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 68.On Novemeber 1st, 2019, Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli received his Visa for entry into the U.S. 69.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli left his job and sold his belongings to move to the United States. 70.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli obtained an engineering job in New York. 71.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli’s flight to the U.S. were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic outside his control. 72.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli attempted to contact the US embassy before his visa expired and only received automatic replies from the closed embassies. 73.On April 22nd, 2020, Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli’s entry was denied due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. 74.Plaintiff Mustafa Madazli has been unemployed since March.
15

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 38 of 149
Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov and his family 75.Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov is a citizen of Kyrgyzstan who is currently residing in Tennessee USA. He was a DV-2020 selectee. 76.KCC assigned him and his family the case number 2020EU00002882. 77.Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov received a visa from the U.S. Embassy for himself and his family under his application. 78.In January 2020, Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov came to the United States ahead of his family in order to get things ready for their arrival. 79.In March 2020, Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov’s flights for his family were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 80.On April 22nd, 2020, the entry of Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov’s family was denied due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. 81.On May 26th 2020, the family’s visa expired. 82.Plaintiff Utkirbek Abdumominov has been separated from his wife and young children since January.
Plaintiff Danat Shekhe and his Family
16

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 39 of 149
83.Plaintiff Danat Shekhe is a Syrian national residing in Turkey and a DV2020 selectee.
84.Plaintiff Danat Shekhe was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
85.The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00010232. 86.Plaintiff Danat Shekhe completed and submitted the documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 87.On January 23, 2020, the issuance of their visas was delayed on the request for medical information. 88.On March 18, Plaintiff Danat Shekhe received the additional medical information but was unable to submit anything to the closed consulate. 89.On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Danat Shekhe’s application was stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. 90.Plaintiff Danat Shekhe has suffered economic damage of about $6000 due to being unable to emigrate.
Plaintiff Hatice Demir and Family
91.Plaintiff Hatice Demir is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee..
17

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 40 of 149
92.Plaintiff Hatice Demir was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
93.The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU0008991. 94.Plaintiff Hatice Demir completed and submitted the documentation for
adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 95.On March 2nd, 2020, Plaintiff Hatice Demir and his family attended his interview. 96.Plaintiff Hatice Demir had their passports returned without their visas by the Embassy who requested additional information in the form of form D-5535. 97.On March 9th, 2020, Plaintiff Hatice Demir submitted the completed D5535 forms for himself and his family to the Embassy. 98.On March 12th, 2020, Plaintiff Hatice Demir received an emergency email from the embassy saying the adjudication of their application would stop due to the COVID-19 pandemic 99.On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Hatice Demir and family’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
18

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 41 of 149
100. Plaintiff Hatice Demir has suffered economic damages of $4000 accounting processing fees in additional to 60% of their normal income.
Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail and Hedayatullah Sohail 101. Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail is a Turkish nativa and a DV2020 selectee currently living in the United States. 102. Plaintiff Hedayatullah Sohail is a native of Turkey and spouse of Laila Faizi Sohail. Hedayatullah Sohail is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Irem Guzel should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. He is currently in Turkey. 103. Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail and her derivative benefactor were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 104. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020AS00011964. 105. Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 106. On March 6th, 2020, Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail and her husband attended their interview at the Embassy.
19

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 42 of 149
107. Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail was issued her visa but her husband’s adjudication was assigned to Administrative Processing.
108. Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail traveled to the U.S. ahead of her husband after becoming pregnant.
109. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Hedayatullah Sohail’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
110. Plaintiff Laila Faizi Sohail is living in the United States without her husband, pregnant and alone.
Plaintiff Oleg Kamanev, Viktoriia Grozeva, and Family 111. Plaintiff Oleg Kamanev is a Ukraine native and a DV2020 selectee currently living in the United States. 112. Plaintiff Viktoriia Grozeva is a native of Ukraine and spouse of Oleg Kamanev. Viktoriia Grozeva is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Oleg Kamanev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. She is currently in the Ukraine. 113. Plaintiff Veronika Kameneva is a native of Ukraine and daughter of Oleg Kamanev. Veronika Kameneva is eligible to immigrate to the United
20

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 43 of 149
States as a derivative beneficiary Oleg Kamanev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. She is currently in the Ukraine. 114. Plaintiff Roman Grozev is a native of Ukraine and son of Oleg Kamanev. Roman Grozev is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary Oleg Kamanev should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. He is currently in the Ukraine. 115. Plaintiff Oleg Kamanev and his derivative benefactors were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 116. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020AS00011964. 117. Plaintiff Oleg Kamanev completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 118. On February 4th, 2020, Plaintiff Oleg Kamanev and his family attended their interview at the U.S Embassy in Moscow. Oleg Kamanev, Veronika Kameneva, and Roman Grozev received their visas the next day on February 5th, 2020, but Viktoriia Grozeva was asked to provide additional medical information.
21

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 44 of 149
119. On April 7th, 2020, Plaintiff Viktoriia Grozeva submitted her additional information to the closed embassy.
120. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Viktoriia Grozeva’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
121. On April 24th, 2020, Plaintiff Oleg Kamanev and his children came into the U.S via Miami, Florida. and received LPR status without Plaintiff Viktoriia Grozeva
Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon 122. Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon is a native of Uzbekistan and a DV-2020 selectee. 123. Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 124. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00005540. 125. Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
22

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 45 of 149
126. On December 5th, 2019, Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon attended his interview. After the interview his case was placed in administrative processing. The Embassy at this point did not ask for additional documents from Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon.
127. Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon contacted the Embassy three times for additional information of his case and was told to wait for further information from the Embassy.
128. In preparation for moving to the U.S. Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon sold his car and left his job, as he anticipated moving within the year.
129. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
130. Plaintiff Sayfiev Orifjon suffered from not being able to work and spent $770 dollars in processing fees.
Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud 131. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud is a native of Egypt and a DV-2020 selectee.
23

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 46 of 149
132. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
133. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
134. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020AF00018869. 135. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud submitted all the
necessary documentation and attended their interview at the U.S. embassy. 136. On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud
received his passport from the embassy but it did not contain the visas. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud was asked to provide additional information 137. On March 20, 2020, the embassy received the additional documents from Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud and asked him to resend his passport to attach the visas 138. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud resigned from his company, sold his car, and turned down two job offers in anticipation for his travel.
24

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 47 of 149
139. On June 22, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud’s application was stopped due to the extended Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
140. On June 24, Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud received a phone call from the embassy that he was to get his passport without the visa returned to him due to the Proclamation
141. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud around $2000 in processing fees.
142. Plaintiff Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud visa will expire on September 30th, 2020
Plaintiff Suliman Shaath and Family 143. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath is native of Palestine living in Saudi Arabia and a DV-2020 selectee. 144. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath and his family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
25

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 48 of 149
145. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
146. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020AF000996. 147. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath and his family attended their interview at the
embassy in Riyadh City. 148. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath was granted a visa but his family was placed
in administrative processing. 149. On February 19th, 2020, Plaintiff Suliman Shaath’s family submitted
the necessary d5535 forms to the embassy 150. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath started preparing for travel. 151. Plaintiff Suliman Shaath has not heard any additional word from the
Embassy on he and his family’s case. 152. As of June 22, 2020, Plaintiff Suliman Shaath would be denied entry
due to the extended Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Adjudication on his family’s applications have been stopped. Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam and Family
26

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 49 of 149
153. Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam is a native of Egypt currently living in Saudi Arabia and a DV-2020 selectee.
154. Plaintiff Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is a native of Egypt and spouse of Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam. Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
155. Plaintiff Jelan Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is a native of Egypt and child of Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam. Jelan Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
156. Plaintiff Mariam Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is a native of Egypt and child of Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam. Mariam Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
157. Plaintiff Kareem Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is a native of Egypt and child of Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam. Kareem Hany Abdelghani Ahmed Abdelghani is eligible to immigrate to the
27

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 50 of 149
United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 158. Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 159. Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 160. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020AF00019052 161. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam and her family attended their interview at the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia. The family was told that they would be issued the visa after the embassy would verify medical information. 162. On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam received an email stating that the embassy has stopped doing visa processing due to COVID-19 pandemic. 163. On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam received an email from the embassy that the adjusdication of her case was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation.
28

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 51 of 149
164. Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam emailed the embassy asking if she qualified under the exemption due to her being a registered doctor. On June 15, the embassy confirmed she did not fall under the exemption.
165. Plaintiff Nora Abdelkhalek Abdelsalam Abdelsalam had sold her properties and paid many expenses in preparation for travel.
Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic and her Family 166. Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 167. Plaintiff Serdest Heval Ozkilic is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic. Serdest Heval Ozkilic is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 168. Plaintiff Serdar Aram Ozkilic is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic. Serdar Aram Ozkilic is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 169. Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
29

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 52 of 149
170. Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
171. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00005204. 172. On March 3rd, 2020, Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic and her family attended
their embassy interview. 173. Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic was informed that the embassy wanted additional
information via form d5535 before issuance of their visas. Afterwards they were placed in administrative processing. 174. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Ali Ozkilic’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Fatima Akyut and her Family
175. Plaintiff Fatima Akyut is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 176. Plaintiff Özkan Aykut is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff
Fatima Akyut. Özkan Aykut is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
30

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 53 of 149
177. Plaintiff Elif Ece Aykutis a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff Fatima Akyut. Elif Ece Aykut is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
178. Plaintiff Fatima Akyut and her family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to herDV2020 selection.
179. Plaintiff Fatima Akyut completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
180. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00010486. 181. On January 4th, 2020, Plaintiff Fatima Akyut and her family attended
their interview at the Embassy. They were asked for additional medical documentation. 182. Plaintiff Fatima Akyut and her family paid 10,000 turkish lira in English language courses in prepeartion for their travel the U.S. 183. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Fatima Akyut’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending
31

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 54 of 149
adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Zuhal Kaya and Family 184. Plaintiff Zuhal Kaya is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 185. Plaintiff Dincer Kaya is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Zahul Kaya. Dincer Kaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 186. Plaintiff Sude Kaya is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Zahul Kaya. Sude Kaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 187. Plaintiff ElifNaz Kaya is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Zahul Kaya. ElifNaz Kaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 188. Plaintiff Zuhal Kaya and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
32

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 55 of 149
189. Plaintiff Zuhal Kaya completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
190. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU0002115. 191. Plaintiff Zuhal Kaya and his family were scheduled for an interview
with the consulate to take place on April 27, 2020. 192. Due to the U.S. Consulate closing its doors during the pandemic, the
interview was cancelled and has yet to be rescheduled. 193. Had he and his family obtained their visas following the interview, he
would have arrived in the United States in July and enrolled his children in school. 194. The adjudication of Plaintiff Zuhal Kaya’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Celalettin Can Cengiz and family 195. Plaintiff Celalettin Can Cengiz is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
33

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 56 of 149
196. Plaintiff Raşide Cengiz is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Celalettin Can Cengiz. Raşide Cengiz is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
197. Plaintiff Celalettin Can Cengiz and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
198. Plaintiff Celalettin Can Cengiz completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
199. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00010318. 200. The adjudication of Plaintiff Celalettin Can Cengiz’s application was
indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Ozlem Cebeci 201. Plaintiff Ozlem Cebeci is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 202. Plaintiff Ozlem Cebeci was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
34

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 57 of 149
203. Plaintiff Ozlem Cebeci completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
204. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00016314. 205. Plaintiff Ozlem Cebeci’s case number became current and he was
scheduled for an interview on April 6, 2020. 206. One week prior to Ozlem Cebeci’s interview, the appointment was
cancelled. 207. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ozlem Cebeci’s application was
indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale and Family 208. Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 209. Plaintiff Volkan Sale is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale. Volkan Sale is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
35

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 58 of 149
210. Plaintiff Sine Ruya Sale is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale. Volk Sine Ruya Sale is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
211. Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
212. Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
213. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00018296. 214. Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale was then given an interview date, which
was later cancelled and never rescheduled. 215. Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale sold her house so that he would have
sufficient money to not be deemed a public charge and not be a burden on the American welfare system. 216. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hayal Yetkin Sale’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
36

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 59 of 149
Plaintiff Kubra Dogan and Family 217. Plaintiff Kubra Dogan is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 218. Plaintiff Fatih Dogan is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Kubra Dogan. Fatih Dogan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 219. Plaintiff Kubra Dogan and his family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection. 220. Plaintiff Kubra Dogan completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 221. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00022185. 222. Plaintiff Kubra Dogan’s documents were approved and was told that he and his spouse would be getting an interview. However, due to the Department’s policies suspending adjudication of their case, no interview was ever scheduled. 223. The adjudication of Plaintiff Kubra Dogan’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s
37

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 60 of 149
policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Pelin Dincol 224. Plaintiff Pelin Dincol is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 225. Plaintiff Pelin Dincol was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 226. Plaintiff Pelin Dincol completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 227. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00026809. 228. Plaintiff Pelin Dincol’s documents were approved and was told that he would be getting an interview. However, due to the Department’s policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 229. The adjudication of Plaintiff Pelin Dincol’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun and Family 230. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
38

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 61 of 149
231. Cem Dursun is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Burcin Dursun. Cem Dursun is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
232. Ela Dursun is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Burcin Dursun. Ela Dursun is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her mother be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
233. Ozan Batur Dursun is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Burcin Dursun. Ozan Batur Dursun is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his mother be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
234. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun and her family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
235. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
236. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00025044.
39

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 62 of 149
237. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun’s documents were approved and was told that she would be getting an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled.
238. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun has a degree in business administration and is certified as an internal auditing processional.
239. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun’s spouse, is an engineer with a Master’s Degree in business administration, and is currently a PhD student. He is fluent in several languages including English and German, and is also a certified auditor.
240. Plaintiff Burcin Dursun’s daughter is a student in one of the most reputable private schools in Turkey. She also speaks several languages, including English and German.
241. In reliance on the Diversity Visa program, Plaintiff Burcin Dursun and her spouse informed their companies that they would be leaving their companies for the U.S. Because of this, her spouse lost his promotion.
242. The adjudication of Plaintiff Burcin Dursun’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
40

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 63 of 149
Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaia and Family
243. Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya is a native of Russia and a DV-2020 selectee.
244. Maksim Moskalenko is a native of Russia and spouse of Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya. Maksim Moskalenko is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
245. Anastasiia Chaikina is a native of Russia and child of Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya. Anastasiia Chaikina is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her mother be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
246. Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
247. Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
248. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00023268. 249. Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya’s documents were approved and was
told that she would be getting an interview. However, due to the
41

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 64 of 149
Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 250. In reliance on this program, Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya and her family found a school in Pennsylvania where they would love to go. They have been diligently studying English and learning how to drive. 251. The adjudication of Plaintiff Elena Novospasskaya’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Valery Padlipski and Family
252. Plaintiff Valery Padlipski is a native of Belarus and a DV-2020 selectee.
253. Plaintiff Volha Padlipskaya is a native of Belarus and spouse of Plaintiff Valery Padlipski. Volha Padlipskaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
254. Plaintiff Tatsiana Padlipskaya is a native of Belarus and child of Plaintiff Valery Padlipski. Tatsiana Padlipskaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
42

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 65 of 149
255. Plaintiff Natallia Padlipskaya is a native of Belarus and child of Plaintiff Valery Padlipski. Natallia Padlipskaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
256. Plaintiff Valery Padlipski and their family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
257. Plaintiff Valery Padlipski completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
258. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00027339. 259. On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff Valery Padlipski received a letter from
KCC indicating they have submitted all the documentation they needed and would be scheduled for an interview. 260. To this day Plaintiff Valery Padlipski and their family have not received a scheduled interview. 261. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Valery Padlipski’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending
43

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 66 of 149
adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel and Family 262. Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel is a native of Turkey and a DV2020selectee 263. Plaintiff Omaykan Yuksel is a native of Turkey and a spouse of Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel. Omaykan Yuksel is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 264. Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel and their family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 265. Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 266. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00019979. 267. Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel was scheduled to have his Medical appointment for April 11th, 2020 and his interview for the Embassy of Ankara on April 24, 2020.
44

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 67 of 149
268. Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel’s interviews were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He has not been rescheduled for his interviews.
269. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Neslihan Benan Yuksel’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya and Family 270. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya is a native of Belarus and a DV-2020 selectee. 271. Plaintiff Alexander Krashevsky is a native of Belarus and spouse of Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya. Alexander Krashevsky is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 272. Plaintiff Nikita Krashevsky is a native of Belarus and child of Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya. Nikita Krashevsky is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
45

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 68 of 149
273. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya and their family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
274. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
275. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00020290. 276. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya interview at the U.S. Embassy in
Poland was scheduled for April 14th , 2020. 277. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya spent time and money getting medical
vaccination and booking hotels to attend the interview 278. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya’s interview was cancelled by the
embassy due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 279. Plaintiff Tatyana Krashevskaya has not been rescheduled for their
interview. 280. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Tatyana
Krashevskaya’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
46

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 69 of 149
Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich
281. Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich is a native of Kazakhstan and is a DV2020 selectee
282. Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV2020 selection.
283. Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
284. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00030053. 285. On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich was told by KCC
that she submitted documentation and that she would soon be scheduled for her interview. 286. To this day Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich never received a day for her interview. 287. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Yevgeniy Pankevich’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
47

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 70 of 149
Plaintiff Sercan Yilmaz 288. Plaintiff Sercan Yilmaz is a native of Bulgaria and a DV-2020 selectee. 289. Plaintiff Sercan Yilmaz was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 290. Plaintiff Sercan Yilmaz completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 291. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00024232. 292. The adjudication of Plaintiff Sercan Yilmaz’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ibrahim Albatrak 293. Plaintiff Ibrahim Albatrak is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 294. Plaintiff Ibrahim Albatrak was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
48

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 71 of 149
295. Plaintiff Ibrahim Albatrak completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
296. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00032560. 297. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ibrahim Albatrak’s application was
indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu
298. Plaintiff Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
299. Plaintiff Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
300. Plaintiff Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
301. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00028062. 302. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu’s application was
indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s
49

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 72 of 149
policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Efe Arslan 303. Plaintiff Efe Arslan is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 304. Plaintiff Efe Arslan was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 305. Plaintiff Efe Arslan completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of his DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 306. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00015666. 307. The adjudication of Plaintiff Efe Arslan’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Pelin Koroglu 308. Plaintiff Pelin Koroglu is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 309. Plaintiff Pelin Koroglu was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
50

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 73 of 149
310. Plaintiff Pelin Koroglu completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
311. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00015666. 312. The adjudication of Plaintiff Pelin Koroglu’s application was
indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Metin Aladag and Family 313. Plaintiff Metin Aladag is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 314. Oksana Aladag is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Metin Aladag. She was also a DV-2020 selectee with a case number 2020EU00016998. Oksana Aladag is eligible to immigrate to the United States through her own application or as a derivative beneficiary should her spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 315. Rojda Gulden Aladag is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Metin Aladag. Rojda Gulden Aladag is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her father or mother be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selections.
51

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 74 of 149
316. Deniz Aladag is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Metin Aladag. Deniz Aladag is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her father or mother be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selections.
317. Plaintiff Metin Aladag and his family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV2020 selection.
318. Plaintiff Metin Aladag completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
319. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00021255. 320. Plaintiff Metin Aladag’s documents were approved and was told that
she would be getting an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 321. The adjudication of Plaintiff Metin Aladag’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov and Family
52

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 75 of 149
322. Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov is a native of Russia and a DV-2020 selectee.
323. Vlada Chernadchuk is a native of Russia and spouse of Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov. Vlada Chernadchuk is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
324. Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
325. Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
326. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00021255. 327. Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov’s documents were approved and was
told that she awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 328. The adjudication of Plaintiff Nikita Galimzyanov’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s
53

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 76 of 149
policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Aysin Gunay 329. Plaintiff Aysin Gunay is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 330. Plaintiff Aysin Gunay were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 331. Plaintiff Aysin Gunay completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 332. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00049915. 333. Plaintiff Aysin Gunay’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 334. The adjudication of Plaintiff Aysin Gunay’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Adil Ugur Tuncer
54

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 77 of 149
335. Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
336. Gamze Tuncer is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer. Gamze Tuncer is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
337. Arda Tuncer is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer. Arda Tuncer is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her father be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
338. Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
339. Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
340. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00012335. 341. Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer’s documents were approved and he
awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled.
55

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 78 of 149
342. The adjudication of Plaintiff Adil Uguer Tuncer’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum and Family 343. Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 344. Hazan Berk Yurdum is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum. Hazan Berk Yurdum is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 345. Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 346. Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 347. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00027936.
56

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 79 of 149
348. Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum’s documents were approved and she awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled.
349. The adjudication of Plaintiff Gozde Gedik Yurdum’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Naira Oganisyan
350. Plaintiff Naira Oganisyan is a native of Armenia currently residing in Spain. She is a DV-2020 selectee.
351. Plaintiff Naira Oganisyan and her family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
352. Plaintiff Naira Oganisyan completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
353. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00040406. 354. Plaintiff Naira Oganisyan were never assigned their interview date. 355. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Naira Oganisyan’s
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected
57

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 80 of 149
the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees
Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri Ozturk
356. Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri Ozturk is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
357. Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri Ozturk was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV2020 selection.
358. Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri Ozturk completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
359. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00022061. 360. On March 3rd, 2020, the KCC approved Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri
Ozturk documents and told him to wait for his interview date. 361. In preparation for travel to the U.S., Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri Ozturk
turned down promotions and long-term job offers. 362. Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri Ozturk never received a scheduled date for his
interview. 363. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Tuncay Bahri
Ozturk’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that
58

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 81 of 149
affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim and Family 364. Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim is a native of Egypt and a DV-2020 selectee. 365. Plaintiff Ayman Ahmed Mohamed Masoud is a native of Egypt and husband of Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim. Ayman Ahmed Mohamed Masoudis eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 366. Plaintiff Maya Ayman Ahmed Mohamed Masoudis a native of Egypt and child of Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim. Maya Ayman Ahmed Mohamed Masoud is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 367. Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
59

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 82 of 149
368. Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
369. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020AF00035169. 370. Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim and her
family have not been scheduled for an appointment. 371. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed
Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees Plaintiff Esat Unal and his Family 372. Plaintiff Esat Unal is a native of Turkey and a DV2020-selectee. 373. Plaintiff Gulcin Bir Unal is a native of Turkey and spouse of Plaintiff Esat Unal. Gulcin Bir Unal is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 374. Plaintiff Deniz Unal is a native of Turkey and child of Plaintiff Esat Unal. Deniz Unal is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative
60

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 83 of 149
beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV2020 selection. 375. Plaintiff Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Abdelhamid Ibrahim and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 376. Plaintiff Esat Unal completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 377. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU0001919. 378. Plaintiff Esat Unal interview was scheduled in April but was then cancedled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 379. Plaintiff Esat Unal have not received a new date for their interview. 380. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Esat Unal’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya and Family 381. Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya is a native of Belarus and a DV2020 selectee.
61

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 84 of 149
382. Plaintiff Yauheni Lashcheuski is a native of Belarus and husband to Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya. Yauheni Lashcheuski is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
383. Plaintiff Milana Lashcheuskaya is a native of Belarus and child to Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya. Milana Lashcheuskaya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
384. Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya and her family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
385. Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
386. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00016170. 387. On Februrary 19th, 2020, The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Katsiaryna
Lashcheuskaya’s interview for April 1st, 2020. 388. Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya’s interview was cancelled due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
62

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 85 of 149
389. Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya has not received a new date for their interview.
390. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Katsiaryna Lashcheuskaya’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees
Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov 391. Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov is a native of Russia and spouse to Natalia Savenkova. Adrei Savenkov is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should she be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 392. Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov through his wife invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV2020 selection. 393. Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 394. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00001426.
63

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 86 of 149
395. Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov and his family attended their interview in January. Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov wife and child were given their visas but Plaintiff Adrei Savenkov was put into Administrative Processing.
396. Plaintiff Andrew Savenkov never received further communication about his process.
397. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Andrew Savenkov’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees
Plaintiff Marina Dubova
398. Plaintiff Marina Dubova is a native of Russia and DV-2020 selectee. 399. Plaintiff Marina Dubova was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 400. Plaintiff Marina Dubova completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 401. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00011244. 402. The KCC assigned Plaintiff Marina Dubova’s interview date to May 13th, 2020.
64

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 87 of 149
403. Plaintiff Marina Dubova’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
404. Plaintiff Marina Dubova has not received a new interview date. 405. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Marina Dubova’s
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees
Plaintiff Yauhen Palei and spouse
406. Plaintiff Yauhen Palei is a native of Belarus currently living in Poland.
407. Plaintiff Aliaksandra Palei is a native of Belarus and spouse to Plaintiff Yauhen Palei. Aliaksandra Palei is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
408. Plaintiff Yauhen Palei was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
409. Plaintiff Yauhen Palei completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
65

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 88 of 149
410. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00019241. 411. Plaintiff Yauhen Palei in preparation for travel to the United States,
purchased several English language courses. 412. The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Yauhen Palei’s interview for April 6th,
2020. 413. Plaintiff Yauhen Palei’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. Plaintiff Yauhen Palei was told that the interview would be rescheduled when the Embassy resumed visa services. 414. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Marina Dubova’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees 415. On June 25th, 2020, Plaintiff Yauhen Palei received an email informing him that the interview was indefinitely canceled.
Plaintiff Emre Durmaz and Family
416. Plaintiff Emre Durmaz is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 417. Plaintiff Elif Durmaz is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff
Emre Durmaz. Elif Durmaz is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
66

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 89 of 149
418. Plaintiff Simay Durmaz is a Turkey of Belarus and daughter to Plaintiff Emre Durmaz. Simay Durmaz is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should he be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
419. Plaintiff Emre Durmaz and his family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
420. Plaintiff Emre Durmaz completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
421. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00029289. 422. On March 18, 2020, The KCC approved the documentation provided
by Plaintiff Emre Durmaz and instructed him to wait for him interview. 423. Plaintiff Emre Durmaz sold his house and pulled his daughter out of
private school tor prepare for the interview and to travel. 424. Plaintiff Emre Durmaz to this day has not received an interview date. 425. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Emre Durmaz’s
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees
67

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 90 of 149
Plaintiff Eren Deyis 426. Plaintiff Eren Deyis is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 427. Plaintiff Eren Deyis was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 428. Plaintiff Eren Deyis completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 429. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00027031. 430. Plaintiff Eren Deyis spent $3000 and sold investments in order to prepare for the interview. Plaintiff Eren Deyis also postponed his marriage to his fiancé and ended the relationship in anticipation of travel to the U.S. 431. Plaintiff Eren Deyis interview was cancelled due to COVID-19. 432. Plaintiff Eren Deyis has not been rescheduled for another interview. 433. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Eren Deyis’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees
Plaintiff Esra Paker and spouse 434. Plaintiff Esra Paker is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
68

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 91 of 149
435. Plaintiff Anil Paker is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff Esra Paker. Anil Paker is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV2020 selection.
436. Plaintiff Esra Paker and their spouse were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV2020 selection.
437. Plaintiff Esra Paker completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
438. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00028866. 439. On March 12, 2020, The KCC informed Plaintiff Esra Paker that they
received his documents and that they should wait for their interview. 440. Plaintiff Esra Paker never had their interview scheduled. 441. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication of Plaintiff Esra Paker’s
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova and Family
69

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 92 of 149
442. Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova is a native of Tajikistan and DV-2020 selectee.
443. Plaintiff Iskandarov Akmalkhoja is a native of Tajikistan and spouse to Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova. Iskandarov Akmalkhoja is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
444. Plaintiff Iskandarova Anisa is a native of Tajikistan and child to Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova. Iskandarova Anisa is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
445. Plaintiff Ismandariv Anvar is a native of Tajikistan and child to Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova. Ismandariv Anvar is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
446. Plaintiff Iskandarov Damir is a native of Tajikistan and child to Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova. Iskandarov Damir is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
70

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 93 of 149
447. Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova and their family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
448. Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
449. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00031261. 450. The KCC received Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova’s
documents in March of 2020 and told Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova to wait for their interview. 451. Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova have not received a scheduled date for their interview. 452. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Gokmen Maya and Family 453. Plaintiff Gokmen Maya is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
71

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 94 of 149
454. Plaintiff Burcin Maya is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff Gokmen Maya. Burcin Maya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
455. Plaintiff Defne Maya is a native of Turkey and child to Plaintiff Gokmen Maya. Dafne Maya is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
456. Plaintiff Gokmen Maya and their family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
457. Plaintiff Gokmen Maya completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
458. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00019875. 459. The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Gokmen Maya’s interview for April
2020. 460. Plaintiff Gokmen Maya’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. 461. Plaintiff Gokmen Maya have not been rescheduled for their interview.
72

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 95 of 149
462. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Iskandarova Narzisahkon Numonova’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Sevil Koç and Family 463. Plaintiff Sevil Koç is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 464. Plaintiff Gürhan Koç is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff Sevil Koç. Gürhan Koç is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 465. Plaintiff Yağizhan Koç is a native of Turkey and child to Plaintiff Sevil Koç. Yağizhan Koç is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 466. Plaintiff Sevil Koç and their family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV2020 selection.
73

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 96 of 149
467. Plaintiff Sevil Koç completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
468. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00016978. 469. The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Sevil Koç’s interview for April 1st,
2020. 470. Plaintiff Sevil Koç and her husband quit their jobs, sold their car, and
cancelled their lease to their apartment to prepare for travel to the U.S. 471. Plaintiff Sevil Koç’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-19
pandemic. 472. Plaintiff Sevil Koç have not had their interview rescheduled 473. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Sevil Koç’s
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen and Spouse 474. Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
74

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 97 of 149
475. Plaintiff Cemal Büyükgökmen is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen. Cemal Büyükgökmen is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
476. Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen and their spouse were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
477. Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
478. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00021172. 479. On November 13th, 2019, Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen had their
interview scheduled for April 28th, 2020. 480. Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen’s interview was canceled due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. 481. Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen have not had their interview
rescheduled. 482. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Niyaz Büyükgökmen’s
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending
75

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 98 of 149
adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Yuliya Hil and Spouse
483. Plaintiff Yuliya Hil is a native of Belarus and a DV-2020 selectee. 484. Plaintiff Maksim Indziukou is a native of Belarus and spouse to
Plaintiff Yuliya Hil. Maksim Indziukou is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 485. Plaintiff Yuliya Hil and their spouse were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV2020 selection. 486. Plaintiff Yuliya Hil completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 487. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00018930. 488. The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Yuliya Hil’s interview to be in April 2020. 489. Plaintiff Yuliya Hil’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 490. Plaintiff Yuliya Hil has not had their interview rescheduled.
76

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 99 of 149
491. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Yuliya Hil’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz and Spouse 492. Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 493. Plaintiff Taha Yasin Sasmaz is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz. Taha Yasin Sasmaz is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 494. Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz and their spouse were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 495. Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 496. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00019452.
77

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 100 of 149
497. The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz’s interview for April 20th, 2020.
498. Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
499. Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz have not had their interview rescheduled.
500. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka and Family
501. Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka is a native of Belarus and a DV-2020 selectee.
502. Plaintiff Uladzimir Amelchanka is a native of Belarus and relative to Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka. Uladzimir Amelchanka is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
503. Plaintiff Anastasia Amelchanka is a native of Belarus and relative to Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka. Anastasia Amelchanka is eligible to immigrate
78

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 101 of 149
to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 504. Plaintiff Katsiarina Amelchanka is a native of Belarus and relative to Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka. Katsiarina Amelchanka is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 505. Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka and their spouse were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 506. Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 507. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00017582. 508. The KCC scheduled Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka’s interview for April 16, 2020. 509. Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka’s interview was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 510. Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka have not had their interview rescheduled. 511. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Volha Amelchanka’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected
79

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 102 of 149
the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova and Family
512. Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova is a native of Kazakhstan and a DV-2020 selectee.
513. Plaintiff Sergey Kuznetsova is a native of Kazakhstan and spouse to Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova. Sergey Kuznetsova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
514. Plaintiff Nikita Kuznetsova is a native of Kazakhstan and child to Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova. Nikita Kuznetsova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
515. Plaintiff Bogdan Kuznetsova is a native of Kazakhstan and child to Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova. Bogdan Kuznetsova is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
516. Plaintiff Egor Kuznetsova is a native of Kazakhstan and relative to Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova. Egor Kuznetsova is eligible to immigrate to the
80

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 103 of 149
United States as a derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 517. Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova and their spouse were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 518. Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 519. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU25832. 520. On March 18th, 2020, KCC received the documentation and informed Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova to wait for their interview. 521. Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova have not been scheduled for an interview. 522. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Yuliya Kuznetsova’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk 523. Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
81

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 104 of 149
524. Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection.
525. Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
526. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00052362. 527. On March 18th, 2020, KCC received the documentation and informed
Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk to wait for their interview. 528. Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk have not been scheduled for an interview. 529. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Gencay Ertunk
application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Oytun Lacin and Spouse 530. Plaintiff Oytun Lacin is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 531. Plaintiff Selin Lacin is a native of Turkey and spouse to Plaintiff Oytun Lacin. Selin Lacin is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a
82

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 105 of 149
derivative beneficiary should they be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 532. Plaintiff Oytun Lacin and their spouse were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to their DV-2020 selection. 533. Plaintiff Oytun Lacin completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 534. The KCC assigned them the case number 2020EU00030488. 535. On March 18th, 2020, The KCC received the documents from Plaintiff Oytun Lacin and instructed them to wait for their interview. 536. Plaintiff Oytun Lacin and his spouse stopped their education and sold their furniture and appliances in preparation for the interview and travel to the U.S. 537. Plaintiff Oytun Lacin have not been scheduled for their interview. 538. On April 22nd, 2020, the adjudication Plaintiff Oytun Lacin application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
83

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 106 of 149
Plaintiff Dogukan Oruc 539. Plaintiff Dogukan Oruc is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 540. Plaintiff Dogukan Oruc was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 541. Plaintiff Dogukan Oruc completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 542. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00026594. 543. Plaintiff Dogukan Oruc’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 544. The adjudication of Plaintiff Dogukan Oruc’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Berkay Aynagoz 545. Plaintiff Berkay Aynagoz is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
84

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 107 of 149
546. Plaintiff Berkay Aynagoz was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
547. Plaintiff Berkay Aynagoz completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
548. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00016379. 549. Plaintiff Berkay Aynagoz’s documents were approved and he awaits
an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 550. The adjudication of Plaintiff Berkay Aynagoz’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Huseyin Kus and Family 551. Plaintiff Huseyin Kus is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 552. Yasmin Hassan Abdelmoneam Elgamal is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff Huseyin Kus. Yasmin Hassan Abdelmoneam Elgamal is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her relative be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
85

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 108 of 149
553. Zeina Mamdough Mahmoud Elazab Elkhouli is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff Huseyin Kus. Zeina Mamdough Mahmoud Elazab Elkhouli is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her relative be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
554. Plaintiff Huseyin Kus and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
555. Plaintiff Huseyin Kus completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
556. The KCC assigned his the case number 2020EU00032155. 557. Plaintiff Huseyin Kus’s documents were approved and he awaits an
interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 558. The adjudication of Plaintiff Huseyin Kus’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ali Kadayifci
86

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 109 of 149
559. Plaintiff Ali Kadayifci is a native of Russia and a DV-2020 selectee. 560. Plaintiff Ali Kadayifci was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 561. Plaintiff Ali Kadayifci completed and submitted the documentation
for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 562. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00014521. 563. Plaintiff Ali Kadayifci’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 564. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ali Kadayifci’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Ozan Gozubuyuk 565. Plaintiff Ozan Gozubuyk is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 566. Plaintiff Ozan Gozubuyk was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
87

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 110 of 149
567. Plaintiff Ozan Gozubuyk completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
568. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00010582. 569. Plaintiff Ozan Gozubuyk’s documents were approved and he awaits
an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 570. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ozan Gozubuyk’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Cevdet Aydin Sun
571. Plaintiff Cevdet Aydin Sun is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee.
572. Plaintiff Cevdet Aydin Sun was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
573. Plaintiff Cevdet Aydin Sun completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
88

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 111 of 149
574. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00028048. 575. Plaintiff Cevdet Aydin Sun’s documents were approved and he awaits
an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 576. The adjudication of Plaintiff Cevdet Aydin Sun’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc and Family
577. Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc is a native of Turkey and a DV-2020 selectee. 578. Bahar Yalcin Dinc is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff
Ozgur Dinc. Bahar Yalcin Ding is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her relative be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 579. Basak Naz Kocyigit is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc. Basak Naz Kocyigit is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her relative be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 580. Berrak Su Kocyigit is a native of Turkey and relative of Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc. Berrak Su Kocyigit is eligible to immigrate to the United
89

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 112 of 149
States as a derivative beneficiary should her relative be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 581. Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 582. Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 583. The KCC assigned his the case number 2020EU00017993. 584. Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 585. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ozgur Dinc’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav and Family
586. Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav is a DV-2020 selectee. 587. Svetlana Viacheslav is the spouse of Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav.
Svetlana Viacheslav is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a
90

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 113 of 149
derivative beneficiary should her spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 588. Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav and his family were invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 589. Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 590. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020EU00038208. 591. Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. The adjudication of Plaintiff Bakaryukin Viacheslav’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Hassan Khader Nassar 592. Plaintiff Hassan Khader Nassar is a native of Kuwait and a DV-2020 selectee.
91

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 114 of 149
593. Plaintiff Hassan Khader Nassar was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
594. Plaintiff Hassan Khader Nassar completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
595. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020AS00012605. 596. Plaintiff Hassan Khader Nassar’s documents were approved and he
awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 597. The adjudication of Plaintiff Hassan Khader Nassar’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Elkhouli Mamdouh 598. Plaintiff Elkhouli Mamdouh is a DV-2020 selectee. 599. Plaintiff Elkhouli Mamdouh was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
92

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 115 of 149
600. Plaintiff Elkhouli Mamdouh completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
601. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020AS00014065. 602. Plaintiff Elkhouli Mamdouh’s documents were approved and he
awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 603. The adjudication of Plaintiff Elkhouli Mamdouh’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees. Plaintiff Olga Kormilina 604. Plaintiff Olga Kormilina is a native of Russia and a DV-2020 selectee. 605. Plaintiff Olga Kormilina was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection. 606. Plaintiff Olga Kormilina completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 607. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00018985.
93

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 116 of 149
608. Plaintiff Olga Kormilina’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled.
609. The adjudication of Plaintiff Olga Kormilina’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef 610. Plaintiff Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef is a national of Egypt and is a DV-2020 selectee. 611. Plaintiff Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 612. Plaintiff Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of hisDS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 613. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020AF00041767. 614. Plaintiff Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the
94

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 117 of 149
Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 615. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ahmed Essam Abd Elaziez Mahmoud Youssef’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Joseph Youssef 616. Plaintiff Joseph Youssef is a national of Egypt and is a DV-2020 selectee. 617. Plaintiff Joseph Youssef was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV-2020 selection. 618. Plaintiff Joseph Youssef completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of hisDS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration. 619. The KCC assigned him the case number 2020AF00034956. 620. Plaintiff Joseph Youssef’s documents were approved and he awaits an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled.
95

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 118 of 149
621. The adjudication of Plaintiff Joseph Youssef’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan and Family
622. Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan is a native of Saudi Arabia and a DV-2020 selectee.
623. Maha Samy Ali Abdulhamid is a native of Saudi Arabia and spouse of Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan. Maha Samy Ali Abdulhamid is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should her spouse be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
624. Yousef Ahmed Mohamed Khalifa Aglan is a native of Saudi Arabia and child of Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan. Yousef Ahmed Mohamed Khalifa Aglan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his father be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
625. Nour Ahmed Mohamed Khalifa Aglan is a native of Saudi Arabia and child of Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan. Nour Ahmed Mohamed Khalifa Aglan is eligible to immigrate to the United States as a derivative beneficiary should his father be issued an immigrant visa pursuant to his DV-2020 selection.
96

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 119 of 149
626. Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan and his family were invited to submit a DS260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to his DV2020 selection.
627. Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of their DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
628. The KCC assigned his the case number 2020AS00024021. 629. Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan’s documents were approved and he awaits an
interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 630. The adjudication of Plaintiff Ahmed Aglan’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
Plaintiff Evgenia Gavrilova
631. Plaintiff Evgenia Gavrilova is a native of Russia and a DV-2020 selectee.
632. Plaintiff Evgenia Gavrilova was invited to submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application pursuant to her DV-2020 selection.
97

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 120 of 149
633. Plaintiff Evgenia Gavrilova completed and submitted the documentation for adjudication of her DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application and Alien Registration.
634. The KCC assigned her the case number 2020EU00039871. 635. Plaintiff Evgenia Gavrilova’s documents were approved and he awaits
an interview. However, due to the Department’s sloth and policies suspending adjudication of his case, no interview was ever scheduled. 636. The adjudication of Plaintiff Evgenia Gavrilova’s application was indefinitely stopped due to the Proclamation that affected the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices suspending adjudications of immigrant visa applications for DV-2020 program selectees.
637. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States of America. He is sued in his official capacity.
638. Defendant United States Department of State is a federal agency of the United States.
639. Defendant Michael Pompeo is the Secretary of the United States Department of State. He is sued in his official capacity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
640. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction). This Court has authority to grant
98

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 121 of 149
relief under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361), the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), and 5 U.S.C. § 702. 641. This Court can also compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld or which is contrary to law, an abuse of discretion, or arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706. 642. This Court also has jurisdiction to review executive action that is ultra vires. See Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322(D.C. Cir. 1996). 643. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1)(A) because Defendant Trump and Pompeo are acting in their official capacity as President of the United States and Secretary of State reside in this District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) due to a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims originating in this district. 644. All administrative remedies have been exhausted by Plaintiffs. 645. The Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability does not apply because Plaintiffs do not challenge final agency action in this case. Rather, Plaintiffs challenge the agency’s delay and refusal to act based on the ultra vires actions of the Department of State and its authority to fail to act. See Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997).
OVERVIEW OF THE LAW
99

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 122 of 149
646. The Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2411 (2018) stated that “[w]e may assume that §1182(f) does not allow the President to expressly override particular provisions of the INA.”
647. Unlike the ban challenged in Hawaii, the presidential proclamation prohibiting the Plaintiffs from entering the country supplants statutory and constitutional authority.
A. Diversity Visa Program 648. The Immigration Act of 1990 created the Diversity Immigrant Visa
Program. The aim of this new program was to encourage greater Diversity in the individuals immigrating to the United States, allowing up to 50,000 visas per year to nationals of countries having low levels of immigration to the United States historically. Public Law 101-649; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c). 649. In accordance with Congressional Mandate, the Department of State grants approximately 50,000 Diversity Immigrant Visas to individuals from the earlier mentioned countries sending a lower number of immigrants to the United States. The individuals are decided through a lottery system. The lucky individuals are selected and approved to receive these visas who are then granted admission to the United states as lawful permanent residents. See 8 U.S.C. §§1151(e); 1153(c);
100

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 123 of 149
650. Millions of potential immigrants around the world submit entries during the Diversity Visa Program application period hoping to be selected. Many applicants apply over multiple years without success. Importantly, under 8 USC § 1153(c)(1), an applicant is only eligible for admission under the Diversity Visa Program during the fiscal year and period he applied in. See also 9 FAM 502.6-2(a) and 502.6-4(b)(3).
651. The Department of State then randomly selects a number of entrants eligible under the Act for the Diversity immigrant visas for that specific fiscal year.
652. The Department of State’s Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”) administers the Diversity Visa Program, which notifies the State Department’s posts of the number of entrants selected in each processing area. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1)(a).
653. The Department of State maintains a computer-generated master list of all selected entrants. Id.
654. The entrants selected by the Department of State are notified of their selection and assigned a visa case number. Id.
655. However, merely being selected at this stage is not the end of the process. The individuals selected must submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application with requisite supporting documents and
101

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 124 of 149
the consular officers review for potential fraud indicators, at which point the case is considered “documentarily qualified” for purposes of visa appointment scheduling. See 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(2)(c) and 502.6-4(d)(1)(a), (b). 656. According to the Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”), once the individual is considered “documentarily qualified” (i.e. vetted for potential fraud indicators and confirmed to have all the necessary documentation in order) the Department of State is to schedule the “documentarily qualified” individual for an interview at his or her United States Embassy or Consulate. 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(1)(b). 657. Indeed, the FAM states at 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2) that the Kentucky Consular Center “will schedule an appointment for a “documentarily qualified” applicant when his or her regional lottery rank number is about to be become current.” (emphasis added). 658. Approval of an immigrant visa under the Diversity Visa Program is not discretionary. The selectee either qualifies or does not qualify. 22 C.F.R. § 40.6 states that an officer may only refuse issuing a visa “upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations.”
B. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) - Presidential Proclamations
102

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 125 of 149
659. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) allows the President to temporarily suspend entry of any class of immigrants or nonimmigrants if he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Because the proclamation refers to entry and mentions 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), it is clear that the proclamation does not apply to persons in the Diversity Visa program who are adjusting status, as no new entry is required.
660. Therefore, the President’s June 22, 2020 Presidential Proclamation must find that the entry of Plaintiffs “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
661. If a detrimental interest is identified warranting suspension of entry by a class of immigrants, the President must state the period for which he intends to suspend immigration of these classes. Id. There is no provision stating that he may do so indefinitely. PLAINTIFFS’ FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DIVERSITY VISAS ARE CURRENT
662. It was the will of Congress to increase diversity among the immigration population when they created the Diversity Visa program.
103

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 126 of 149
663. Without the Diversity Visa program, the overall diversity of the immigrant population would be substantially diminished, which is contrary to the will of Congress when they created the Diversity Visa program.
664. A Visa Bulletin for the Diversity Visa program is published every month by the Department of State, which announces the availability of immigrant visas in the current fiscal-year’s Diversity Visa program.
665. Where a selected individual’s visa shows as current on the bulletin mentioned above, that individual is entitled to an interview appointment at his or her Embassy or Consulate. Indeed, the FAM indicates that the individual should be scheduled for their interview appointment before the visa becomes current.
666. The Visa Bulletin issued by the U.S. Department of State in July 2020 indicates under its Diversity Immigrant Category that all Plaintiffs are current and have available immigrant visas. See Visa Bulletin for July, Number 43, Volume X, Department of State, Washington, D.C., available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visabulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-for-july-2020.html/.
667. The President of the United States has repeatedly called for an end to the Diversity Visa program, and he is now doing so by Presidential
104

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 127 of 149
Proclamation, and appears to be doing so indefinitely, which violates the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
B. PRESIDENTIAL PRETEXT 668. Although the Presidential Proclamation broadly states that immigrants
will have an “impact” on the U.S. labor market, it does not state what that impact would be nor the support an inference of detriment to the labor market with any citation to economic expertise. 669. Rather, it appears that President Trump’s given reason for suspending immigration to Diversity Visa winners is pretextual given his social media stances vehemently denouncing the program. 670. On November 1, 2017 he equated Diversity Visa immigrants to terrorists:
671. Minutes later, President Trump tweeted again stating that he was going to be “much tougher” on the Diversity Visa Lottery Program:
105

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 128 of 149
672. On November 2, 2017, President Trump called on Congress to terminate the Diversity Visa lottery program, stating in the embedded video that the Diversity Visa Program was “a disaster for our country,” and “the people put in that lottery are not that country’s finest,” and “it’s a very unsafe program for our country, and we are not going to allow it to happen.” (Emphasis added):
106

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 129 of 149
673. In an address on December 15, 2017, the President stated, “[t]hey have a lottery. You pick people. Do you think the country is giving us their best people? No. What kind of system is that? They come in by lottery. They give us their worst people, they put them in a bin, but in his hand, when he’s picking them is, really, the worst of the worst. Congratulations, you’re going to the United States. Okay. What a system—lottery system. We’re calling for Congress . . . to end the visa lottery system.”8
674. On December 29, 2017, the President tweeted again, this time calling the Lottery System of Immigration “ridiculous.”:
8 WHITE HOUSE, Remarks by President Trump at FBI National Academy Graduation Ceremony, December 15, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-fbi-national-academy-graduationceremony/ (Last Accessed July 16, 2020)
107

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 130 of 149
675. Again, on January 4, 2018, the President called for the end of the Diversity Visa Program stating that it was “unsafe and unfair,” far before the present pandemic and the turn of the economy:
676. On January 16, 2018, the President of the United States implied that Diversity Visa Program immigrants were “dangerous.”:
108

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 131 of 149
677. In an address on February 14, 2020, President Trump stated, “[a]nd then you have the lottery. It’s a horror show, because when counties put people into the lottery, they’re not putting you in; they’re putting some very bad people in the lottery. It’s common sense. If I ran a country, and if I have a lottery system of people going to the United States, I’m not going to put in my stars; I’m going to put in people I don’t want.”9
678. On July 29, 2018, the President of the United States stated that he was “willing to ‘shut down’ the government” if Congress did not get rid of the Diversity Visa Program.:
9 AP NEWS, AP Fact Check: Trump spins fiction about Diversity Visas, February 18, 2019, https://apnews.com/56e8c95dab1345bbac9d065eaa1b8152 (Last Accessed July 16, 2020).
109

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 132 of 149
679. At a campaign rally on August 1, 2019, President Trump said of the Diversity Visa Program, “And you pick people out of the lottery. Well let’s see, this one is a murderer, this one robbed four banks, this one I better not say, this one another murderer, ladies and gentleman, another murderer. Do you think [countries] are going to put their great citizens . . . into a lottery? No. . . . . Look at the people they put into these lotteries. It’s a disgrace.”10
680. As is demonstrated above, it is President Trump’s ultimate goal to end the Diversity Visa Program by any means possible. When Congress would not do it for him, he used the Coronavirus pandemic as a weapon and pretext to exclude these immigrants, the Plaintiffs. A. Department of State Actions
10 REV, Donald Trump Cincinnati Rally Speech Transcript: Full Transcript of August 1, 2019 Rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1, 2019, https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-ohio-rally-speech-transcript-full-transcriptof-august-1-2019-rally-in-cincinnati (Last Accessed July 16, 2020).
110

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 133 of 149
681. In a FAQ prepared by the U.S. Department of State, the Department acknowledges that the June 22, 2020 Proclamation applies to Diversity Visa applicants.
682. The Department of State further acknowledged that DV-2020 applicants must obtain their visa or adjust status by September 30, 2020, and that there will be no carry over for DV-2020 applicants if they are unable to obtain their visas (even through no fault of their own) prior to the above date.
683. In random responses to questions on Twitter, the Department of State affirmatively and incorrectly states that the Proclamation suspends the issuance of Diversity Visas, and that they will not issue any Diversity Visas while the Proclamation is in place.
111

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 134 of 149
684. The Department of State indicated that it will not issue Diversity Visas even for DV-2020 applicants who attended their interviews, paid, and passed the interview, but have not received a visa.
112

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 135 of 149
685. Despite indicating that persons unable to travel to the U.S. even with valid immigrant visas at the time of the Proclamation should contact their embassies, the Department of State has failed to reissue new visas to Diversity Visa holders who had approved visas prior to the proclamation’s issuance, but who were unable to enter the United States due to the Coronavirus epidemic.
686. On July 16, 2020, the Department of State stated, “Applicants for immigrant visas covered by the proclamation, including Diversity Visa 2020 (DV-2020) applicants, who have not been issued an immigrant visa as of April 23 are subject to the proclamation's restrictions unless eligible for an exception. No valid visas will be revoked under this proclamation.”11
11 U.S. Department of State, Exceptions to Presidential Proclamations (10014 & 10052) Suspending the Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Presenting a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, July 16, 2020, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/exceptions-to-p-p-10014-10052-suspending-entry-ofimmigrants-non-immigrants-presenting-risk-to-us-labor-market-during-economic-recovery.html (Last Accessed July 16, 2020).
113

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 136 of 149
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Unlawful Proclamation Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) 687. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments stated above as though restated here. 688. The President’s June 22, 2020 Presidential Proclamation broadly states, without citation to any authority, that the entry of all immigrants and non-immigrants affected by this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States because they would have an “impact” on the United States labor market. The Presidential proclamation does not state what that “impact” would be and does not provide the requisite analysis as to why that impact would be detrimental to the United States. 689. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) bestows broad authority on the President to suspend certain classes of aliens, the language clearly states that the President must find a detriment, not broadly claim an “impact,” as he does in his June 22, 2020 filing. 690. In addition, the Plaintiffs, unlike the other classes listed in the immigration ban, are not foreign nationals seeking employment in the United States. They are Diversity Visa Program selectees, and are therefore not a threat to U.S. workers or the labor market. Rather, they would actually
114

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 137 of 149
be lawful permanent residents upon admission, and thus themselves would be “U.S. Workers.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c); 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 691. The President’s social media history proves his animus towards the Diversity Visa program as highlighted above, thereby calling any finding of detriment made by the President into question as pretextual. The President cites to no economic data justifying his immigration ban against Plaintiffs. In addition, the immigration ban does not apply to those seeking Diversity Visas within the United States, so any claimed impact has to be viewed with extreme suspicion since the ban only bars Diversity Visa applicants outside the United States. 692. The President’s new immigration ban also includes persons accompanying or following to join the principal immigrant, including minor children, who would by no means compete with U.S. workers nor have any detrimental effect on the U.S. labor market. 693. In addition, the President’s Proclamation is indefinite in nature, which exceeds the scope and power provided to him by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Although the Proclamation states that it will expire on December 31, 2020, it further states that it “may be continued as necessary.” 694. At first glance, this may seem to comply with the language of the statute. However, when considered together with the first proclamation it is
115

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 138 of 149
clear that the President intends to indefinitely continue the suspension of immigration for Plaintiffs. The previous proclamation, which was made in April 2020, was set to expire in June 2020. The newest proclamation extends the suspension on Plaintiffs ability to immigrate until December 2020. The Proclamation has rendered no analysis to show that Plaintiffs are a threat to the labor market, and many studies on immigrants would suggest that the opposite is true. Therefore, President Trump is unable to show that this extension was “necessary,” and it appears that he intends to extend it indefinitely, particularly if reelected. 695. The notion that this immigration ban is actually one of permanence is further supported by the fact that President Trump’s administration has never ended any of the many similar immigration bans imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) that were previously issued. All remain in existence. 696. This Court should find that President Trump’s April 22, 2020 and June 22, 2020 Presidential Proclamations violate 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Arbitrary and Capricious Actions and Abuse of Discretion in Violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)) 697. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint.
116

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 139 of 149
698. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1), the Department of State is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
699. This Court may review and set aside all relevant questions of law regarding agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. This Court may further review and set aside actions in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or without observance of procedure required by law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D).
700. The implementation by the Department of State of the President’s June 2020 Proclamation suspending the ability of Diversity Visa immigrants and applicants to immigrate to the United States constitutes final agency action, which is reviewable by this Court pursuant to the APA.
701. The agency actions of suspending the adjudication of immigrant visas for the Diversity Visa Program is arbitrary and capricious and abuses agency discretion because the Department of State lacked authority to suspend adjudications of immigrant visas for the Diversity Visa program.
702. The agency actions of suspending issuance of immigrant visas or reissuance of the same for the Diversity Visa Program is arbitrary and capricious and abuses agency discretion because the Department of State
117

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 140 of 149
lacked the authority to suspend issuance or reissuance of immigrant visas for the Diversity Visa Program. 703. The Presidential proclamations that limit the entry of immigrants to the United States do not limit the issuance of visas or adjudication of cases in the Diversity Visa Program. 704. As such, this Court should order the Department of State to resume issuing and reissuing visas to Plaintiffs and resume adjudication of all Diversity Visa selectees prior to the September 30, 2020 deadline, and in an expedited manner to ensure applications are adjudicated before the deadline.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Agency Failure to Observe Procedure Required by Law in Violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)) 705. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint. 706. The APA requires the Department of State to follow notice-and-
comment rulemaking procedures to promulgate substantive rules. 5 U.S.C. § 553. 707. The Department of State was not allowed to suspend issuance of visas or adjudication of cases for the Diversity Visa Program without giving notice and providing opportunity to comment. 5 U.S.C. § 558(c).
118

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 141 of 149
708. The Department of State did not follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
709. In suspending issuance or reissuance visas or continue to adjudicate cases, the Department of State violated the APA’s requirement to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, and this court has authority to compel this unlawfully withheld action. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-Statutory Action for Ultra Vires Conduct)
710. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
711. The Presidential Proclamations issued on April 22, 2020 and June 22, 2020 were issued outside of the jurisdictional limitations of the INA.
712. The Proclamation’s suspension and limitation of the entry of foreign nationals arriving to the United States through the Diversity Visa Program constitutes an ultra vires attempt to regulate the domestic economy.
713. The Department of State’s expansion of the Proclamation’s suspension on the entry of Plaintiffs to the issuance and reissuance of visas and the adjudication of applications constitutes an ultra vires action and is contrary to the INA.
119

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 142 of 149
714. As such, this Court should order the Department of State to resume issuing and reissuing visas to Plaintiffs and resume adjudication of all Diversity Visa selectees prior to the September 30, 2020 deadline. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Agency Action Unlawfully Withheld in Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. § 706(1))
715. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
716. The Department of State has withheld from acting on Plaintiffs’ cases without authority to do so. Actions which are ultra vires to the INA.
717. Because the Proclamation is ultra vires and because the State Department’s application of the proclamation is ultra vires, their suspension of adjudication and issuance of visas constitutes unlawfully withheld action, which can be compelled by this Court under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
718. The Department of State has a nondiscretionary duty to “conclude a matter presented to it . . . within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
719. The Department of State has failed to adjudicate and issue visas for the Diversity Visa program selectees (the Plaintiffs) and their derivative beneficiaries within a reasonable time.
120

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 143 of 149
720. The Department of State’s actions in suspending issuance and reissuance of visas as well as for adjudication of the 2020 Diversity Visa program participants have been effect since at least March 2020.
721. There are just over 2 months left for the Department of State to adjudicate cases prior to the end of the Fiscal Year (September 30, 2020) for the 2020 Diversity Visa program.
722. If the agency is allowed to continue the ultra vires and unlawful suspensions past the September 30, 2020 deadline, Plaintiffs will be barred from obtaining visas for the 2020 Diversity Visa program and will be forced to enter the lottery again, likely never to again be selected.
723. With just over two months remaining in the program, the Department of State has clearly failed to conclude the matter within a reasonable time, even in light of the Coronavirus pandemic. Many of Plaintiffs have already been interviewed, and thus any agency action does not require them to “open” to the public.
724. As such, this Court should order the Department of State to resume issuing and reissuing visas to Plaintiffs and resume adjudication of all Diversity Visa selectees prior to the September 30, 2020 deadline and to adjudicate the same in an expedited manner as necessary to complete processing prior to September 30, 2020.
121

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 144 of 149
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3, Cl. 5) 725. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 726. The Department of State’s actions violate the President’s Constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. Art. II § 3, Cl. 5. 727. The President’s invocations of dispensing power are judicially enforceable. See e.g., Angelus Milling Co. V. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 293, 296 (1945). 728. The Take Care Clause imposes upon the president a mandate to respect the work and role of Congress. 729. Congress made its intent clear in the INA regarding the adjudication and issuance of visas for the Diversity Visa program. Therefore, the State Department’s unlawful and ultra vires suspension of and untimely adjudication of cases and issuance or reissuance of visas is “unfaithful” to the INA, and thus an invalid action under the Take Care Clause. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Const, Amend. V)
122

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 145 of 149
730. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
731. Plaintiffs have a cognizable due process right. 732. Because the Department of State has not provided any notice or
meaningful opportunity to comment on its application of the Presidential Proclamations, the Department of State’s refusal to issue or reissue visas or adjudicate applications is an unconstitutional violation of the due process clause.
EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const, Amend. V) 733. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the averments in all preceding
paragraphs of this complaint. 734. Defendants’ refusal to issue visas to immigrants in the Diversity Visa
program who consular process from abroad while simultaneously continuing to issue visas to immigrants in the Diversity Visa program inside the United States (through adjustment of status) constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States, because it causes a disparate impact on the Plaintiffs and is not made with a rational basis. 735. Those individuals who receive their Diversity Visas from inside the United States are just as likely to enter the labor pool as those participating
123

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 146 of 149
in the program outside the United States. Therefore, not only does President Trump’s pretextual and extremely vague finding of “impact” on the labor market not hold water because of his preexisting animus toward the Diversity Visa program, it also violates the Constitution in that two groups within the same program are treated disparately without a rational basis for treating them differently. 736. Thus, this Court should declare as unconstitutional the disparate treatment of Plaintiffs and order Defendants to adjudicate their claims, issue visas, and allow their admission into the United States.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 737. Plaintiffs reserve the right to add additional allegations of agency
error and related causes of action upon receiving the certified administrative record.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief: (1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
124

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 147 of 149
(2) Enjoin the Department of State from suspending issuance and reissuance of visas for the Diversity Visa Program and from otherwise suspending the adjudication of Diversity Visa Program cases.
(3) Order the immediate entry of Plaintiffs who have been denied entry despite having a validly issued Diversity Visas;
(4) Order the immediate reissuance of visa stamps to Plaintiffs whose visas have expired due to their not being able to enter the United States during the Coronavirus pandemic;
(5) Order the immediate issuance of visa stamps to Plaintiffs who have been approved but who have not received their visa stamps;
(6) Order the immediate rescheduling of interviews for Plaintiffs who have submitted the required documentation and who either had their interviews cancelled or who are waiting on new interviews, and that if approved visas for these Plaintiffs will be expeditiously issued; and
(7) Order that all of the above shall be done prior to the expiry of the Diversity Visa-2020 program on September 30, 2020.
(8) Alternatively, in equity, extend the validity period of the Diversity Visa-2020 selectees to September 30, 2021.
125

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 148 of 149
(9) Award Plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees under the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other applicable law;
and
(10) Enter all necessary writs, injunctions, and orders as justice and
equity require.
(11) Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted this the 16th day of July, 2020,
Charles H. Kuck Phillip C. Kuck Danielle M. Claffey
s/Charles H. Kuck CHARLES H. KUCK Kuck Baxter Immigration, LLC Bar No. 429940 365 Northridge Rd, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 404.816.8611 ckuck@immigration.net
Greg Siskind Siskind Susser PC 1028 Oakhaven Rd. Memphis, TN 39118
Jeff D. Joseph Joseph & Hall P.C. 12203 East Second Avenue Aurora, CO 80011
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
126

Case 1:20-cv-01926 Document 1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 149 of 149
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served by certified mail, on: Donald J. Trump President of the United States of America U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530
Michael Pompeo Secretary, U.S. Department of State c/o The Executive Office Office of the Legal Advisor, Suite 5.600 600 19th St NW, Washington, D.C. 20522
Michael Sherwin, Acting U.S. Attorney The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Colombia 555 4th St NW, Washington, DC 20530
KUCK BAXTER IMMIGRATION LLC,
/s/ Charles H. Kuck Charles H. Kuck, Esq. GA Bar Number: 429940 365 Northridge Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 Phone: 404-816-8611 Fax: 404-816-8615
127

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01926-JDB Document 19 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AFSIN AKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-1926 (JDB)

ORDER Plaintiffs are 149 candidates for Diversity Visas and their derivative beneficiaries, who challenge the implementation of Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, which the Department of State allegedly has interpreted to bar the processing and issuing of Diversity Visas. See First Am. Compl. for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief & for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 3] ¶¶ 1–19. Before the Court are defendants’ motions to reassign and for transfer of this case. See Defs.’ Notice of Related Case & Mots. to Reassign & for Transfer of This Case (“Defs.’ Mot.”) [ECF No. 7] at 1. Defendants argue that this case “involve[s] common issues of fact, grow[s] out of the same event or transaction, and involve[s] the same parties and relate[s] to the same subject matter” as three other previously filed cases: Nguyen v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 20-cv-718 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 12, 2020); Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (D.D.C. filed May 28, 2020); and Mohammed v. Pompeo, No. 20-cv-1856 (D.D.C. filed July 9, 2020). Defs.’ Mot. at 1 (internal citations omitted). The two earliest cases, Nguyen and Gomez, were both directly assigned to Judge Mehta, and just yesterday, Judge Mehta determined that Mohammed was related to Gomez. See Order, Mohammed v. Pompeo, Case No. 20-cv-1856 (APM), at *1–2 (D.D.C.

Case 1:20-cv-01926-JDB Document 19 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 4
Aug. 3, 2020). The Court concludes that this case, too, is related to Gomez and, for the reasons explained below, will grant defendants’ motion to transfer.1
“Civil cases ‘are deemed related when the earliest is still pending on the merits in the District Court and they (i) relate to common property, or (ii) involve common issues of fact, or (iii) grow out of the same event or transaction, or (iv) involve the validity or infringement of the same patent.’” Autumn Journey House, Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F. Supp. 2d 135, 139–40 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting LCvR 40.5(a)(3)). Under Local Rule 40.5(c)(2), “[w]here the existence of related cases . . . is revealed after the cases are assigned, the judge having the later-numbered case may transfer that case to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment to the judge having the earlier case.” LCvR 40.5(c)(2). Likewise, objections to such designations “shall be determined by the judge to whom the case is assigned” (i.e., the judge with the later-numbered case). LCvR 40.5(c)(3).
Following the standards set out in Local Rule 40.5, the Court concludes that the present litigation is related to Gomez. The two cases involve similarly situated plaintiffs (eligible applicants for the 2020 Diversity Visa program), overlapping defendants (President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo), parallel claims (challenges to Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052 based on the Administrative Procedure Act and on their being ultra vires Executive actions), and many of the same requested forms of relief (injunctive relief requiring officials to continue processing Diversity Visas). Hence, each case “grow[s] out of the same event” and “involve[s] common issues of fact.” LCvR 40.5(a)(3).
Plaintiffs’ objections to these cases’ relatedness are unpersuasive. First, plaintiffs contest this designation, arguing that Gomez is unrelated “because it challenges the Presidential
1 The Court focuses its discussion on Gomez, which includes claims by applicants under the Diversity Visa program, see First Am. Compl., Gomez v. Trump, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-014919 (D.D.C. July 17, 2020), ECF No. 46 ¶¶ 1–4, 24–20, but acknowledges that claims relating to the Diversity Visa program appear to have been dropped from the Second Amended Complaint in Nguyen, see generally Second Am. Compl., No. 1:20-cv-718 (APM) (D.D.C. July 14, 2020), ECF No. 28. Because the Court concludes that this case is related to Gomez, however, it need not consider its relatedness to Nguyen.

Case 1:20-cv-01926-JDB Document 19 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 4
Proclamations at large and includes the full spectrum of plaintiffs who are subject to the travel ban, not just DV selectees.” Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mots. to Reassign & for Transfer of This Case (“Pls.’ Oppn”) [ECF No. 11] at 4. But a case “need not present entirely identical factual issues and legal claims to be sufficiently related.” Comm. on Judiciary v. McGahn, 391 F. Supp. 3d 116, 122 (D.D.C. 2019). Here, both cases involve candidates for a Diversity Visa, raise APA and ultra vires challenges to the same Presidential Proclamations, and include claims for similar injunctive relief. Thus, even if each case has separate legal and remedial issues beyond these shared concerns, allowing one judge to consider both cases still improves judicial economy.
Plaintiffs next contend that the fact that both cases arise from Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052 does not necessarily mean that they arise out of the “same event or transaction,” LCvR 40.5(a)(3), because considering “related” all cases touching on “the same sweeping Proclamation” would undermine the general rule that “all new cases filed in this courthouse are randomly assigned,” Singh v. McConville, 187 F. Supp. 3d 152, 154 (D.D.C. 2016). See Pls.’ Opp’n at 4–5. But the similarity of these cases does not stop at the fact that both relate to the same two Presidential Proclamations; as noted above, they involve similar plaintiffs, defendants, claims, and requests for relief. Moreover, given that plaintiffs themselves have argued that this case is related to Mohammed, see Notice of Designation of Related Civil Case [ECF No. 13] at 1, which is now before Judge Mehta, it seems that plaintiffs themselves agree that at least some efficiency will be gained by the transfer.
Finally, plaintiffs warn that the pending motion for a temporary restraining order in this case would somehow “be eviscerated if forced to join a case challenging every single aspect of the Proclamations, especially given the short time frame under which Plaintiffs are operating.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 5. Although it is true that plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order may require swift action, their argument that its pendency makes the case ill-suited for transfer to Judge Mehta is unpersuasive. Indeed, if anything, Judge Mehta is better situated to address questions stemming

Case 1:20-cv-01926-JDB Document 19 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 4

from these Presidential Proclamations, as he has already been considering the legal implications

of these Executive actions since Nguyen was filed in March and Gomez in May. This Court was

assigned to this case only two weeks ago. And, in any event, transferring this case will in no way

materially delay the resolution of the pending motion; transfer is a straightforward administrative

process that will allow for the ready adjudication of this motion.

In light of the foregoing reasons, and upon consideration of the entire record herein, it is

hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motions to reassign and for transfer of this case are

GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that this case will be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management

Committee for reassignment to Judge Mehta.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2020

/s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge

 </s> U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-01907-APM

PANDA et al v. WOLF Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Case in other court: USCA, 20-05284 Cause: 05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions

Date Filed: 07/14/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff CHANDAN PANDA

represented by Geoffrey Forney WASDEN BANIAS LLC 411 West Ellet Street Philadelphia, PA 19119 202-615-8315 Email: geoff@wasdenbanias.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LOKESH GHANTA

Bradley Bruce Banias WASDEN BANIAS LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd Suite D100 29464 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 324-5717 Email: brad@wasdenbanias.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NAGESH SHENISETTY

Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address)

Plaintiff SRUTHI KASAM
Plaintiff KARAN MURGAI
Plaintiff LOKESH RAMAMURTHY
Plaintiff RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MOUNIKA DAMARLA
Plaintiff AMAN WADHWA
Plaintiff SOMYA ARORA
Plaintiff KRISHNAN GOPALAN
Plaintiff RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI

represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ANUSHA KUMAR
Plaintiff NAGESH PEDDADA
Plaintiff VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE
Plaintiff POORVA DIXIT
Plaintiff

Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM
Plaintiff NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI
Plaintiff AKSHAY JOSHI
Plaintiff SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN
Plaintiff PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN

represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias

Plaintiff SOBHANA BHARTIYA
Plaintiff SANKEERTH RAJURI
Plaintiff ARDHENDU MISHRA
Plaintiff PRAGYA DIWAKAR
Plaintiff

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RENUKA DESHMUKH
Plaintiff NARENDRA SINGH
Plaintiff PARVEEN KAUR
Plaintiff CHITRA VISWANATHAN
Plaintiff VAMSHI GOPARAPU

represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias

Plaintiff SABITHA POLSANI
Plaintiff PRADEEP GUNDA
Plaintiff DAKSHA NAGPAL
Plaintiff HARPREET SINGH
Plaintiff

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SHIVANI KHANDUJA
Plaintiff KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN
Plaintiff ADITYADEV SINGH
Plaintiff MEGHANA BARKALLE
Plaintiff GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR

represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias

Plaintiff AMMI REDDY KONDA
Plaintiff DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN
Plaintiff ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY
Plaintiff VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI
Plaintiff

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU
Plaintiff AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU
Plaintiff SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU
Plaintiff KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU
Plaintiff NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA

represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias

Plaintiff RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU
Plaintiff SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
MICHAEL POMPEO Secretary, U.S. Department of State

represented by Glenn M. Girdharry U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4807 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Samuel Press U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305-0106

Defendant CHAD F. WOLF Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Defendant ENGENE SCALIA Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor

Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: joshua.press@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron S. Goldsmith U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation, DC Section P.O. BOX 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4107 Email: aaron.goldsmith@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron S. Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron S. Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/14/2020
07/15/2020 07/15/2020 07/15/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC-7338794) filed by DAKSHA NAGPAL, PRADEEP GUNDA, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, RENUKA DESHMUKH, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, LOKESH GHANTA, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, POORVA DIXIT, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, NARENDRA SINGH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, PARVEEN KAUR, AMMI REDDY KONDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, ARDHENDU MISHRA, SOMYA ARORA, SABITHA POLSANI, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, SANKEERTH RAJURI, ANUSHA KUMAR, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, NAGESH SHENISETTY, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, AMAN WADHWA, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, SRUTHI KASAM, HARPREET SINGH, ADITYADEV SINGH, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, AKSHAY JOSHI, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, KARAN MURGAI. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(Banias, Bradley) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
Case Assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (adh, ) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
2 SUMMONS (5) Issued Electronically as to MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD WOLF, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA,

07/15/2020

AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
4 NOTICE Of Lodging Part One of the Appendix by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix, # 12 Appendix, # 13 Appendix, # 14 Appendix, # 15 Appendix, # 16 Appendix, # 17 Appendix, # 18 Appendix,

07/16/2020

# 19 Appendix, # 20 Appendix, # 21 Appendix, # 22 Appendix, # 23 Appendix, # 24 Appendix, # 25 Appendix, # 26 Appendix, # 27 Appendix, # 28 Appendix, # 29 Appendix, # 30 Appendix, # 31 Appendix, # 32 Appendix, # 33 Appendix, # 34 Appendix, # 35 Appendix, # 36 Appendix, # 37 Appendix, # 38 Appendix, # 39 Appendix, # 40 Appendix, # 41 Appendix, # 42 Appendix, # 43 Appendix, # 44 Appendix, # 45 Appendix, # 46 Appendix, # 47 Appendix, # 48 Appendix, # 49 Appendix, # 50 Appendix)(Banias, Bradley) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
5 NOTICE Of Lodging Part Two of the Appendix by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix, # 12 Appendix, # 13 Appendix, # 14 Appendix, # 15 Appendix, # 16 Appendix, # 17 Appendix, # 18 Appendix, # 19 Appendix, # 20 Appendix, # 21 Appendix, # 22 Appendix, # 23 Appendix, # 24 Appendix, # 25 Appendix, # 26 Appendix, # 27 Appendix, # 28 Appendix, # 29 Appendix, # 30 Appendix, # 31 Appendix, # 32 Appendix, # 33 Appendix, # 34 Appendix, # 35 Appendix, # 36 Appendix, # 37 Appendix, # 38 Appendix, # 39 Appendix, # 40 Appendix, # 41 Appendix, # 42 Appendix, # 43 Appendix, # 44 Appendix, # 45 Appendix, # 46 Appendix,

07/16/2020 07/20/2020 07/20/2020
07/20/2020

# 47 Appendix, # 48 Appendix, # 49 Appendix)(Banias, Bradley) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

GENERAL ORDER AND GUIDELINES REGARDING

6

MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 7/16/2020. (jag) (Entered:

07/16/2020)

7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 7/17/2020. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/15/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Proof of Service)(Banias, Bradley) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

8 AMENDED MEMORANDUM re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney, Geoffrey) Modified event title on 7/21/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/20/2020)

9 STATUS REPORT Pertaining to Parallel Litigation and Other Matters by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA

07/22/2020 07/23/2020

ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
10 Second STATUS REPORT Pertaining to Parallel Litigation by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn M. Girdharry on behalf of All Defendants (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020 07/29/2020
07/30/2020

12 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Samuel Press on behalf of All Defendants (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
13 NOTICE (JOINT) Proposing Dates for Telephonic Conference and Other Matters in Response to Order [ECF No. 6] by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. This Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 9 and 10 Status Reports and the parties' 13 Joint Notice, all of which call to this Court's attention various potentially parallel litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concerning the President's Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak dated June 22, 2020 ("Proclamation 10052"). Specifically, in light of the overlap between the instant matter and Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), which also challenges Proclamation 10052's suspension of H-1B visas, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before August 6, 2020, the parties shall SHOW CAUSE as to why the instant case should not be treated as related to No. 20-cv-1419 and transferred to Judge Mehta, either under a specific local rule that requires a related-case transfer or by consent (in the interest of judicial efficiency). The parties' briefs shall be no longer than 10 pages. It is FURTHER ORDERED that each party may file a response to the other party's brief on or before

07/31/2020
07/31/2020 08/03/2020

August 10, 2020, and that such responses (if any) shall be no longer than 5 pages. It is FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic scheduling conference concerning further proceedings in this case is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12, at 1:30 P.M. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 07/30/2020. (lckbj2) (Entered: 07/30/2020)
14 Third STATUS REPORT Pertaining to Parallel Litigation by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron S. Goldsmith on behalf of All Defendants (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
16 STATUS REPORT (Fourth) by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA

08/06/2020
08/06/2020 08/10/2020

NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Order by

17

RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE,

GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA,

MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN,

SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU,

MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA

DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA

ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI

GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI

KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI

REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY

KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA,

KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY

NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA

PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA

MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA

POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH

RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH

RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM,

RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI

SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY,

ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH,

CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney,

Geoffrey) Modified event title on 8/10/2020 (znmw). (Entered:

08/06/2020)

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by ENGENE

18

SCALIA, MICHAEL POMPEO, CHAD F. WOLF re Order,,,,,, Set

Deadlines,,,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,,, filed by ENGENE

SCALIA, MICHAEL POMPEO, CHAD F. WOLF. (Press, Joshua)

(Entered: 08/06/2020)

19 REPLY re [18 ] Response to Order of the Court by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA,

08/10/2020 08/12/2020 08/12/2020
08/12/2020

MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Forney, Geoffrey) Modified on 8/11/2020 to add docket liink (zjf). (Entered: 08/10/2020)

20 REPLY re 17 Plaintiff's Response to Order of the Court filed by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF. (Press, Joshua) Modified on 8/11/2020 to add docket link (zjf). (Entered: 08/10/2020)

21 Case directly reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta by consent. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed to appear for a telephonic hearing tomorrow, August 13, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. The court will circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1). (Entered: 08/12/2020)

NOTICE of State Department website language by MICHAEL

22

POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A - printout of State Department website

language)(Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/13/2020
08/13/2020 08/13/2020 08/21/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/13/2020 at 9:30 AM via teleconference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 8/12/2020, before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Court Reporter:Nancy Meyer) (zgdf) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated during the hearing on August 13, 2020, the court finds that two cases currently pending before the court, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419; and Panda v. Wolf, 20-cv-1907, partially involve common questions of law and fact. Therefore, the court orders that these matters be partially consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). All merits briefing on Counts 1 and 2 of the Panda Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be filed in Gomez. The Panda matter will remain open for briefing on Count 3 of the Panda Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and any other non-merits and equitable issues. The Clerk's Office is directed to ensure that the Panda Plaintiffs and counsel are also registered in Gomez. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/13/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
23 ORDER setting the schedule for further proceedings in this matter. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/13/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/13/2020. Opposition due by 8/24/2020. Reply due by 8/31/2020. Oral Argument set for 9/4/2020 at 1:00 PM via video conference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
24 NOTICE of Recent Agency Activity by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA,

08/21/2020
08/24/2020 08/25/2020

NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
25 Emergency MOTION for Discovery by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
26 Memorandum in opposition to re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF. (Press, Joshua) Modified docket event/text on 8/25/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/24/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Expedite Discovery, ECF No. 25 , by August 28, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/25/2020. (lcapm1). (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/25/2020 08/28/2020 08/30/2020
08/31/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition due by 8/28/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
27 Memorandum in opposition to re 25 Emergency MOTION for Discovery filed by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF. (Goldsmith, Aaron) Modified docket event/text on 8/31/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/28/2020)
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Expedite Discovery, ECF No. 25 . Plaintiffs' request to depose Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Carl S. Risch is denied, as Plaintiffs have not met the test to take discovery to supplement the administrative record. See City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 628 F.3d 581, 590 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs have not shown that (1) the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision, (2) background information is needed to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors, or (3) the agency failed to explain administrative action so as to frustrate judicial review. See id. Plaintiffs' stated purpose in seeking to depose Risch--to probe his personal knowledge about the Proclamations' implementation, ECF No. 25 at 4-5--does not justify discovery under the City of Dania Beach standard. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/30/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/30/2020)
28 REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction [Panda Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction] filed by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU,

08/31/2020
09/01/2020 09/03/2020 09/03/2020 09/03/2020 09/03/2020 09/04/2020 09/04/2020

NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H, # 7 Exhibit I)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

29 WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE FILED 09/01/2020....Emergency MOTION to Quash Witness Subpoena for Hearing on September 4 by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena for Assistant Secretary Risch, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldsmith, Aaron) Modified on 9/3/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/31/2020)

30 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF re 29 Emergency MOTION to Quash Witness Subpoena for Hearing on September 4 (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

MINUTE ORDER vacating the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for September 4, 2020. The court will reset the hearing after issuing its decision in the Gomez consolidated cases. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/3/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

31 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer, Plead, or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants may have until September 29, 2020, to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/3/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 9/29/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/05/2020)

NOTICE regarding consular operations at the U.S. Embassy and

32

Consulates in India by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA,

CHAD F. WOLF (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

33 RESPONSE re 32 Notice (Other) filed by CHAD F. WOLF, ENGENE SCALIA, MICHAEL POMPEO by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU,

09/09/2020

MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J)(Forney, Geoffrey) Modified docket event/text on 9/8/2020 (eg). (Entered: 09/04/2020)
34 MOTION for Hearing - Request for a Status Conference by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/10/2020 09/14/2020
09/16/2020 09/16/2020

MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiffs' Request for a Status Conference, ECF No. 34 . The court is in the process of drafting its decision on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3 , in light of its decision in Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419. No additional hearing on Plaintiffs' motion will be set. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/10/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

35 NOTICE of Correction Regarding Exhibit I [ECF No. 28-7] by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGESH PEDDADA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lexis Advance Search Terms)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiffs'

36

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3 . See the attached

Memorandum Opinion and Order for additional details. Signed by

Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/16/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 36 37
Memorandum & Opinion by RADHIKA ADUSUMILLI, VINOD WINSTON ALBUQUERQUE, GAUTHAM GANESH AMBEKAR, SOMYA ARORA, MEGHANA BARKALLE, KIRUTHIKA BASKARAN, SOBHANA BHARTIYA, MALLIKARJUNA RAO CHERUVU, RENUKA DESHMUKH, PRAGYA DIWAKAR, POORVA DIXIT, LOKESH GHANTA, SAPTHA ASWINI GIDUGU, KRISHNAN GOPALAN, VAMSHI

09/16/2020

GOPARAPU, PRADEEP GUNDA, AKSHAY JOSHI, SRUTHI KASAM, PARVEEN KAUR, SHIVANI KHANDUJA, AMMI REDDY KONDA, SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN, ANISH REDDY KUCHANPALLY, ANUSHA KUMAR, ARDHENDU MISHRA, KARAN MURGAI, DAKSHA NAGPAL, KARTHEEK REDDY NANNURU, VINOD KUMAR PABBATHI, RAVI KRISHNA PALADAGU, CHANDAN PANDA, NAGA MONIKA PENMETSA, NAGA ANUSHA POLINENI, SABITHA POLSANI, PRASIDDHA RAGHURAMAN, SANKEERTH RAJURI, DEVENDRAKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RASHMITHA RAMASAHAYAM, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, SARABU PUDUPPADI SAIRAM, AVDEEP SINGH SANDHU, NAGESH SHENISETTY, ADITYADEV SINGH, HARPREET SINGH, NARENDRA SINGH, CHITRA VISWANATHAN, AMAN WADHWA. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC-7599279. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
38 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals.

09/18/2020
09/29/2020 39
09/29/2020

The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 37 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,,,,. (eg) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

USCA Case Number 20-5284 re 37 (zrdj) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Consent MOTION to Stay re Set/Reset Deadlines by MICHAEL POMPEO, ENGENE SCALIA, CHAD F. WOLF (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' Consent Motion Requesting

a Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal, ECF No. 39 . This matter is hereby stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal before the D.C. Circuit. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report within five days of the issuance of the mandate that proposes a schedule for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

10/22/2020 20:26:54

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 22

Cost:

Poortenga
1:20-cv-01907APM 2.20

 </s> CLOSED,CONSOL,MANDAMUS,TYPE-E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-01926-APM

AKER et al v. TRUMP et al Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Cases: 1:20-cv-01856-APM
1:20-cv-02128-APM 1:20-cv-02639-APM Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

Date Filed: 07/16/2020 Date Terminated: 08/07/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Immigration: Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff AFSIN AKER

represented by Jeff Joseph JOSEPH & HALL, P.C. 12203 E. Second Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 303-297-9171 Fax: 303-733-4188 Email: jeff@immigrationissues.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER
Plaintiff DILARA AYAYDIN

Charles Herman Kuck KUCK IMMIGRATION PARTNERS LLC 365 Northridge Road Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 404-816-8611 Email: ckuck@immigration.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EMRE TARMAN
Plaintiff ERDAL TARMAN
Plaintiff MUSTAFA MADAZLI
Plaintiff UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV
Plaintiff DANAT SHEKHE
Plaintiff MARINA KARPOVA
Plaintiff VIKTORIIA SHEKHE
Plaintiff ANNA SHEKHE
Plaintiff HATICE DEMIR

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff IDRIS DEMIR
Plaintiff MEHMET ALI DEMIR
Plaintiff SINAN CAN DEMIR
Plaintiff ELMAS ZEYNEP DEMIR
Plaintiff LAILA FAIZI SOHAIL
Plaintiff HEDAYATULLAH SOHAIL
Plaintiff SAYFIEV ORIFJON
Plaintiff MOHAMED MAHMOUD DAHY MAHMOUD Plaintiff ZUHAL KAYA

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CELALETTIN CAN CENGIZ
Plaintiff HAYAL YETKIN
Plaintiff KUBRA DOGAN
Plaintiff FAITHIGAN DOGAN
Plaintiff PELIN DINCOL
Plaintiff SERVAN YILMAZ
Plaintiff IBRAHIM ALBATRACK
Plaintiff OZGE PELIN KUYUMCU
Plaintiff EFE ARSLAN

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PELIN KOROGLU
Plaintiff BURCIN DURSUN
Plaintiff CEM DURSUN
Plaintiff ELA DURSUN
Plaintiff OZAN BATUR DURSUN
Plaintiff ELENA NOVOSPASSKAIA
Plaintiff METIN ALADAG
Plaintiff OKSANA ALADAG
Plaintiff ROJDA GULDEN ALADAG

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DENIZ ALADAG
Plaintiff NIKITA GALIMZYANOV
Plaintiff VLADA CHERNADCHUK
Plaintiff AYSIN GUNAY
Plaintiff ADIL UGUR TUNCER
Plaintiff GAMZE TUNCER
Plaintiff ARDA TUNCER
Plaintiff GOZDE GEDIK YURDUM
Plaintiff HASAN BERK YURDUM

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DOGUKAN ORUC
Plaintiff BERKAY AYNAGOZ
Plaintiff HUSEYIN KUS
Plaintiff YASMIN HASSAN ABDELMON ELGAMAL
Plaintiff ZEINA MAMDOUH MAHMOUD ELKHOULI
Plaintiff ALI KADAYIFCI
Plaintiff OZAN GOZUBUYUK
Plaintiff CEVDET AYDIN SUN
Plaintiff OZGUR DINC

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BAHAR YALCIN DINC
Plaintiff BASAK NAZ KOCYIGIT
Plaintiff BERRAK SU KOCYIGIT
Plaintiff BAKARYUKIN VIACHESLAV
Plaintiff SVETLANA VIACHESLAV
Plaintiff HASSAN KHADER NASSAR
Plaintiff ELKHOULI MAMDOUH
Plaintiff OLGA KORMILINA
Plaintiff AHMED ESSAM ABD ELAZI YOUSSEF

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOSEPH YOUSSEF
Plaintiff AHMED AGLAN
Plaintiff MAHA SAMY ALI ABDULHAMID
Plaintiff YOUSEF AHMED MOHAMED K AGLAN
Plaintiff NOUR AHMED MOHAMED K AGLAN
Plaintiff SULIMAN SHAATH
Plaintiff EVGENIA GAVRILOVA
Plaintiff NAIRA OGANISYAN
Plaintiff NORA ABDELKHALEK ABD ABDELSALAM

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff HANY ABDELGHANI AHME ABDELHANI
Plaintiff JELAN HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI
Plaintiff MARIAM HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI
Plaintiff KAREEM HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI
Plaintiff ALI OZKILIC
Plaintiff SERDEST HEVAL OZKILIC
Plaintiff SERDAR ARAM OZKILIC
Plaintiff TUNCAY BAHRI OZTURK
Plaintiff SHROUK MOHAMED IBRAHIM IBRAHIM

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff AYMAN AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD
Plaintiff MAYA AYMAN AHMED MOH MASOUD
Plaintiff ESAT UNAL
Plaintiff GULCIN BIR UNAL
Plaintiff DENIZ UNAL
Plaintiff KATSIARYNA LASHHEUSKAYA
Plaintiff YAUHENI LASHCHEUSKI
Plaintiff MILANA LASHCHEUSKI
Plaintiff ANDREW SAVENKOV TERMINATED: 07/21/2020

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff YULIYA KUZNETSOVA
Plaintiff SERGEY KUZNETSOVA
Plaintiff NIKITA KUZNETSOVA
Plaintiff BOGDAN KUZNETSOVA
Plaintiff EGOR KUZNETSOVA
Plaintiff MARINA DUBOVA
Plaintiff YAUHEN PALEI
Plaintiff ALIAKSANDRA PALEI
Plaintiff EMRE DURMAZ

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ELIF DURMAZ
Plaintiff SIMAY DURMAZ
Plaintiff EREN DEYIS
Plaintiff ESRA PAKER
Plaintiff ANIL PAKER
Plaintiff ISKANDAROVA NARZISAHKON NUM AMALKHOJA Plaintiff AKMAL ISKANDAROV
Plaintiff ANISA ISKANDAROV
Plaintiff ANVAR ISMANDARIV

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DAMIR ISKANDAROV
Plaintiff GOKMEN MAYA
Plaintiff BURCIN MAYA
Plaintiff DEFNE MAYA
Plaintiff GENCAY ERTUNK
Plaintiff SEVIL KOC
Plaintiff GURHAN KOC
Plaintiff YAGIZHAN KOC
Plaintiff NIYAZ BUYUKGOKMEN

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CEMAL BUYUKGOKMEN
Plaintiff YULIYA HIL
Plaintiff MAKSIM INDZIUKOU
Plaintiff FATIMA AYKUT
Plaintiff OZKAN AYKUT
Plaintiff ELIF ECE AYKUT
Plaintiff ECEMNAZ ALCIN SASMAZ
Plaintiff TAHA YASIN SASMAZ
Plaintiff VOLHA AMELCHANKA

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ULADZIMIR AMELCHANKA
Plaintiff ANASTASIA AMELCHANKA
Plaintiff KATSIARINA AMELCHANKA
Plaintiff OYTUN LACIN
Plaintiff SELIN LACIN
Plaintiff VALERIYA NOGAYTSEVA
Plaintiff OLEG KAMANEV
Plaintiff VIKTORIIA GROZEVA
Plaintiff VERONIKA KAMENEVA

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROMAN GROZEV
Plaintiff VALERY PADLIPSKI
Plaintiff VOLHA PADLIPSKAYA
Plaintiff TATSIANA PADLIPSKAYA
Plaintiff NATALLIA PADLIPSKAYA
Plaintiff NESLIHAN BENAN YUKSEL
Plaintiff OMAYKAN YUKSEL
Plaintiff TATYANA KRASHEVSKAYA
Plaintiff ALEXANDER KRASHEVSKY

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NIKITA KRASHEVSKY
Plaintiff YEVGENIY PANKEVICH
Plaintiff EKATERINA KOTLIAR
Plaintiff ADAMA COULIBALY
Plaintiff BURCU ALTUNTAS
Plaintiff NATALIIA SERDIUK
Plaintiff S.R.S. (a minor)
Plaintiff L.C. (a minor)
Plaintiff Z.M.M.D.M. (a minor)

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TOLGA ALTUNTAS
Plaintiff VOLKAN SALE
Plaintiff EVGENII GARKUSHA
Plaintiff ISIN OZEL COULIBALY
Plaintiff HADIR SAYED MOHAMED ATTALLA
Plaintiff VITALII KOTLIAR
Plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS
V. Defendant DONALD J. TRUMP President of the United States

represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Aaron Caplen UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2523

Defendant
MICHAEL R. POMPEO Secretary of the U.S. Department of State

Email: robert.caplen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Aaron Caplen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

#

07/16/2020 1

Docket Text
COMPLAINT against MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC-7351112) filed by Ozkan Aykut, Efe Arslan, Gulcin Bir Unal, Gencay Ertunk, Maha Samy Ali Abdulhamid, Yauhen Palei, Elmas Zeynep Demir, Maksim Indziukou, Mehmet Ali Demir, Vlada Chernadchuk, Zeina Mamdouh Mahmoud Elkhouli, Serdar Aram Ozkilic, Faithigan Dogan, Andrew Savenkov, Ozan Gozubuyuk, Hedayatullah Sohail, Anil Paker, Esat Unal, Yevgeniy Pankevich, Tatyana Krashevskaya, Ozge Pelin Kuyumcu, Cem Dursun, Marina Karpova, Hany Abdelghani Ahme Abdelhani, Yauheni Lashcheuski, Simay Durmaz, Servan Yilmaz, Hassan Khader Nassar, Oleg Kamanev, Damir Iskandarov, Cevdet Aydin Sun, Idris Demir, Valeriya Nogaytseva, Kareem Hany Abdelghani Abdelghani, Bahar Yalcin Dinc, Marina Dubova, Nour Ahmed Mohamed K Aglan, Naira Oganisyan, Shrouk Mohamed Ibrahim Ibrahim, Berrak Su Kocyigit, Olga Kormilina, Viktoriia Grozeva, Ecemnaz Alcin Sasmaz, Sinan Can Demir, Ali Ozkilic, Iskandarova Narzisahkon Num Akmalkhoja, Omaykan Yuksel, Oytun Lacin, Hatice Demir, Joseph Youssef, Anisa Iskandarov, Natallia Padlipskaya, Gozde Gedik Yurdum, Celalettin Can Cengiz, Veronika Kameneva, Emre Durmaz, Yuliya Hil, Volha Amelchanka, Yagizhan Koc, Jelan Hany Abdelghani Abdelghani, Zuhal Kaya, Yuliya Kuznetsova, Fatima Aykut, Gamze Tuncer, Mustafa Madazli, Nikita Kuznetsova, Ozan Batur Dursun, Defne Maya, Nikita Galimzyanov, Dilara Ayaydin, Pelin Koroglu, Bakaryukin Viacheslav, Sayfiev Orifjon, Erdal Tarman, Mariam Hany Abdelghani Abdelghani, Kubra Dogan, Sevil Koc, Bogdan Kuznetsova, Yousef Ahmed Mohamed K Aglan, Suliman Shaath, Basak Naz Kocyigit, Esra Paker, Gokmen Maya, Katsiaryna Lashheuskaya, Aliaksandra Palei, Danat Shekhe, Anvar Ismandariv, Valery Padlipski, Deniz Unal, Arda Tuncer, Eren Deyis, Ayman Ahmed Mohamed Masoud, Nora Abdelkhalek Abd Abdelsalam, Anastasia Amelchanka, Cemal Buyukgokmen, Alexander Krashevsky, Hasan Berk Yurdum, Metin Aladag, Svetlana

07/21/2020 07/21/2020
07/21/2020

Viacheslav, Sergey Kuznetsova, Rojda Gulden Aladag, Viktoriia Shekhe, Berkay Aynagoz, Ali Kadayifci, Aysin Gunay, Elkhouli Mamdouh, Laila Faizi Sohail, Yasmin Hassan Abdelmon Elgamal, Ahmed Aglan, Ahmed Essam Abd Elazi Youssef, Selin Lacin, Maya Ayman Ahmed Moh Masoud, Burcin Maya, Roman Grozev, Ibrahim Albatrack, Tatsiana Padlipskaya, Egor Kuznetsova, Hayal Yetkin, Elif Ece Aykut, Pelin Dincol, Gurhan Koc, Evgenia Gavrilova, Katsiarina Amelchanka, Oksana Aladag, Serdest Heval Ozkilic, Ozgur Dinc, Nikita Krashevsky, Taha Yasin Sasmaz, Huseyin Kus, Niyaz Buyukgokmen, Volha Padlipskaya, Deniz Aladag, Mohamed Mahmoud Dahy Mahmoud, Adil Ugur Tuncer, Anna Shekhe, Elif Durmaz, Emre Tarman, Tuncay Bahri Ozturk, Ela Dursun, Afsin Aker, Milana Lashcheuski, Neslihan Benan Yuksel, Akmal Iskandarov, Utkirbek Abdumominov, Dogukan Oruc, Elena Novospasskaia, Mustafa Dogan Eker, Burcin Dursun, Uladzimir Amelchanka. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
Case Assigned to Judge John D. Bates. (adh, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
2 SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, and U.S. Attorney (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT against MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP filed by OZKAN AYKUT, EFE ARSLAN, GULCIN BIR UNAL, GENCAY ERTUNK, MAHA SAMY ALI ABDULHAMID, YAUHEN PALEI, ELMAS ZEYNEP DEMIR, MAKSIM INDZIUKOU, MEHMET ALI DEMIR, VLADA CHERNADCHUK, ZEINA MAMDOUH MAHMOUD ELKHOULI, SERDAR ARAM OZKILIC, FAITHIGAN DOGAN, OZAN GOZUBUYUK, HEDAYATULLAH SOHAIL, ANIL PAKER, ESAT UNAL, YEVGENIY PANKEVICH, TATYANA KRASHEVSKAYA, OZGE PELIN KUYUMCU, CEM DURSUN, MARINA KARPOVA, HANY ABDELGHANI AHME ABDELHANI, YAUHENI LASHCHEUSKI, SIMAY DURMAZ, SERVAN YILMAZ, HASSAN KHADER NASSAR, OLEG KAMANEV, DAMIR ISKANDAROV, CEVDET AYDIN SUN, IDRIS DEMIR, VALERIYA NOGAYTSEVA, KAREEM HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI, BAHAR YALCIN DINC, MARINA DUBOVA, NOUR AHMED MOHAMED K AGLAN, NAIRA OGANISYAN, SHROUK MOHAMED IBRAHIM IBRAHIM, BERRAK SU KOCYIGIT, OLGA KORMILINA, VIKTORIIA GROZEVA, ECEMNAZ ALCIN SASMAZ, SINAN CAN DEMIR, ALI OZKILIC, ISKANDAROVA NARZISAHKON NUM AMALKHOJA, OMAYKAN YUKSEL, OYTUN LACIN, HATICE DEMIR, JOSEPH YOUSSEF, ANISA ISKANDAROV,

NATALLIA PADLIPSKAYA, GOZDE GEDIK YURDUM, CELALETTIN CAN CENGIZ, VERONIKA KAMENEVA, EMRE DURMAZ, YULIYA HIL, VOLHA AMELCHANKA, YAGIZHAN KOC, JELAN HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI, ZUHAL KAYA, YULIYA KUZNETSOVA, FATIMA AYKUT, GAMZE TUNCER, MUSTAFA MADAZLI, NIKITA KUZNETSOVA, OZAN BATUR DURSUN, DEFNE MAYA, NIKITA GALIMZYANOV, DILARA AYAYDIN, PELIN KOROGLU, BAKARYUKIN VIACHESLAV, SAYFIEV ORIFJON, ERDAL TARMAN, MARIAM HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI, KUBRA DOGAN, SEVIL KOC, BOGDAN KUZNETSOVA, YOUSEF AHMED MOHAMED K AGLAN, SULIMAN SHAATH, BASAK NAZ KOCYIGIT, ESRA PAKER, GOKMEN MAYA, KATSIARYNA LASHHEUSKAYA, ALIAKSANDRA PALEI, DANAT SHEKHE, ANVAR ISMANDARIV, VALERY PADLIPSKI, DENIZ UNAL, ARDA TUNCER, EREN DEYIS, AYMAN AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD, NORA ABDELKHALEK ABD ABDELSALAM, ANASTASIA AMELCHANKA, CEMAL BUYUKGOKMEN, ALEXANDER KRASHEVSKY, HASAN BERK YURDUM, METIN ALADAG, SVETLANA VIACHESLAV, SERGEY KUZNETSOVA, ROJDA GULDEN ALADAG, VIKTORIIA SHEKHE, BERKAY AYNAGOZ, ALI KADAYIFCI, AYSIN GUNAY, ELKHOULI MAMDOUH, LAILA FAIZI SOHAIL, YASMIN HASSAN ABDELMON ELGAMAL, AHMED AGLAN, AHMED ESSAM ABD ELAZI YOUSSEF, SELIN LACIN, MAYA AYMAN AHMED MOH MASOUD, BURCIN MAYA, ROMAN GROZEV, IBRAHIM ALBATRACK, TATSIANA PADLIPSKAYA, EGOR KUZNETSOVA, HAYAL YETKIN, ELIF ECE AYKUT, PELIN DINCOL, GURHAN KOC, EVGENIA GAVRILOVA, KATSIARINA AMELCHANKA, OKSANA ALADAG, SERDEST HEVAL OZKILIC, OZGUR DINC, NIKITA KRASHEVSKY, TAHA YASIN SASMAZ, HUSEYIN KUS, NIYAZ BUYUKGOKMEN, VOLHA PADLIPSKAYA, DENIZ ALADAG, MOHAMED MAHMOUD DAHY MAHMOUD, ADIL UGUR TUNCER, ANNA SHEKHE, ELIF DURMAZ, EMRE TARMAN, TUNCAY BAHRI OZTURK, ELA DURSUN, AFSIN AKER, MILANA LASHCHEUSKI, NESLIHAN BENAN YUKSEL, AKMAL ISKANDAROV, UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV, DOGUKAN ORUC, ELENA NOVOSPASSKAIA, MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER, BURCIN DURSUN, ULADZIMIR AMELCHANKA, Ekaterina Kotliar, Adama Coulibaly, Burcu Altuntas, Nataliia Serdiuk, S. R. S. (a minor), L. C. (a minor), Z. M. M. D. M. (a minor), Tolga Altuntas, Volkan Sale, Evgenii Garkusha, Isin Ozel Coulibaly, Hadir Sayed Mohamed Attalla, Vitalii Kotliar.(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/24/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020
07/27/2020
07/28/2020 07/29/2020 07/29/2020 07/31/2020 07/31/2020

4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Kuck, Charles) Modified filer on 7/30/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/24/2020)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Aaron Caplen on behalf of All Defendants (Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
6 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Defendants. Case related to Case No. 20-718, 20-1419, 20-1856. (Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
7 MOTION to Reassign Case , MOTION to Transfer Case (same as ECF No. 6) by MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
8 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameDanielle M. Claffey, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7391471. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kuck, Charles) Modified filer on 7/30/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/27/2020)
10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NamePhillip C. Kuck, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7391478. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kuck, Charles) Modified filer on 7/30/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/27/2020)
11 Memorandum in opposition to re 7 MOTION to Reassign Case MOTION to Transfer Case filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Kuck, Charles) Modified to add linkage on 7/29/2020 (ztd). Modified filer on 7/30/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/28/2020)
12 Memorandum in opposition to re 8 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS.. (Kuck, Charles) Modified filer on 7/30/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/29/2020)
13 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Case related to Case No. 1:20-cv-01856. (Kuck, Charles) Modified filer on 7/30/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 07/29/2020)
14 REPLY re 6 Notice of Related Case filed by MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP. (Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
15 REPLY to opposition to motion re 7 MOTION to Reassign Case MOTION to Transfer Case (same as ECF No. 6) (same as ECF

07/31/2020 08/04/2020 08/04/2020

No. 14) filed by MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP. (Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
16 REPLY to opposition to motion re 8 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP. (Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
17 NOTICE by MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
18 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameGregory H. Siskind, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7419499. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JELAN HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI, KAREEM HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI, MARIAM HANY ABDELGHANI ABDELGHANI, HANY ABDELGHANI AHME ABDELHANI, NORA ABDELKHALEK ABD ABDELSALAM, MAHA SAMY ALI ABDULHAMID, UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV, AHMED AGLAN, NOUR AHMED MOHAMED K AGLAN, YOUSEF AHMED MOHAMED K AGLAN, AFSIN AKER, DENIZ ALADAG, METIN ALADAG, OKSANA ALADAG, ROJDA GULDEN ALADAG, IBRAHIM ALBATRACK, ALL PLAINTIFFS, BURCU ALTUNTAS, TOLGA ALTUNTAS, ISKANDAROVA NARZISAHKON NUM AMALKHOJA, ANASTASIA AMELCHANKA, KATSIARINA AMELCHANKA, ULADZIMIR AMELCHANKA, VOLHA AMELCHANKA, EFE ARSLAN, HADIR SAYED MOHAMED ATTALLA, DILARA AYAYDIN, ELIF ECE AYKUT, FATIMA AYKUT, OZKAN AYKUT, BERKAY AYNAGOZ, CEMAL BUYUKGOKMEN, NIYAZ BUYUKGOKMEN, CELALETTIN CAN CENGIZ, VLADA CHERNADCHUK, ADAMA COULIBALY, ISIN OZEL COULIBALY, ELMAS ZEYNEP DEMIR, HATICE DEMIR, IDRIS DEMIR, MEHMET ALI DEMIR, SINAN CAN DEMIR, EREN DEYIS, BAHAR YALCIN DINC, OZGUR DINC, PELIN DINCOL, FAITHIGAN DOGAN, KUBRA DOGAN, MARINA DUBOVA, ELIF DURMAZ, EMRE DURMAZ, SIMAY DURMAZ, BURCIN DURSUN, CEM DURSUN, ELA DURSUN, OZAN BATUR DURSUN, MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER, YASMIN HASSAN ABDELMON ELGAMAL, ZEINA MAMDOUH MAHMOUD ELKHOULI, GENCAY ERTUNK, NIKITA GALIMZYANOV, EVGENII GARKUSHA, EVGENIA GAVRILOVA, OZAN GOZUBUYUK, ROMAN GROZEV, VIKTORIIA GROZEVA, AYSIN GUNAY, YULIYA HIL, SHROUK MOHAMED IBRAHIM IBRAHIM, MAKSIM INDZIUKOU, AKMAL ISKANDAROV, ANISA ISKANDAROV, DAMIR ISKANDAROV, ANVAR ISMANDARIV, ALI KADAYIFCI, OLEG KAMANEV, VERONIKA KAMENEVA,

08/04/2020 19
08/05/2020
08/05/2020

MARINA KARPOVA, ZUHAL KAYA, GURHAN KOC, SEVIL KOC, YAGIZHAN KOC, BASAK NAZ KOCYIGIT, BERRAK SU KOCYIGIT, OLGA KORMILINA, PELIN KOROGLU, EKATERINA KOTLIAR, VITALII KOTLIAR, TATYANA KRASHEVSKAYA, ALEXANDER KRASHEVSKY, NIKITA KRASHEVSKY, HUSEYIN KUS, BOGDAN KUZNETSOVA, EGOR KUZNETSOVA, NIKITA KUZNETSOVA, SERGEY KUZNETSOVA, YULIYA KUZNETSOVA, L.C., OYTUN LACIN, SELIN LACIN, MILANA LASHCHEUSKI, YAUHENI LASHCHEUSKI, KATSIARYNA LASHHEUSKAYA, MUSTAFA MADAZLI, MOHAMED MAHMOUD DAHY MAHMOUD, ELKHOULI MAMDOUH, AYMAN AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD, MAYA AYMAN AHMED MOH MASOUD, BURCIN MAYA, DEFNE MAYA, GOKMEN MAYA, HASSAN KHADER NASSAR, VALERIYA NOGAYTSEVA, ELENA NOVOSPASSKAIA, NAIRA OGANISYAN, SAYFIEV ORIFJON, DOGUKAN ORUC, ALI OZKILIC, SERDAR ARAM OZKILIC, SERDEST HEVAL OZKILIC, TUNCAY BAHRI OZTURK, NATALLIA PADLIPSKAYA, TATSIANA PADLIPSKAYA, VOLHA PADLIPSKAYA, VALERY PADLIPSKI, ANIL PAKER, ESRA PAKER, ALIAKSANDRA PALEI, YAUHEN PALEI, YEVGENIY PANKEVICH, OZGE PELIN KUYUMCU, S.R.S., VOLKAN SALE, ECEMNAZ ALCIN SASMAZ, TAHA YASIN SASMAZ, ANDREW SAVENKOV, NATALIIA SERDIUK, SULIMAN SHAATH, ANNA SHEKHE, DANAT SHEKHE, VIKTORIIA SHEKHE, HEDAYATULLAH SOHAIL, LAILA FAIZI SOHAIL, CEVDET AYDIN SUN, EMRE TARMAN, ERDAL TARMAN, ADIL UGUR TUNCER, ARDA TUNCER, GAMZE TUNCER, DENIZ UNAL, ESAT UNAL, GULCIN BIR UNAL, BAKARYUKIN VIACHESLAV, SVETLANA VIACHESLAV, HAYAL YETKIN, SERVAN YILMAZ, AHMED ESSAM ABD ELAZI YOUSSEF, JOSEPH YOUSSEF, NESLIHAN BENAN YUKSEL, OMAYKAN YUKSEL, GOZDE GEDIK YURDUM, HASAN BERK YURDUM, Z.M.M.D.M. (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
ORDER granting 7 defendants' motions to reassign and for transfer of this case. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 08/04/2020. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
Case directly reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta as related pursuant
to 19 Order dated 8/4/2020. Judge John D. Bates is no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties in Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; and Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-

08/05/2020 08/07/2020 08/07/2020
08/07/2020 08/07/2020

1419, shall appear for a telephonic scheduling hearing on August 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. In advance of the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer about a schedule on the pending motions for preliminary injunction and discuss whether case consolidation at least with respect to the diversity immigrant visa plaintiffs is warranted. The courtroom deputy shall circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/5/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/7/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 8/7/2020 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Governments' Responses due by 8/18/2020. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 8/24/2020. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2020 at 1:00 PM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Status Conference set for 8/12/2020 at 11:30 AM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Court Reporter William Zaremba. (zjch) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. Four actions currently pending before the court involve common questions of law and fact: Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv1419; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; Aker v. Trump, 20-cv1926; and Fonjong v. Trump, 20-cv-2128. Accordingly, the court orders that the four matters be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It is further ordered that the Clerk's Office close Mohammed v. Pompeo, Aker v. Trump, and Funjong v. Trump, and transfer plaintiffs and counsel in those cases to Gomez v. Trump. It is further ordered that all filings with this Court shall be filed only in Gomez v. Trump. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice the Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, ECF Nos. 9 , 10 , and 18 . The motions do not specify whether each attorney seeking pro hac vice admission "has or has not been disciplined by any bar, and if the attorney has been disciplined by any bar, the circumstances and details of the discipline," as required by Local Rule 83.2(d). Any renewed motions shall be filed in Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
Cases Consolidated. Case 20-1926 has been consolidated with 201419 pursuant to Minute Order entered 08/07/2020. ALL PLEADINGS MUST BE FILED IN LEAD CASE 20-1419. THE

08/13/2020

PARTIES ARE ADVISED NOT TO ELECT TO SPREAD TEXT WHEN FILING IN ECF. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
20 Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Plaintiffs in Aker v. Trump by AFSIN AKER (Joseph, Jeff) Modified document type on 8/13/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 08/13/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

10/19/2020 22:50:23

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 24

Cost:

Poortenga
1:20-cv-01926APM 2.40

 </s> CLOSED,CONSOL,TYPE-E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-02128-APM

FONJONG et al v. TRUMP et al Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Cases: 1:20-cv-01419-APM
1:20-cv-01856-APM 1:20-cv-01926-APM 1:20-cv-02639-APM Cause: 05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions

Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Date Terminated: 08/07/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Immigration: Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG

represented by Abadir Jama Barre BARRE LAW LLC 30 Broad Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 646-244-8784 Email: abadir@barrelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FESTUS SUH NEBA

Curtis Lee Morrison LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS MORRISON PO Box 7140 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 (714) 661-3446 Fax: (714) 333-4653 Email: curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff M. A.M. S.
Plaintiff CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU
Plaintiff ELIE VARANGBA GIA
Plaintiff GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD

Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison

Plaintiff YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER
Plaintiff K. G.S. M.
Plaintiff ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV
Plaintiff NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA
Plaintiff LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NA VAN DER WEEL
Plaintiff SOFIA SALEH
Plaintiff JESSICA LUILA NKIERI
Plaintiff

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI
Plaintiff AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR A STAIT
Plaintiff L. A. A.
Plaintiff O. A. A.
Plaintiff GIANCARLO CASTELLAN

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address)

Plaintiff POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA
Plaintiff OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS
Plaintiff NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR
Plaintiff AURORA BISOGNIN

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff M. C.
Plaintiff R. C.
Plaintiff LORENC SHABA
Plaintiff LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JULJANA PERGEGA
Plaintiff GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA PAKAMA
Plaintiff JAEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL
Plaintiff RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL

Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison

Plaintiff JEAN LIONGO MBOBA
Plaintiff J. M. M.
Plaintiff J. M. M.
Plaintiff J. M. M.

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff D. E. M.
Plaintiff S. L. M.
Plaintiff MITCH VAN LOOK
Plaintiff RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP
Plaintiff

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG
Plaintiff SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED
Plaintiff A. E.A. E.
Plaintiff A. E.A. E.
Plaintiff A. E.A. E.

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address)

Plaintiff ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG
Plaintiff EVGENIA ZORNIA
Plaintiff ANTON KOZYREV
Plaintiff E. K.

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff M. K.
Plaintiff FRANCESCA MARZANO
V. Defendant DONALD J. TRUMP in his capacity as president of the United States Defendant MICHAEL R. POMPEO in his capacity as secretary of state

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/05/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS against MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC-7424186) filed by

08/05/2020 08/05/2020

JEAN LIONGO MBOBA, J. M. M., OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS, YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, LORENC SHABA, FESTUS SUH NEBA, L. A. A., CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, O. A. A., JAEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR A STAIT, A. E.A. E., LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY, R. C., JULJANA PERGEGA, ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG, JESSICA LUILA NKIERI, POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA, M. K., M. C., NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, E. K., NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR, EVGENIA ZORNIA, SOFIA SALEH, AURORA BISOGNIN, GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA PAKAMA, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, FRANCESCA MARZANO, RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP, M. A.M. S., D. E. M., ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NA VAN DER WEEL, SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED, SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI, ANTON KOZYREV, MITCH VAN LOOK, K. G.S. M., CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG, S. L. M., GIANCARLO CASTELLAN, ELIE VARANGBA GIA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 1:20-cv-01856. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Rafael N. Urena, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7424216. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by L. A. A., O. A. A., YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, AURORA BISOGNIN, JAEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, M. C., R. C., GIANCARLO CASTELLAN, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, A. E.A. E., SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI, CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, ELIE VARANGBA GIA, RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP, E. K., M. K., OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS, ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG, ANTON KOZYREV, LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY, ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, D. E. M., J. M. M., K. G.S. M., S. L. M., FRANCESCA MARZANO, JEAN LIONGO MBOBA, SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED, FESTUS SUH NEBA, NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR, JESSICA LUILA NKIERI, GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA PAKAMA, JULJANA PERGEGA, M. A.M. S., SOFIA SALEH, LORENC SHABA, ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG, AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR A STAIT, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NA VAN DER WEEL, MITCH VAN LOOK, EVGENIA ZORNIA (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020
08/05/2020 08/05/2020 08/05/2020
08/06/2020 08/06/2020

4 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Abadir Barre, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7424217. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by L. A. A., O. A. A., YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, AURORA BISOGNIN, JAEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, M. C., R. C., GIANCARLO CASTELLAN, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, A. E.A. E., SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI, CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, ELIE VARANGBA GIA, RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP, E. K., M. K., OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS, ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG, ANTON KOZYREV, LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY, ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, D. E. M., J. M. M., K. G.S. M., S. L. M., FRANCESCA MARZANO, JEAN LIONGO MBOBA, SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED, FESTUS SUH NEBA, NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR, JESSICA LUILA NKIERI, GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA PAKAMA, JULJANA PERGEGA, M. A.M. S., SOFIA SALEH, LORENC SHABA, ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG, AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR A STAIT, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NA VAN DER WEEL, MITCH VAN LOOK, EVGENIA ZORNIA (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (adh, ) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
5 SUMMONS (2) Issued Electronically as to MICHAEL R. POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties in Funjong v. Trump, 20-cv-2128; Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; and Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419, shall appear for a telephonic scheduling hearing on August 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. In advance of the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer about a schedule on the pending motions for preliminary injunction and discuss whether case consolidation at least with respect to the diversity immigrant visa plaintiffs is warranted. The courtroom deputy shall circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/5/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/7/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 08/06/2020)
6 NOTICE of Errata by L. A. A., O. A. A., YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, AURORA BISOGNIN, JAEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, M. C., R. C., GIANCARLO CASTELLAN, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD,

08/07/2020

A. E.A. E., SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI, CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, ELIE VARANGBA GIA, RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP, E. K., M. K., OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS, ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG, ANTON KOZYREV, LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY, ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, D. E. M., J. M. M., K. G.S. M., S. L. M., FRANCESCA MARZANO, JEAN LIONGO MBOBA, SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED, FESTUS SUH NEBA, NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR, JESSICA LUILA NKIERI, GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA PAKAMA, JULJANA PERGEGA, M. A.M. S., SOFIA SALEH, LORENC SHABA, ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG, AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR A STAIT, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NA VAN DER WEEL, MITCH VAN LOOK, EVGENIA ZORNIA re 1 Complaint,,,, (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/06/2020)
7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by L. A. A., O. A. A., YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, AURORA BISOGNIN, JAEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, RACHEL MBOKEBOTE BOLONKALL, M. C., R. C., GIANCARLO CASTELLAN, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, A. E.A. E., SHERIN ABDELFATTAH ELHANAFI, CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, POIREAULT MALONGA FIENGA, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, ELIE VARANGBA GIA, RAIMUND MATTHIAS HEPP, E. K., M. K., OLEKSANDRA V KAPINAS, ANNE MERVEILLE KIPPE MBANG, ANTON KOZYREV, LEUGOUE MOUTCHEU ROBBY LANKY, ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, D. E. M., J. M. M., K. G.S. M., S. L. M., FRANCESCA MARZANO, JEAN LIONGO MBOBA, SARA HASSAN ELNOUR MOHAMED, FESTUS SUH NEBA, NJINUWOH NDIFON NESTOR, JESSICA LUILA NKIERI, GEDEON MPUTU LUFUNGULA PAKAMA, JULJANA PERGEGA, M. A.M. S., SOFIA SALEH, LORENC SHABA, ELMOUNTASIR AHMED ELKADIR SOURIG, AHMED MOHAMED SAMIR A STAIT, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, LIAN IVETTE AIMEE NA VAN DER WEEL, MITCH VAN LOOK, EVGENIA ZORNIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020 08/07/2020
08/07/2020 08/07/2020 08/13/2020

Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 8/7/2020 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Governments' Responses due by 8/18/2020. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 8/24/2020. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2020 at 1:00 PM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Status Conference set for 8/12/2020 at 11:30 AM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Court Reporter William Zaremba. (zjch) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. Four actions currently pending before the court involve common questions of law and fact: Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; and Fonjong v. Trump, 20-cv-2128. Accordingly, the court orders that the four matters be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It is further ordered that the Clerk's Office close Mohammed v. Pompeo, Aker v. Trump, and Funjong v. Trump, and transfer plaintiffs and counsel in those cases to Gomez v. Trump. It is further ordered that all filings with this Court shall be filed only in Gomez v. Trump. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, ECF Nos. 3 and 4 . Attorneys Rafael Nicolas Urena and Abadir Barre are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
Cases Consolidated. Case 20-2128 has been consolidated with 20-1419 pursuant to Minute Order entered 08/07/2020. ALL PLEADINGS MUST BE FILED IN LEAD CASE 20-1419. THE PARTIES ARE ADVISED NOT TO ELECT TO SPREAD TEXT WHEN FILING IN ECF. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Abadir Jama Barre on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Barre, Abadir) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

10/19/2020 22:53:17

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 15

Cost:

Poortenga
1:20-cv-02128APM 1.50

 </s> U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-01419-APM

GOMEZ et al v. TRUMP et al Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Cases: 1:20-cv-00718-APM
1:20-cv-02128-APM 1:20-cv-01856-APM 1:20-cv-02639-APM Case in other court: USCA, 20-05292
USCA, 20-05332 Cause: 05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions

Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.

represented by Abadir Jama Barre BARRE LAW LLC 30 Broad Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 646-244-8784 Email: abadir@barrelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cleland B. Welton , II MAYER BROWN Goldsmith 53 Ciudad de Mexico Mexico 525591563643 Email: cwelton@mayerbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esther H. Sung JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 713-560-7518 Email:

esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings INNOVATION LAW LAB PO Box 40103 Portland, OR 97240 971-277-2857 Email: jordan@innovationlawlab.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 90027 Los Angeles, CA 90027 323-316-0944 Email: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Hoq LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ California P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 213-973-9004 Email: laboni@hoqlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Ingber MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 212-506-2500 Email: mingber@mayerbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE 707 SW Washington Street Suite. 600 97205 Portland, OR 97205 503-228-6474 Email: nadia@sugermanlawoffice.com TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Manning INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW 5th Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 503-241-0035 Email: stephen@innovationlawlab.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 1331 G Street Ste 300 Washington, DC 20005-3142 781-704-3897 Email: jbless@aila.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tess Hellgren INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 503-241-0035 Email: tess@innovationlawlab.org

Plaintiff
MIRNA S. a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 263-3220 Fax: (202) 263-5220 Email: apincus@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleland B. Welton , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H. Sung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
VICENTA S. a U.S. Citizen

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Ingber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tess Hellgren (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cleland B. Welton , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H. Sung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Ingber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless

Plaintiff 3Q DIGITAL
Plaintiff CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tess Hellgren (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FARANGIS KURBONOVA
Plaintiff ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ
Plaintiff

Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. TERMINATED: 12/14/2020
Plaintiff NAZIF ALAM

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC.
Plaintiff NANCY ABARCA

Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ANGELA SINON
Plaintiff POWERTRUNK, INC.

Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff M.S.
Plaintiff EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO
Plaintiff

Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN KARPES
Plaintiff FATMA BUSHATI

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab

Plaintiff AYA NAKAMURA
Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings

Plaintiff LOIDA PHELPS
Plaintiff

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS
Plaintiff SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH
Plaintiff CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG

Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesse Matthew Bless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadia H. Dahab (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew John Pincus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS MORRISON PO Box 80844 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 (714) 661-3446

Plaintiff MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED
Plaintiff FESTUS SUH NEBA 20cv2128

Fax: (714) 333-4653 Email: curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL URENA 925 N. La Brea Ave Ste 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90038 703-989-4424 Email: ru@urenaesq.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff M.A.M.S 20cv2128
Plaintiff CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU 20cv2128
Plaintiff ELIE VARANGBA GIA 20cv2128
Plaintiff GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD 20cv2128

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison

Plaintiff YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER 20cv2128
Plaintiff K.G.S.M. 20cv2128
Plaintiff ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV 20cv2128
Plaintiff NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA 20cv2128

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA 20cv2128
Plaintiff AFSIN AKER Kuck Baxter Immigration LLC 365 Northridge Rd., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 United Sta 4049498154
Plaintiff ITIDAL MOHAMMEDSALIH T MAHJOUB 20cv01856

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck KUCK IMMIGRATION PARTNERS LLC 365 Northridge Road Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 404-816-8611 Email: ckuck@immigration.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff Joseph JOSEPH & HALL, P.C. 12203 E. Second Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 303-297-9171 Fax: 303-733-4188 Email: jeff@immigrationissues.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff R. M.A. A. (A MINOR) 20cv1856
Plaintiff A.M.A.A. (A MINOR) 20cv1856
Plaintiff

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YURII ISHCHENKO 20cv1856
Plaintiff E.I. 20cv1856
Plaintiff PAWEL MIECZKOWSKI 20cv1856

represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena

Plaintiff FARID KURBANOV 20cv1856
Plaintiff GRAEME JOHN WARD 20cv1856
Plaintiff DMITRII PAVLOVICH VELIKII 20cv1856

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff AFSIN AKER 20cv1926
Plaintiff MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER 20cv1926
Plaintiff DILARA AYAYDIN 20cv1926
Plaintiff EMRE TARMAN 20cv1926
Plaintiff ERDAL TARMAN 20cv1926

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff Joseph (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address)

Plaintiff MUSTAFA MADAZLI 20cv1926
Plaintiff UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV 20cv1926
Plaintiff DANAT SHEKHE 20cv1926
Plaintiff MARINA KARPOVA 20cv1926
Plaintiff VIKTORIIA SHEKHE 20cv1926
Plaintiff CHANDAN PANDA 20cv1907

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias WASDEN BANIAS LLC 38 Romney St Suite 201 Charleston, SC 29403 843-410-9340 Email: brad@wasdenbanias.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LOKESH GHANTA 20cv1907
Plaintiff NAGESH SHENISETTY 20cv1907 Plaintiff SRUTHI KASAM 20cv1907
Plaintiff KARAN MURGAI 20cv1907

Geoffrey Forney WASDEN BANIAS LLC 411 West Ellet Street Philadelphia, PA 19119 202-615-8315 Email: geoff@wasdenbanias.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address)

Plaintiff LOKESH RAMAMURTHY 20cv1907
Plaintiff RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN 20cv1907
Plaintiff MOUNIKA DAMARLA 20cv1907
Plaintiff AMAN WADHWA 20cv1907

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Bruce Banias (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey Forney (See above for address)

Plaintiff SOMYA ARORA 20cv1906
Plaintiff Moraa Kennedy

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
DONALD J. TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States of America

represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation 450 5th St NW Washington, DC Suitte Lsb 5425 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 598-6499 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: christopher.t.lyerla@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868

Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4807 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-532-4142 Email: james.j.wen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division 555 4th Street NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2575 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation, 450 5th Street NW Liberty Square Building Washington, DC 20001 (202) 598-6073 Email: Thomas.B.York@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 555 4th St, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-307-1927

Defendant WILLIAM BARR in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
Defendant

Email: william.chang2@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Aaron Caplen UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2523 Email: robert.caplen@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Defendant MICHAEL POMPEO in his official capacity as United States Secretary of State

represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Aaron Caplen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang

Defendant CHAD F. WOLF in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Defendant J.M.A.A. (A MINOR) 20cv1856

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Wen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Chang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abadir Jama Barre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant GREGORY SISKIND
Movant JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY
Amicus IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE
Amicus STATE OF NEW YORK

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Girdharry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafael N. Urena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Herman Kuck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence J. Joseph LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 700-1A Washington, DC 20036 (202) 355-9452 Fax: (202) 318-2254 Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE/NY 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212-416-6279 Email: ester.murdukhayeva@ag.ny.gov

Amicus STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Amicus STATE OF COLORADO
Amicus STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Amicus STATE OF DELAWARE
Amicus STATE OF HAWAII
Amicus STATE OF ILLINOIS
Amicus STATE OF MAINE

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address)

Amicus STATE OF MARYLAND
Amicus COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Amicus STATE OF MICHIGAN
Amicus STATE OF MINNESOTA
Amicus STATE OF NEVADA
Amicus STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Amicus STATE OF NEW MEXICO

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address)

Amicus STATE OF OREGON
Amicus COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Amicus STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Amicus STATE OF VERMONT
Amicus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Amicus STATE OF WASHINGTON
Amicus STATE OF WISCONSIN

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address)

Amicus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Amicus LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ester Murdukhayeva (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart F. Delery GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 887-3650 Fax: (202) 663-6363 Email: SDelery@gibsondunn.com TERMINATED: 12/31/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Ari Schnitzer GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 887-3775 Fax: (202) 530-9611 Email: dschnitzer@gibsondunn.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ethan Dettmer GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Misson Street Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 415-393-8292 Email: edettmer@gibsondunn.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus GOOGLE LLC
Amicus SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Jonathan N. Soleimani GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-229-7761 Fax: 213-229-6761 Email: jsoleimani@gibsondunn.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe FRAGOMEN, DEL REY, BERNSEN & LOEWY LLP 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 202-349-2174 Fax: 202-371-2898 Email: champe@fragomen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel P. Pierce FRAGOMEN, DEL REY, BERNSEN & LOEWY LLP 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 349-2181 Email: dpierce@fragomen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leon Rodriguez SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 975 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004

Amicus 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Amicus SPOTIFY USA, INC.

(202) 828-3572 Email: lerodriguez@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Alex Scherb SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 300 S. Spring St. South Tower, 4th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90013 415-865-7000 Email: matthew.scherb@jud.ca.gov TERMINATED: 01/26/2021 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan H. Eisenman LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 N. Main St. 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-2212 Fax: 213-978-0763 Email: Jonathan.Eisenman@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus BLOOMBERG L.P.
Amicus IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSORS
Amicus WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL

Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart F. Delery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John David Taliaferro LOEB & LOEB LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Suite 300 East Washington, DC 20001 (202) 618-5015 Email: jtaliaferro@loeb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl W. Hampe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/28/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC7171161) filed by VICENTA S., MIRNA S., DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Trump, # 3 Summons Barr, # 4 Summons Dept. of State, # 5 Summons Pompeo,

05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020
05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020
05/29/2020

# 6 Summons Dept. of Homeland Security, # 7 Summons Wolf, # 8 Summons U.S. Attorney)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. Case related to Case No. 20-cv-718. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Jesse Matthew Bless on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (adh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
4 SUMMONS (7) Issued Electronically as to WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Nadia H. Dahab, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7175389. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Stephen W. Manning, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7175415. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Tess Hellgren, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7175424. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Nadia Halima Dahab is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Stephen W. Manning is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Tess Hellgren is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Matthew D. Ingber, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7176101. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew D. Ingber, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Cleland B. Welton II, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7176117. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cleland B. Welton II, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Matthew D. Ingber is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Cleland B. Welton II is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

10 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym by MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Esther H. Sung, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7176410. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Karen C. Tumlin, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7176416. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

06/01/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 11 , 12 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Esther H. Sung and Karen C. Tumlin are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/1/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Laboni A. Hoq, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7181157. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

14 ERRATA re 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Laboni A. Hoq, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7181157. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Bless, Jesse) Modified docket event/text on 6/2/2020 (eg). (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/02/2020

15 NOTICE of Appearance by Esther H. Sung on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Sung, Esther) (Main Document 15 replaced on 6/5/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

16 NOTICE Regarding Exhibits to Complaint by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. re 1 Complaint,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

17 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew David Ingber on behalf of DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Ingber, Matthew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Laboni A. Hoq is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/2/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

18 NOTICE of Appearance by Cleland B. Welton, II on behalf of DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Welton, Cleland) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

19 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen C. Tumlin on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Tumlin, Karen) (Main Document 19 replaced on 6/5/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

20 MOTION to Certify Class by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Local Civil Rule 65.1(a) Statement, # 2 Exhibit A - Declaration of Charles Wheeler, # 3 Exhibit B - Declaration of Stephen W. Manning, # 4 Exhibit A to the Manning Declaration, # 5 Exhibit B to the Manning Declaration, # 6 Exhibit C to the Manning Declaration, # 7 Exhibit D to the Manning Declaration, # 8 Exhibit E to the Manning Declaration, # 9 Exhibit C - Declaration of Mirna S., # 10 Exhibit D - Declaration of Michael J. Eatroff, # 11 Exhibit E - Declaration of M.T.S., # 12 Exhibit A to the M.T.S. Declaration, # 13 Exhibit B to the M.T.S. Declaration, # 14 Exhibit F - Declaration of Domingo Arreguin Gomez, # 15 Exhibit G - Declaration of Monica Tay Belej, # 16 Exhibit H - Declaration of Vicenta S., # 17 Exhibit I - Affidavit of Brian J. Blackford, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

22 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and For Expedited Decision by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/03/2020 23 NOTICE of Appearance by William Chang on behalf of All Defendants (Chang, William) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference at 4:45 p.m. today, June 3, 2020. The courtroom deputy will circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/3/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020 24 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen Manning on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Manning, Stephen) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020 25 NOTICE of Appearance by Tess Hellgren on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hellgren, Tess) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/3/2020. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/4/2020 at 5:30 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/04/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 6/4/2020. Opposition with respect to specified plaintiffs due by 6/8/2020. Oppositions to Motions for TRO and Class Certification due by 6/12/2020. Replies due by 6/15/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Plaintiffs Mirna S. and Vicenta S. are permitted to proceed under pseudonyms and without providing their personal residential addresses. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/5/2020. (lcapm1). (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

26 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 6/1/2020. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 7/31/2020. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

27 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 6/5/2020. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference at 5:00 p.m. today, June 5, 2020. The dial-in credentials are the same. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/5/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 6/5/2020 at 5:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 6/5/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/08/2020 28 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Benton York on behalf of All Defendants (York, Thomas) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

06/09/2020 29 NOTICE of Appearance by James Wen on behalf of All Defendants (Wen, James) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/12/2020

30 Memorandum in opposition to re 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 Proclamation 10014 (Federal Register), # 2 Exhibit Ex 2 Marwaha Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3 Dus Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4 Second Dus Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5 Bent Declaration)(Wen, James) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/12/2020 31 NOTICE of Appearance by Nadia H. Dahab on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/12/2020

32 Memorandum in opposition re 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proclamation, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Marwaha Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Dus Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Second Dus Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Bent Declaration)(York, Thomas) Modified docket event/text on 6/15/2020 (eg). (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/12/2020

33 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants as Amicus Curiae by IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Memo of Law, # 2 Text of Proposed Order proposed order)(Joseph, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/15/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 33 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants as Amicus Curiae. The Clerk is directed to file Immigration Reform Law Institute's brief submitted with the Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/15/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

34 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION to Certify Class , 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Unopposed) by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 34 motion to extend the deadline to submit their reply briefs in further support of the pending motions. Plaintiffs' reply briefs shall be filed by June 16, 2020. The hearing on the pending motions is hereby rescheduled for June 18, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/15/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 6/15/2020 (lczh). (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' Reply Briefs due by 6/16/2020. Motion Hearing set for 6/18/2020 at 2:00 PM via video conference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. The courtroom deputy shall circulate dial-

in information to counsel. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 8487030, access code 321-8747. (zjd) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020 35 AMICUS BRIEF by IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE. (eg) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/16/2020

36 REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/16/2020

37 REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian J. Blackford, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Brian J. Blackford, # 3 Declaration of Alondra Ramos Flores)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/17/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants may, if they wish, file a surreply brief of no more than ten double-spaced pages (excluding exhibits) by 12:00 pm on June 18, 2020, which addresses Plaintiffs' contentions that (1) Vincenta S. has standing to sue, and (2) Plaintiffs' Class Claims are not moot. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/17/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

06/18/2020

38 SURREPLY to re 20 MOTION to Certify Class , 21 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF. (York, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/18/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Motion Hearing held on 6/18/2020 re 20 Motion to Certify Class and 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Arguments heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/22/2020

39 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Thomas Lyerla on behalf of All Defendants (Lyerla, Christopher) (Main Document 39 replaced on 6/26/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/22/2020

40 NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/23/2020

41 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and denying Plaintiffs' 20 Motion for Class Certification. The parties shall provide the court with a joint status report by June 25, 2020, updating the court on the status of W.Z.A.'s visa application. See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 6/23/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/23/2020 06/24/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/25/2020 (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 6/24/2020 at 4:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/24/2020 06/24/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference reset to 6/24/2020 at 3:30 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 6/24/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/24/2020 42 NOTICE of Appearance by Laboni Hoq on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/25/2020 43 Joint STATUS REPORT by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

06/26/2020

44 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on June 18, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-72. Date of Issuance: June 26, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 3543249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purcha sed from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five

personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

07/01/2020 07/02/2020 07/02/2020

Redaction Request due 7/17/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/27/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2020.(wz) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
45 PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE by DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, MIRNA S., VICENTA S.. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint by July 17, 2020, and Defendants shall file their answer or motion by September 17, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/2/2020. (lcapm1). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Complaint due by 7/17/2020. Responsive Pleading due by 9/17/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/17/2020

46 AMENDED COMPLAINT against WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF filed by MIRNA S., DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, VICENTA S., 3Q DIGITAL, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO IJEOMA GOLDEN, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNIGUET JIMENEZ, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., NAZIF ALAM, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., NANCY ABARCA, ANGELA SINON, POWERTRUNK, INC., M.S., EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, JODI LYNN KARPES, FATMA BUSHATI, AYA NAKAMURA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, LOIDA PHELPS, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/21/2020

47 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jordan Cunnings, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7366438. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI

JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jordan Cunnings, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/22/2020

48 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Plaintiffs Domingo Arreguin Gomez, Mirna S., and Vicenta S. and Advising Court that Plaintiff Mohamed Saleh, Identified as M.S., No Longer Seeks to Proceed Under Pseudonym (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/22/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 47 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Jordan Cunnings is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/22/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/24/2020 49 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Farangis Kurbonova (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/27/2020

50 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/30/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' 50 Motion to Consolidate by August 3, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 7/30/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition due by 8/3/2020 at 10:00 a.m. (zjd) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

51 NOTICE of Appearance by Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Cunnings, Jordan) (Main Document 51 replaced on 7/30/2020) (zeg). (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/31/2020

52 MOTION to Certify Class by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO

ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

07/31/2020

53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Declaration of Nancy Abarca, # 10 Declaration of MD Nazif Alam, # 11 Declaration of Fatma Bushati, # 12 Declaration of Scott Corley, # 13 Declaration of Ralph DeRosa, # 14 Declaration of William J. Gustafson, # 15 Declaration of Jennifer Hunt, # 16 Declaration of Iwundu Epouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, # 17 Declaration of Klaus H. Jepsen, # 18 Declaration of Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jimenez, # 19 Declaration of Jodi Lynn Karpes, # 20 Declaration of Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, # 21 Declaration of Shyam Sundar Koirala, # 22 Declaration of Leighton Ku, # 23 Declaration of Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron, # 24 Declaration of Jose Martin, # 25 Declaration of Aya Nakamura, # 26 Declaration of Terry Newman, # 27 Declaration of Alex Nowrasteh, # 28 Declaration of Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo, # 29 Declaration of Giovanni Peri, # 30 Declaration of Loida Phelps, # 31 Declaration of Carmen Ligia Vidal Pimentel, # 32 Declaration of Laura Rodnitzky, # 33 Declaration of Mohamed Saleh, # 34 Declaration of Angela Sinon, # 35 Declaration of Chad Sparber, # 36 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/03/2020

54 Memorandum in opposition to re 50 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN,

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/04/2020

55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 52 MOTION to Certify Class by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/05/2020

56 Memorandum in opposition to re 55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 52 MOTION to Certify Class filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cleland B. Welton II, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties in Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; and Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419, shall appear for a telephonic scheduling hearing on August 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. In advance of the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer about a schedule on the pending motions for preliminary injunction and discuss whether case consolidation at least with respect to the diversity immigrant visa plaintiffs is warranted. The courtroom deputy shall circulate dial-in information to counsel. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's toll-free public

access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/5/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/7/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/07/2020

Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 8/7/2020 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Governments' Responses due by 8/18/2020. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 8/24/2020. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2020 at 1:00 PM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Status Conference set for 8/12/2020 at 11:30 AM in Telephonic/VTC before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Court Reporter William Zaremba. (zjch) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Four actions currently pending before the court involve common questions of law and fact: Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv1419; Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv-1856; Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926; and Fonjong v. Trump, 20-cv-2128. Accordingly, the court grants Defendants' 50 Motion to Consolidate Cases, and orders that the four matters be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It is further ordered that the Clerk's Office close Mohammed v. Pompeo, Aker v. Trump, and Funjong v. Trump, and transfer plaintiffs and counsel in those cases to Gomez v. Trump. It is further ordered that all filings with this Court shall be filed only in Gomez v. Trump. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

57 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 55 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction, and setting the schedule for further proceedings in this consolidated matter. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/7/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

58 AMICUS BRIEF by STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAII, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF OREGON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, STATE OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF WISCONSIN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Murdukhayeva, Ester) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

59 First MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by GREGORY SISKIND, JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, CHARLES KUCK (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020 60 AMICUS BRIEF by CHARLES KUCK, JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, GREGORY SISKIND. (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

61 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CHARLES KUCK, JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, GREGORY SISKIND (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

62 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7439360. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY, GREGORY SISKIND (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

63 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameGREGORY SISKIND, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC7439381. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by GREGORY SISKIND (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/10/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, ECF Nos. 62 and 63 . Attorneys JOHNNA MAIN BAILEY and GREGORY SISKIND are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/10/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

64 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Leading Companies and Business Organizations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief, # 2 Exhibit Corporate Disclosure Statement, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Delery, Stuart) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

65 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File in Support of Brief of Amici Curiae by Additional Companies (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Hampe, Carl) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

66 Supplemental MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

67 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Rafael N. Urena on behalf of CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG (Urena, Rafael) Modified on 8/12/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

68 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Ethan D. Dettmer, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7446147. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by Leading Companies and Business Organizations (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Schnitzer, David) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

69 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jonathan N. Soleimani, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7446161. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by Leading Companies and Business Organizations (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Schnitzer, David) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/11/2020

70 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Exhibit Amicus Brief)(Rodriguez, Leon) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020 71 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel P. Pierce on behalf of Additional Companies (Pierce, Daniel) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

72 Memorandum in opposition to to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery, ECF No. 09 (20-1856), filed by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) Modified docket event/texton 8/12/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

NOTICE of Hearing: Members of the public or media may access the Status Conference on 8/12/2020 at 11:30 AM by dialing the court's tollfree public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by nonparticipating parties. (zjd) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

73 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Alex Scherb on behalf of 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS (Scherb, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

74 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae Letter Brief by 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS (Attachments: # 1 Amici Curiae Letter Brief 27 Local Governments and Local Elected Officials, # 2 Proposed Order)(Scherb, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/12/2020

75 REPLY to opposition to motion to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery filed by Mohammed Abdulaziz Abdulbagi Mohammed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Urena, Rafael) Modified docket event/text on 8/12/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 59 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Immigration Attorneys. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 74 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The Letter Brief of Amici 27 Local Governments and Local Elected Officials, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 70 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The brief of Society for Human Resource Management and other amici curiae, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The brief of Leading Companies And Business Organizations, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Additional Companies' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Join Brief of Amici Curiae based on the Additional Companies' support for the amicus brief filed at Dkt No. 64-1. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 68 , and 69 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Ethan D. Dettmer and Jonathan N. Soleimani are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/12/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 67 Notice of Appearance was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading with correct case name/number. (eg) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 8/12/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

76 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A to Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit B to Second Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit C to Second Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit D to Second Amended Complaint, # 6 Exhibit E to Second Amended Complaint, # 7 Exhibit F to Second Amended Complaint, # 8 Exhibit G to Second Amended Complaint, # 9 Exhibit H to Second Amended Complaint, # 10 Exhibit I to Second Amended Complaint, # 11 Exhibit J to Second Amended Complaint, # 12 Exhibit K to Second Amended Complaint, # 13 Exhibit L to Second Amended Complaint, # 14 Exhibit M to Second Amended Complaint, # 15 Exhibit N to Second Amended Complaint, # 16 Exhibit O to Second Amended Complaint, # 17 Exhibit P to Second Amended Complaint, # 18 Exhibit Q to Second Amended Complaint, # 19 Exhibit R to Second Amended Complaint, # 20 Exhibit S to Second Amended Complaint, # 21 Exhibit 2, # 22 Exhibit 3, # 23 Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020 80 AMICUS BRIEF by 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/12/2020 81 AMICUS BRIEF by SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/12/2020

82 AMICUS BRIEF by 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, BLOOMBERG L.P., GOOGLE LLC, SPOTIFY USA, INC.. (eg) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/13/2020

77 ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Mohammed v. Pompeo Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery, 20-cv-1856, ECF No. 9. Defendants shall produce a certified administrative record in this matter by August 17, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details.

Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/13/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/13/2020

78 TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on August 7, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-70. Date of Issuance: August 13, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

08/13/2020

Redaction Request due 9/3/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/11/2020.(wz) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
79 ORDER partially consolidating Panda v. Wolf, 20-cv-1907, with the instant case, and amending the court's 57 previous scheduling order. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/13/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/13/2020 83 NOTICE of Appearance by Abadir Jama Barre on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Barre, Abadir) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/13/2020 08/13/2020
08/14/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Certified Administrative Record due by 8/17/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
84 MOTION to Certify Class by AFSIN AKER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Potential Class Members by name and country, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order of Class Certification)(Kuck, Charles) Modified motion type on 8/14/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 08/13/2020)
85 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeff Joseph on behalf of AFSIN AKER, AFSIN AKER (Joseph, Jeff) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020 86 NOTICE of Appearance by John David Taliaferro on behalf of Immigration Law Professors (Taliaferro, John) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020

87 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Immigration Law Professors (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief)(Taliaferro, John) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020

88 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan N. Soleimani on behalf of LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS (Soleimani, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/16/2020

89 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/10/2020. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 10/9/2020.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 08/10/2020., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MICHAEL POMPEO served on 8/10/2020; DONALD J. TRUMP served on 8/12/2020 (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

90 NOTICE of Appearance by Ethan Dettmer on behalf of LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS (Dettmer, Ethan) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 87 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The brief of Immigration Law Professors, attached to the motion for leave to file, shall be deemed filed and the Clerk shall note its filing on the docket. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/17/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall respond to the Gomez Plaintiffs' 76 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint on or before August 19, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/17/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

91 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 92 AMICUS BRIEF by IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSORS. (eg) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/17/2020

ENTERED IN ERROR.....Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 8/19/2020. (zjd) Modified on 8/18/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/17/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 8/19/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020 93 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn M. Girdharry on behalf of All Defendants (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

94 Memorandum in opposition to re 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions For A Preliminary Injunction filed by DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brianne Marwaha, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Rebecca Austin, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Aaron Luster)(Wen, James) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

95 Memorandum in opposition to re 52 MOTION to Certify Class filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Dus Declaration)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/19/2020

96 Emergency MOTION to Compel Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) Modified event title on 8/20/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' 96 Emergency Motion to Compel by 5:00 p.m. today, August 19, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/19/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

97 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Memorandum in opposition to re 96 Emergency MOTION for Order on Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wen, James) Modified on 8/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

98 Memorandum in opposition to re 96 Emergency MOTION for Order on Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL [CORRECTED] filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wen, James) Modified docket event/text on 8/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

99 REPLY to opposition to motion re 96 Emergency MOTION for Order on Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 filed by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020 100 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on August 12, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-43. Date of Issuance: August 19, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 9/9/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/19/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/17/2020.(wz) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel, ECF No. 96 . Plaintiffs' counsel did not meaningfully meet and confer with opposing counsel as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m). Defendants' counsel, Mr. Lyerla, responded to Plaintiffs' counsel on August 18, 2018, within 31 minutes of Plaintiffs' meet-and-confer inquiry. See ECF No. 98-2. According to Plaintiffs' counsel, not one of them received Mr. Lyerla's response, ECF No. 99 ; even so, absent a meaningful meet and confer, ruling on Plaintiffs' motion would be premature. The parties must engage in a genuine meet and confer before the court will consider any renewed motion. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/19/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 8/20/2020 (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020 101 Memorandum in opposition to re 76 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (York, Thomas) Modified docket event/text on 8/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/20/2020

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 97 Memorandum in Opposition,, was entered in error per counsel request. Counsel refiled said pleading in Docket Entry 98 . (eg) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020 102 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020 103 Emergency MOTION for Discovery (Renewed) Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2020 by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs' 103 Renewed Emergency Motion to Compel by 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, August 23, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/21/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/23/2020 104 Memorandum in opposition to re 103 Emergency MOTION for Discovery (Renewed) Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Unredacted Copy of State Department Cable 20 STATE 30920 and the four Webinars providing instructions to Consular Officers On July 1, July 15, July 29, and August 12, 20 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Wen, James) (Entered: 08/23/2020)

08/23/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Renewed Emergency Motion to Compel, ECF No. 103 . The court has reviewed in camera the redacted portions of the administrative record as to which Plaintiffs seek emergency disclosure, namely, (1) 20 STATE 30920, AR 000013-16, and (2) the four webinar slide decks, AR 000198-253. The court lacks sufficient information to decide whether Defendants have validly redacted portions of 20 STATE 30920 pursuant to the law enforcement privilege. That said, the relevance of the redacted portions is not apparent to the court, as none of the portions pertain to diversity lottery visas or any other visa category impacted by Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052. Nor do the redactions bear on the issues of final agency action or Plaintiffs' standing. The court therefore declines to make a privilege determination on an emergency basis. As for the webinar slide decks, the court can discern no relevance of the redacted portions, with one exception. The redactions, generally speaking, do not pertain to any of the visa categories at issue in this case and do not reflect or convey what could be considered a final agency action. The sole exception in terms of relevancy appears on AR 000201, where bullet points two and three seem to address the status of visa processing operations. That information could be probative of the court's ability to redress any alleged injury. Defendants, therefore, shall disclose bullet points two and three on AR 000201; the remainder of that page may remain redacted. These rulings are without prejudice to future reconsideration either after final briefing on the motions for preliminary injunction is complete or if this matter proceeds past the preliminary injunction stage. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/23/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/23/2020)

08/23/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting the Gomez Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 76 . "Leave to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a) shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). "Although the grant or denial of leave to amend is committed to a district court's discretion, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason, such as 'undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive... repeated failure to cure deficiencies by [previous] amendments... [or] futility of amendment.'" Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). None of the Foman factors are present here; Defendants do not contend otherwise. Defendants' sole objections are procedural in nature, and they are not well taken. Plaintiffs met and conferred, as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m), see ECF No. 76-22, and although Defendants complain about the absence of detail during that process, they have not identified any resulting prejudice. Additionally, deferring a decision on the proposed amendment makes little sense given that the proposed diversity visa lottery sub-class seeks relief before September 30, 2020. Accordingly, the Second Amendment Complaint will be the operative pleading in the Gomez matter. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/23/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/23/2020)
08/23/2020 111 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., NANCY ABARCA, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, LOIDA PHELPS, JODI LYNN KARPES, FATMA BUSHATI, MIRNA S., DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, 3Q DIGITAL, POWERTRUNK, INC., ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., AYA NAKAMURA, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, VICENTA S., ANGELA SINON, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, NAZIF ALAM. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(eg). (Entered: 08/25/2020)
08/24/2020 105 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/24/2020 106 REPLY re 94 Memorandum in Opposition, [Panda Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction] filed by CHANDAN PANDA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/24/2020 107 REPLY to opposition to motion re 52 MOTION to Certify Class filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU

NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/24/2020 108 REPLY to opposition to motion re 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction GOMEZ PLAINTIFFS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
08/25/2020 109 MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS WITH REPLY TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bless, # 2 Exhibit Bushati, # 3 Exhibit De Reyes [Lebron], # 4 Exhibit De Reyes [Pimentel], # 5 Exhibit Dunn, # 6 Exhibit Gorji, # 7 Exhibit Gustafson, # 8 Exhibit Iwundu, # 9 Exhibit Karpes, # 10 Exhibit Kinteh, # 11 Exhibit Koirala, # 12 Exhibit Mandija, # 13 Exhibit Naim, # 14 Exhibit Partolan, # 15 Exhibit Pollak, # 16 Exhibit Sabagh, # 17 Exhibit Tleubayeva, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
08/25/2020 110 REPLY to opposition to motion re 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by AFSIN AKER, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ

ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/25/2020 112 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Mohamed Saleh (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/26/2020

MINUTE ORDER. For the oral argument scheduled for August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs across these consolidated actions shall have 45 minutes of argument time to be divided among the various Plaintiffs and claims, as Plaintiffs see fit; Defendants, too, shall have 45 minutes of argument time; Plaintiffs will be afforded time for rebuttal. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/26/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 08/26/2020)

08/26/2020 113 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MICHAEL POMPEO served on 6/5/2020; DONALD J. TRUMP served on 6/9/2020; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 6/4/2020; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 6/5/2020; CHAD F. WOLF served on 6/4/2020 (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 08/26/2020)

08/27/2020

NOTICE of Hearing: Members of the public or media may access the Oral Argument on 8/27/2020 at 1:00 PM by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (zjd) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020 114 NOTICE MOHAMMED and FONJONG Plaintiffs Statement in Response to Courts Question about Plaintiffs located within the United States by CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Oral Argument held on 8/27/2020. Arguments heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020 115 NOTICE Regarding Number of Diversity Visas Issued in July 2020 and Bulletin Showing Number of Selected Entrants in DV-2020 by Country by AFSIN AKER (Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020 116 Memorandum in opposition to re 84 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class Defendants' Opposition to Aker Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Marc E. Calixte)(Wen, James) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/28/2020 117 NOTICE OF LODGING OF DECLARATION by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020 118 MOTION for Leave to File by WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hampe, Carl) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020 119 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL (Hampe, Carl) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

09/03/2020 120 NOTICE by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 115 Notice (Other), 114 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 8/27/20 Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B - Calixte Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C Chang Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D - 1st Dus Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E 2d Dus Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F - Glazeroff Declaration)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020 121 REPLY to opposition to motion re 84 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class filed by AFSIN AKER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A (7/27 email), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B (8/6 email), # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C (8/10 email), # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D (8/11 email), # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E (8/20 email), # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F (Erdal Tarman Declaration))(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 118 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief of Worldwide Employee Relocation Council in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/3/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020 124 AMICUS BRIEF by WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION COUNCIL. (eg) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/04/2020 122 TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on August 27, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-160. Date of Issuance: September 4, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 3543249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 9/25/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/5/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/3/2020.(wz) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
09/04/2020 123 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying part (1) the Gomez Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 53 , and Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 66 ; (2) the Mohammed Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, 20-cv-1856 (APM), ECF No. 8; (3) the Fonjong Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, 20-cv-2128 (APM), ECF No. 7; and (4) the Aker Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 20-cv-1926 (APM), ECF No. 4. The Panda Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, 20-cv1907 (APM), ECF No. 3, is denied as to the consolidated claims. The Gomez Plaintiffs' and Aker Plaintiffs' respective motions for class certification, ECF Nos. 52 , 84 , are denied without prejudice or deferred. See attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. The Gomez Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declarations, ECF No. 109 , is granted for the reasons stated in their motion. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/04/2020. (lcapm3) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
09/04/2020 126 SUPPLEMENTAL Declarations to re 108 Reply to opposition to Motion,, filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN,

DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration, # 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration, # 11 Declaration, # 12 Declaration, # 13 Declaration, # 14 Declaration, # 15 Declaration, # 16 Declaration)(eg). (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020 125 AMENDED ORDER. The report referenced in paragraph 4, on page 84 of the court's Memorandum Opinion & Order, ECF No. 123 , shall now be due by no later than September 21, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/10/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/21/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/11/2020 127 Emergency MOTION for Telephone Conference re 123 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, 125 Order, by AFSIN AKER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A (Emails with Defense Counsel))(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs' Request for an Emergency Status Conference, ECF No. 127 , on September 14, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' filing by no later than 12:00 p.m. on that day. The courtroom deputy will provide counsel with dial-in information. Members of the public or media who wish to access the hearing may dial the court's tollfree public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/11/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/14/2020 at 3:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 9/14/2020 at 12:00 p.m. (zjd) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 128 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re Set/Reset Deadlines, 111 Amended Complaint,, Order by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/13/2020 129 Supplemental STATUS REPORT by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - York Email, # 2 Exhibit B - Lyerla, # 3 Exhibit C - Urena Email 1, # 4 Exhibit D Wen Email, # 5 Exhibit E - Urena Email 2, # 6 Exhibit F - KCC Email, # 7 Exhibit G - Embassy in Havana Website)(Urena, Rafael) (Entered: 09/13/2020)

09/14/2020 130 VACATED PURSUANT TO 156 ORDER.....ORDER granting Defendants' 128 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is October 16, 2020. Plaintiffs may have an additional 29 days to file an opposition to any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants in response to the Second Amended Complaint. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/13/2020. Modified on 10/16/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020 131 RESPONSE re 127 Emergency MOTION for Telephone Conference re 123 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, 125 Order, DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Wen, James) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 9/14/2020. Status Report due by 9/21/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer or Responsive Pleading due by 10/16/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020 132 AMENDED ORDER amending the court's previous Order, ECF No. 123 . See the attached Amended Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/14/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/17/2020 133 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Operative Complaints in Mohammed, 20-1856, and Fonjong, 20-2128 by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020 134 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Operative Complaint in Aker, 20-1926, by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020 135 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on September 14, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-57. Date of Issuance: September 17, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public termin al or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 10/8/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/18/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/16/2020.(wz) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/18/2020

VACATED PURSUANT TO 161 ORDER FILED 10/20/2020.....MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 133 Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time. The Mohammed and Fonjong Defendants shall respond to the operative complaints by October 21, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/18/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 10/21/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020 09/18/2020

VACATED PURSUANT TO 161 ORDER FILED 10/20/2020.....MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 134 Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time. The Aker Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by October 28, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/18/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 10/21/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 09/18/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Mohammed and Fonjong Defendants' Answer or Responsive Pleading due by 10/21/2020. Aker Defendants' Answer or Responsive Pleading due by 10/28/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/21/2020 136 STATUS REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by WILLIAM BARR, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Laura Chamberlin, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Brenda L. Grewe, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Morgan D. Miles, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Josh Glazeroff)(Wen, James) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/22/2020

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/22/2020 at 4:00 PM via teleconference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (zjd) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020 137 RESPONSE re 136 STATUS REPORT Response of Plaintiffs to Defendants' Status Report by AFSIN AKER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Expert Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Selection of Plaintiff Declarations, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C Selection of Non-Plaintiff Declarations)(Kuck, Charles) Modified event title and link on 9/24/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held telephonically on 9/22/2020. Defendants' Submission due by 9/25/2020. Briefing due by 9/25/2020. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/28/2020 at 2:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 3218747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties. (Court Reporter: Janice Dickman) (zjd) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/23/2020 138 NOTICE of Appearance by Johnny Hillary Walker, III on behalf of All Defendants (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/23/2020)

09/24/2020 139 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 123 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA

VIDAL PIMENTEL, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC7635337. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/24/2020 140 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Briefing Schedule by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/25/2020 141 ORDER granting the parties' 140 Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time. The parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by October 7, 2020. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/24/2020. (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 142 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 139 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (eg) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

NOTICE of Hearing: Oral Argument set for 8/28/2020 at 3:00 PM via video conference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. The courtroom deputy has circulated connection information to counsel. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should only be used by non-participating parties.(zjd) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 143 Supplemental STATUS REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 10/7/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 144 MOTION to Certify Class (Renewed) by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA,

DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 145 MEMORANDUM by DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (York, Thomas) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 146 MEMORANDUM by 3Q DIGITAL, A.M.A.A., NANCY ABARCA, UTKIRBEK ABDUMOMINOV, AFSIN AKER, AFSIN AKER, NAZIF ALAM, SOMYA ARORA, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., DILARA AYAYDIN, YOUSTINA SAMIR BAGHDADY AZER, FATMA BUSHATI, MOUNIKA DAMARLA, E.I., MUSTAFA DOGAN EKER, CATHY BOFUMBO ELOU, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, LOKESH GHANTA, ELIE VARANGBA GIA, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, YURII ISHCHENKO, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, K.G.S.M., JODI LYNN KARPES, MARINA KARPOVA, SRUTHI KASAM, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARID KURBANOV, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, ALEXEY NICOLAEVICH LITVINOV, NATALIA VICTOROVNA LITVINOVA, M.A.M.S, M.S., MUSTAFA MADAZLI, GEORGE SAMIR MESSIHA DAWOOD, PAWEL MIECZKOWSKI, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED, KARAN MURGAI, AYA NAKAMURA, FESTUS SUH NEBA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, CHANDAN PANDA, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., R. M.A. A., LOKESH RAMAMURTHY, RENUKADEVI RAVICHANDRAN, MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, DANAT SHEKHE, VIKTORIIA SHEKHE, NAGESH SHENISETTY, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, ELENA KIRILLOVNA STAVRAKOVA, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., ITIDAL MOHAMMEDSALIH T MAHJOUB, EMRE TARMAN, ERDAL TARMAN, DMITRII PAVLOVICH VELIKII, AMAN WADHWA, GRAEME JOHN WARD. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nadia Dahab, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/28/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Oral Argument held on 9/28/2020. Government's Submission due by 9/29 at

12:00 pm. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/28/2020

USCA Case Number 20-5292 for 139 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,,, filed by 3Q DIGITAL, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., NAZIF ALAM, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., AYA NAKAMURA, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, ANGELA SINON, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, JODI LYNN KARPES, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, NANCY ABARCA, FATMA BUSHATI. (zrdj) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/29/2020 147 MOTION for Extension of Time to File SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/29/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 147 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The deadline for Defendants to file their Supplemental Report on Good Faith Efforts to Implement the Preliminary Injunction is 5:00 pm EDT on September 29, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/29/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/29/2020 148 Supplemental STATUS REPORT ON GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/30/2020 149 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on September 22, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-35. Date of Issuance:September 30, 2020. Court Reporter: Janice Dickman, Telephone number: 202-354-3267, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 10/21/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/31/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/29/2020.(Dickman, Janice) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
09/30/2020 150 Memorandum in opposition to re 144 MOTION to Certify Class (Renewed) filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Chamberlin Declaration)(York, Thomas) Modified docket event/text on 9/30/2020 (eg). (Entered: 09/30/2020)
09/30/2020 151 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' request for supplemental relief, ECF No. 146 , and granting in part and denying in part the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 144 . See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Amended Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/30/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
10/07/2020 152 Joint STATUS REPORT RE: BRIEFING PROPOSAL by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
10/08/2020 153 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 10/08/2020)
10/08/2020 154 NOTICE of Proposed Order by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF re 153 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/09/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs in Mohammed, Fongjong, Aker, and Kennedy shall file a consolidated opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, ECF No. 153 , by October 15, 2020, and Defendants shall file their reply brief, if any, by October 20, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/09/2020. (lacpm1) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Consolidated Opposition due by 10/15/2020. Reply Brief due by 10/20/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 10/13/2020)

10/14/2020 155 Consent MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 10/14/2020)

10/15/2020 156 ORDER granting 155 Defendants' Consent Motion to Vacate This Court's September 14, 2020 Scheduling Order. The September 14, 2020 Scheduling Order is hereby vacated. The court will set a new responsive pleading deadline when it adjudicates the Gomez Defendants' motion to stay. See attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/15/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/15/2020 157 Memorandum in opposition to re 153 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal filed by AFSIN AKER, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED, Moraa Kennedy. (Barre, Abadir) Modified docket event/text on 10/16/2020 (eg). (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/20/2020 158 MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker Complaints, and Vacate Deadline to Respond to Kennedy Complaint by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplen, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/20/2020 159 REPLY to opposition to motion re 153 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/20/2020 160 REPLY to opposition to motion re 153 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal filed by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO

ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/20/2020 161 ORDER granting 158 Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Court's September 18, 2020 Scheduling Orders and Hold in Abeyance Responsive Pleading Deadlines. The September 18, 2020 order setting deadlines for Defendants to respond to the Mohammed, Fonjong, and Aker complaints is vacated. The deadline for Defendants to respond to the Kennedy complaint is vacated. The court will set new responsive pleading deadlines after adjudicating Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal. See the attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/20/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/21/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status hearing on Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal on October 26, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. If that date and time present an irreconcilable conflict, counsel shall contact the courtroom deputy and propose two alternative dates and times. The courtroom deputy will circulate call-in information. Members of the public may access the conference by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 8487030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should be used by only non-participating parties. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/21/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/26/2020 at 2:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/26/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held telephonically on 10/26/2020. Joint Status Report due by 10/29/2020. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/28/2020 162 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on October 26, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-35. Date of Issuance: October 28, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal o r purchased from the court reporter

referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 11/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/28/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/26/2021.(wz) (Entered: 10/28/2020)
10/28/2020 163 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Vladimir SOLNTSEV, Yuta FUKASAWA, and Haruka FUKASAWA (Plaintiffs in Kennedy v Trump) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 10/28/2020)
10/29/2020 164 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU Healthcare (CIR) and PowerTrunk, Inc. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 10/29/2020)
10/29/2020 165 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS against MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP filed by CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG.(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 10/29/2020)
10/29/2020 166 Joint STATUS REPORT RE: BRIEFING PROPOSAL by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Lyerla, Christopher) (Entered: 10/29/2020)
10/30/2020 167 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to 123 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, 132 Order, 151 Memorandum & Opinion, by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Wen, James) (Entered: 10/30/2020)
10/30/2020 168 MOTION for Leave to File SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 [Proposed] SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, # 2 Exhibit 2 [Proposed] SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - (with track changes), # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 10/30/2020)

11/02/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting the Mohammed Plaintiffs' 168 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint shall now be the operative pleading in the Mohammed matter. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/2/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

11/02/2020

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs do not object to Defendants' alternative relief of extending time by 45 days to file responsive pleadings. See Defs.' Mot. to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, ECF No. 153, at 2, 8; Tr. of Status Conf., ECF No. 162, at 20:10-21 (counsel for Mohammed, Funjong, and Kennedy Plaintiffs clarifying agreement to 45-day extension for responsive pleadings); Pls.' Opp'n to Mot. to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, ECF No. 157 (brief for Aker, Mohammed, Funjong, and Kennedy Plaintiffs not objecting to Defendants' representation that they agreed to a 45-day extension for Defendants' responsive pleadings). Accordingly, Defendants' responsive pleadings shall be due as follows: (1) December 1, 2020 (Gomez); (2) December 5, 2020 (Mohammed and Funjong); and (3) December 12, 2020 (Aker and Kennedy). The court will consider a schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment, or a possible stay in light of Defendants' crossnotice of appeal, after December 12, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/2/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

11/02/2020 169 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the appeal was filed by the government re 167 Notice of Cross Appeal,. (eg) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

11/02/2020 170 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP filed by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED.(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

11/02/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responsive Pleadings due as follows: (1) December 1, 2020 (Gomez); (2) December 5, 2020 (Mohammed and Funjong); and (3) December 12, 2020 (Aker and Kennedy). (zjd) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

11/06/2020 171 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, M.S., DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., MIRNA S., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. Attorney Nadia H. Dahab terminated. (Dahab, Nadia) (Entered: 11/06/2020)

11/10/2020

USCA Case Number 20-5332 for 167 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by CHAD F. WOLF, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (zrdj) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/25/2020 172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 111 Amended Complaint,, 170 Amended Complaint, 165 Amended Complaint by DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wen, James) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/25/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting 172 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time. Defendants shall respond to the operative complaints in Gomez, Mohammed, and Fonjong by December 14, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/25/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/25/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responsive Pleading to the operative complaints in Gomez, Mohammed, and Fonjong due by 12/14/2020. (zjd) Modified on 11/30/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 11/30/2020)

12/03/2020 173 TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT VIA VIDECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on September 28, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-64. Date of Issuance: December 3, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 3543249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via

PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 12/24/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/3/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2021.(wz) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/09/2020 174 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer in Aker and Kennedy, from 12/12 to 12/14, by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 174 Motion for Enlargement of Time. Defendants shall respond to the operative complaints in Aker and Kennedy by December 14, 2020. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 12/09/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 12/9/2020 (zjd). (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants shall respond to the operative complaints in Aker and Kennedy by 12/14/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/14/2020 175 ORDER of USCA as to 167 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by CHAD F. WOLF, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE ; USCA Case Number 20-5332. (zrdj) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020 176 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Superior Scape Inc. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020 177 ANSWER to 111 Amended Complaint,, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv1419, by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF.(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020 178 ANSWER to Complaint Aker v. Trump, 20-cv-1926 by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020 179 ANSWER to 170 Amended Complaint Mohammed v. Pompeo, 20-cv1856 by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020 180 ANSWER to 165 Amended Complaint Fonjong v. Trump, 20-cv2128, by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020 181 ANSWER to Complaint Kennedy v. Trump, 20-cv-2639, by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/15/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall meet and confer and, by December 18, 2020, submit a Joint Status Report that proposes a schedule for briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment. In view of the government's voluntary dismissal of its cross-appeal, the court is disinclined to stay this matter pending the Gomez plaintiffs' appeal before the D.C. Circuit. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 12/15/2020. (lcapm1) Modified on 12/15/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 12/15/2020)

12/15/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/18/2020. (zjd) (Entered: 12/15/2020)

12/18/2020 182 Joint STATUS REPORT REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE PROPOSALS by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Emails)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/21/2020 183 Amended ANSWER to Complaint Kennedy v. Trump, 20-cv-2639 by MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/21/2020)

12/21/2020 184 ORDER setting the schedule for further proceedings in this matter: (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before January 20, 2021. Defendants' supporting brief shall be limited to 45 pages. (2) Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before February 3, 2021. The Aker, Fonjong, Kennedy, and Mohammed Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated brief that shall be limited

to 45 pages. The Gomez Plaintiffs shall file a separate brief that shall be limited to 45 pages. (3) Defendants' combined Reply to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' CrossMotions for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before February 17, 2021. Defendants' combined brief shall be limited to 65 pages. (4) Plaintiffs' Replies to their Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before March 3, 2021. The Aker, Fonjong, Kennedy, and Mohammed Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated brief that shall be limited to 25 pages. The Gomez Plaintiffs shall file a separate brief that shall be limited to 25 pages. (5) The parties shall file the Joint Appendix, required by Local Civil Rule 7(n)(1), on or before March 12, 2021. Briefing shall be limited to issues raised by Plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act, mandamus, and related claims concerning visa adjudication and issuance. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 12/21/2020. (lcapm1) (Entered: 12/21/2020)

12/21/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/20/2021.Oppositions and Cross Motions due by 2/3/2021. Reply and Opposition due by 2/17/2021. Replies due by 3/3/2021. Joint Appendix due by 3/12/2021. This docket entry serves to set deadlines in the CM/ECF database. Please refer to 184 Order for full details.(zjd) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/30/2020 185 STIPULATION of Dismissal re Shipco Transport, Inc. by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, POWERTRUNK, INC., VICENTA S., SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., ANGELA SINON. (Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

12/31/2020 186 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to LEADING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS. Attorney Stuart F. Delery terminated. (Delery, Stuart) (Entered: 12/31/2020)

01/04/2021 187 NOTICE Extension of Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052 by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF (Wen, James) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/11/2021 188 MOTION for Telephone Conference re 123 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, by AFSIN AKER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Greg Siskind, # 2 Exhibit Department of State Sept 2020 IV Issuance Report)(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 01/11/2021)

01/14/2021

MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 188 Motion for a Status Conference. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. The courtroom deputy will circulate call-in information. Members of the public may access the conference by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 8487030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should be used by only non-participating parties. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/14/2021. (lcapm1) (Entered: 01/14/2021)

01/19/2021

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 1/19/2021 via teleconference. Status Conference set for 1/29/2021 at 1:00 PM via teleconference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. The courtroom deputy will circulate call-in information. Members of the public may access the conference by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted and should be used by only nonparticipating parties. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

01/20/2021 189 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Edward J. Ramotowski, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Brianne Marwaha, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Wen, James) (Entered: 01/20/2021)

01/26/2021 190 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan H. Eisenman on behalf of 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS (Eisenman, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/26/2021 191 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS. Attorney Matthew Alex Scherb terminated. (Scherb, Matthew) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/29/2021

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 1/29/2021 via teleconference. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

02/02/2021 192 MOTION to Strike 189 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment TO LIMIT REVIEW TO THE ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD by CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, Moraa Kennedy, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, References to Declaration of Edward J. Ramotowski, # 3 Exhibit 2, References to Declaration of Brianne Marwaha, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Urena, Rafael) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021 193 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jane Bentrott, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-8153809. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, FARANGIS KURBONOVA, AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, ANGELA SINON. (Bless, Jesse) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021

MINUTE ORDER granting 193 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Jane P. Bentrott is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 2/2/2021. (lcapm1) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/03/2021 194 Memorandum in opposition to re 189 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by AFSIN AKER, CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, Moraa Kennedy, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) Modified docket event/text on 2/5/2021 (eg). (Entered: 02/03/2021)

02/03/2021 195 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment GOMEZ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Opposition, # 2 Declaration of Nancy Abarca, # 3 Declaration of MD Nazif Alam, # 4 Declaration of

Fatma Bushati, # 5 Declaration of William J. Gustafson, # 6 Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Iwundu epouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, # 7 Declaration of Claudio Alejandro Sarniguet Jimenez, # 8 Declaration of Jodi Lynn Karpes, # 9 Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh, # 10 Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Shyam Sundar Koirala, # 11 Declaration pf Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron, # 12 Declaration Aya Nakamura, # 13 Declaration of Daniel Chibundu Nwankwo, # 14 Declaration of Loida Phelps, # 15 Declaration of Carmen Ligia Vidal Pimentel, # 16 Declaration of Laura Rodnitzky, # 17 Declaration of Angela Sinon, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) Modified docket text on 2/5/2021 (eg). (Entered: 02/03/2021)

02/08/2021 196 ERRATA by AFSIN AKER re 195 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment GOMEZ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by 3Q DIGITAL, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., NAZIF ALAM, AYA NAKAMURA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, JODI LYNN KARPES, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, NANCY ABARCA, FATMA BUSHATI. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Amended Motion for Summary Judgment)(Kuck, Charles) (Entered: 02/08/2021)

02/09/2021

MINUTE ORDER. Counsel shall appear for a status hearing via videoconference on February 10, 2021, at 4 p.m. Judge Mehta's courtroom deputy will coordinate videoconferencing access for the parties. Members of the public may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 3218747. The public access line will be muted. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 2/9/2021. (lcapm1) (Entered: 02/09/2021)

02/09/2021 200 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 139 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,,, filed by 3Q DIGITAL, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC., EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., NAZIF ALAM, SHIPCO TRANSPORT, INC., AYA NAKAMURA, SEIU COMMITTEE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, ANGELA SINON, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, JODI LYNN KARPES, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA,

NANCY ABARCA, FATMA BUSHATI ; USCA Case Number 205292. (eg) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/10/2021

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 2/10/2021 via video conference. Oral Argument set for 2/18/2021 at 2:00 PM via video conference before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Judge Mehta's courtroom deputy will coordinate videoconferencing access for the parties. Members of the public may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

02/10/2021

MINUTE ORDER setting the schedule for further proceedings in this matter. The summary judgment briefing schedule set forth in the court's December 21, 2020 Order, ECF No. 184, is hereby stayed. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for relief on or before February 12, 2021. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs' motion on or before February 17, 2021, at 2 p.m. The parties shall appear for a hearing via videoconference on Plaintiffs' motion on February 18, 2021, at 2 p.m. Judge Mehta's courtroom deputy will coordinate videoconferencing access for the parties. Members of the public may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. The public access line will be muted. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 2/10/2021. (lcapm1) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

02/11/2021 197 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on January 19, 2021; Page Numbers: 1-31. Date of Issuance: February 11, 2021. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 3/4/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2021.(wz) (Entered: 02/11/2021)
02/11/2021 198 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on January 29, 2021; Page Numbers: 1-27. Date of Issuance: February 11, 2021. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 3/4/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2021.(wz) (Entered: 02/11/2021)
02/11/2021 199 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on February 10, 2021; Page Numbers: 1-28. Date of Issuance: February 11, 2021. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five

personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 3/4/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2021.(wz) (Entered: 02/11/2021)
02/12/2021 201 MOTION For Emergency Injunctive Relief by 3Q DIGITAL, NANCY ABARCA, NAZIF ALAM, ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FATMA BUSHATI, EURAUPAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., IWUNDU EPOUSE KOUADIO GOLDEN, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SARNI JIMENEZ, JODI LYNN KARPES, AJA TAMAMU MARIAMA KINTEH, SHYAM SUNDAR KOIRALA, JUAN CARLOS ROSARIO LEBRON, AYA NAKAMURA, DANIEL CHIBUNDU NWANKWO, LOIDA PHELPS, CARMEN LIGIA VIDAL PIMENTEL, SUPERIOR SCAPE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declartion of Jesse M. Bless, # 3 Declaration of Tess Hellgren, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Pincus, Andrew) (Entered: 02/12/2021)
02/16/2021 202 Memorandum in opposition to re 192 MOTION to Strike 189 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment TO LIMIT REVIEW TO THE ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD Defendants' Response in Opposition filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wen, James) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
02/17/2021 203 Memorandum in opposition to re 201 MOTION For Emergency Injunctive Relief filed by WILLIAM BARR, MICHAEL POMPEO, DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CHAD F. WOLF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- 2/10/21 Hearing Tr. Excerpt, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion)(York, Thomas) (Entered: 02/17/2021)
02/18/2021 204 REPLY to opposition to motion re 201 MOTION For Emergency Injunctive Relief filed by CLAUDINE NGUM FONJONG, Moraa Kennedy, MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 02/18/2021)
02/18/2021 205 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 201 MOTION For Emergency Injunctive Relief (exhibit in support) filed by MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL MOHAMMED. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

02/18/2021

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Oral Argument held via video conference on 2/18/2021 re 201 MOTION For Emergency Injunctive Relief. Arguments heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

02/18/2021 22:56:43

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

mcevoy
1:20-cv-01419APM 3.00

 </s> Panda v. Wolf, --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2020) 2020 WL 5545554
2020 WL 5545554 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Chandan PANDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Chad F. WOLF, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 20-cv-1907 (APM) |
Signed 09/16/2020
Synopsis Background: Visa applicants, who had resided in United States under approved nonimmigrant labor petitions prior to traveling to home country of India, brought action against Departments of State and Homeland Security, seeking, among other things, preliminary injunction against suspension of adjudication of visa applications pursuant to presidential proclamation. After bifurcating claim that Departments violated license suspension requirements of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) from related APA and ultra vires claims, the District Court, 2020 WL 5367010, denied applicants’ requests for preliminary injunctive relief on related APA and ultra vires claims.
Holdings: The District Court, Amit P. Mehta, J., held that:
visa applicant demonstrated injury-in-fact resulting from suspension of application adjudication;
applicant’s procedural injury would be redressable by preliminary injunction, for purposes of standing;
preliminary injunction would not eliminate harm to applicants resulting from suspension; and
preliminary injunction would not serve public interest.
Motion denied.
Procedural Posture(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Attorneys and Law Firms

Geoffrey Forney, Wasden Banias LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Bradley Bruce Banias, Wasden Banias LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, for Plaintiffs.
Glenn M. Girdharry, Joshua Samuel Press, Aaron S. Goldsmith, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, DC Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Amit P. Mehta, United States District Court Judge
*1 Plaintiffs in this case are Indian nationals who were recently residing in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status under temporary labor petitions approved by the Department of Homeland Security. For various reasons, they traveled to India, and now must receive visas to return to the United States. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the United States consular offices, acting under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, have withheld the adjudication of of their visa applications pursuant to the President’s recently issued Presidential Proclamation 10052 (dated June 22, 2020), which suspends the entry of foreign nationals within certain categories of nonimmigrant visas. Plaintiffs ask the court to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from applying Proclamation 10052 in adjudicating their visa applications, and to order Defendants to adjudicate their applications within fourteen days.
Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion raises three claims, two of which overlap substantially with claims raised in a related action, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM). The court considered the merits of those overlapping claims in that action, and reserved for adjudication in this separate action the merits of Plaintiffs’ third claim (which was not raised by the Gomez Plaintiffs), along with all non-merits defenses. For substantially the same reasons discussed in Gomez, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established that injunctive relief would prevent their irreparable harm or that an injunction would be in the public interest. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

Panda v. Wolf, --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2020) 2020 WL 5545554
I.
Plaintiffs in this case are 169 Indian nationals with approved H-1B skilled worker petitions and their derivative beneficiaries. See Compl., Panda v. Wolf, 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], at 21; see also Oral Arg. Tr., Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 122, at 54 (updating the court on the number of Plaintiffs in this action). Plaintiffs were all residing and working in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status, but for various reasons went to India1 and now require visas to travel back to the United States. See Pls.’ Am. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Their Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 8 [hereinafter Pls.’ PI Mem.], at 1. They have all submitted DS-160 applications to obtain visas that will allow them to return to the United States. Id. However, on June 22, 2020, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 10052 (“Proclamation 10052”), which suspends until December 31, 2020, the entry of foreign nationals seeking admission to the United States pursuant to specified categories of nonimmigrant visas, including the visas Plaintiffs seek, unless an applicant is eligible for an enumerated exception. See 85 Fed. Reg. 38,263 (June 22, 2020). Plaintiffs allege that “consulates are withholding a final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications based on the application of the President’s recently issued Proclamation 10052.” Pls.’ PI Mem. at 1.
*2 Plaintiffs assert that (1) the Proclamation is ultra vires; (2) Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation by withholding the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ visa applications is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); and (3) the suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved nonimmigrant labor petitions violates the APA’s procedural requirements governing the suspension of licenses, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). Pls.’ Mem. at 24–37. They seek a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining Defendants from applying Proclamation 10052 in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ visa applications and determining whether they are admissible to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status, and (2) directing the Secretary of State and the United States consulates to process, adjudicate, and render final decisions on Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications within fourteen days. Id. at 40.
The court bifurcated briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion, considering the merits of Plaintiffs’ first two claims alongside overlapping claims raised in a related action,

Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM). See Am. Order, Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 79; Order, Panda v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 23. The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on those issues on September 4, 2020, see Mem. Op. & Order, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 123 [hereinafter Gomez Mem. Op.], finding that the challenges to Proclamation 10052 were unlikely to succeed on the merits, id. at 39–58, and that the APA challenges to Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation were likely to succeed, id. at 58–66. However, the court held that only a subset of the plaintiffs in the Gomez action—foreign nationals seeking diversity immigrant visas—had established the additional prerequisites for injunctive relief. Id. at 75–79. In the interest of time and judicial economy, the court incorporates by reference its analysis of the overlapping issues in that case, along with its resolution of the Defendants’ arguments regarding consular nonreviewability and whether Plaintiffs had identified a cause of action. See id. at 34–38.
Because the court only addressed the merits of the Panda Plaintiffs first two claims in the Gomez opinion, it did not consider the merits of their third claim (whether Defendants’ actions constitute an unlawful suspension of a license under 5 U.S.C. § 558(c)), or any other non-merits defenses. See id. at 24 n.4, 75 n.25. Now, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing and have not shown that they have suffered irreparable harm or that a preliminary injunction would be in the public interest. See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 26 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n], at 10–13, 18–25. On the merits, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs do not challenge discrete final agency action, and that 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) does not apply because, among other reasons, approved H-1B nonimmigrant worker petitions are not “licenses” under the APA. See id. at 13–18.
II.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a motion, the movant bears the burden of showing that: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.”

Panda v. Wolf, --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2020) 2020 WL 5545554
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Where, as here, the federal government is the opposing party, the balance of equities and public interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009).
III.
To establish standing at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiffs must show, based on record evidence, that it is substantially likely that at least one of them has (1) suffered a concrete and particularized injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 878 F.3d 371, 376–77 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see also Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that, where multiple plaintiffs assert the same claims, “the court need only find one plaintiff who has standing” to establish jurisdiction over the action). The redressability requirement is “relaxed” when a plaintiff alleges a procedural injury. WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298, 305–06 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “[I]nstead of needing to establish that compelling the agency to follow the correct procedure would lead to a substantive result that favors the [plaintiff’s] concrete interests, the [plaintiff] need only show that [her] concrete interests could be better protected.” Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Pres. Office v. FERC, 949 F.3d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
*3 In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submit the declaration and visa application files of Plaintiff Yukti Bhatia. Bhatia has studied and worked in the United States for the past six years. Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF, No. 3, App’x, ECF No. 4-47 [hereinafter Pls.’ App’x], at 635 ¶¶ 9–11. She is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B visa petition. Id. at 634 ¶¶ 4–6. Before the President issued Proclamation 10052, Bhatia had returned to India where she applied for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa by submitting a DS-160 application. Id. at 635–36 ¶ 11, 638. Bhatia completed her visa interview at the Indian consulate on February 10, 2020. Id. at 636 ¶ 12. Her application was temporarily refused pursuant to § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and she was asked to submit additional employer documents. Id. Though her employer submitted the required documents on February 19, 2020, id., Bhatia heard no updates about the status of her application until

July 1, 2020, when she was informed that “Embassies and Consulates will not be able to accept H1b/H4 visa applications or to continue processing of pending applications which are subject to the [Proclamation 10052]” for the duration of the Proclamation, Pls.’ App’x, ECF No. 4-48, at 648. Bhatia reached out to the consulate in August to ask when the consulate would resume processing her visa and was told that the “Department of State temporarily will continue ... not to issue H-1B ... nonimmigrant visas, apart from certain exceptions as laid out in the Proclamation itself.” Pls.’ Notice of Recent Agency Activity, ECF No. 24 [hereinafter Pls.’ Notice], Ex. A, ECF No. 24-1, at 73.
Because of Proclamation 10052 and Defendants’ refusal to adjudicate her DS-160 application, Bhatia has been unable to re-enter the country. Due to this inability to return to the United States, she is at risk of losing her job in the United States. Pls.’ App’x, ECF 4-47, at 635 ¶ 9. She now must pay to store her belongings in the United States (she traveled to India with only a few pairs of clothes), and she continues to pay her U.S. phone bill and other expenses. Id. at 635–37 ¶¶ 9, 11, 14. The standstill has also affected her mental health—at risk of losing all she worked to achieve in the United States, she has experienced severe mental and emotional strain, has lost weight, and worries that she will be unable to help her father repay her student loans. Id. at 637 ¶ 14.
The concrete financial and emotional harms Bhatia is experiencing easily establish injury in fact, see, e.g., E.B. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d 81, 86–87 (D.D.C. 2019); Defendants do not contend otherwise. Instead, Defendants focus their attacks on the causation and redressability requirements of standing. On the causation front, Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs “allege injuries related to the adjudications of visa applications or in the scheduling of visa application interviews, none of which are traceable to the issuance of the Proclamation,” and stress that “Plaintiffs’ applications have not yet been completed, so they can only speculate—and without basis—that the Proclamation affects their claims.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 11. This is a surprising position, given Defendants’ insistence in the Gomez briefing that the “legal consequences that Plaintiffs challenge”—i.e., the suspension of adjudication of their visa applications—“flow from the Proclamations.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 94, at 31. It is also is blatantly contradicted by the record evidence before the court. As discussed at length in the court’s Gomez opinion, Defendants have interpreted Proclamation 10052 to suspend the issuance of all covered, non-exempt nonimmigrant visas, see Gomez Mem. Op. at 12–14, and

Panda v. Wolf, --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2020)
2020 WL 5545554
the Panda Plaintiffs, including Bhatia, have received communications from the State Department confirming that their applications are not being processed due to the Proclamation, see, e.g., Pls.’ Notice, Ex. A at 73–74 (stating in response to Ms. Bhatia’s inquiries that “[u]nder the Proclamation, the Department of State temporarily will ... not issue H-1B, H-2B, L, and certain J nonimmigrant visas, and their derivative visa categories for family members, apart from certain exceptions as laid out in the Proclamation itself.”). Bhatia’s injuries are traceable to Proclamation 10052 and Defendants’ implementation thereof.
Defendants also assert that Bhatia’s injuries are not redressable “given the very limited nature of consular operations across the world at this time.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 13. They foretell that it is “unlikely” that Bhatia and the other Panda Plaintiffs “would have their visa interviews scheduled, or their visas adjudicated, absent a showing of emergency circumstances and eligibility for an exception.” Id. That is wrong for multiple reasons. First, if Bhatia succeeds on the merits of her claims, she would not need to demonstrate “eligibility for an exception” to Proclamation 10052—Defendants would be enjoined from refusing to adjudicate her visa application based on the Proclamation. See Pls.’ Mem. at 40; see also Estate of Boyland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 913 F.3d 117, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (stating that, when considering a plaintiff’s standing, a federal court must assume the merits of his or her legal claim). Second, in addition to other forms of injury, Bhatia has alleged a procedural injury—that Defendants have “refus[ed] to make a decision on [her] pending DS160” application, see Compl. ¶ 1691—meaning that she need only show that a favorable decision “could ... change the substantive outcome in [her] favor.” Narragansett, 949 F.3d at 13 (emphasis added). While the Indian consular offices have not resumed routine visa operations, they are open and capable of processing at least some visa applications, and Defendants have not shown that it would be impossible to process Bhatia’s visa. See Pls.’ Notice (documenting two H-4 visas granted); Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Their Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 28 [hereinafter Pls.’ Reply], Ex. E, ECF No. 28-3 (H-1B visa stamp issued by the Indian consulate on August 10, 2020). Bhatia has therefore established a substantial likelihood that her procedural injury can be redressed.2
*4 In sum, Bhatia has a substantial likelihood of standing, and the court therefore has subject-matter jurisdiction over each claim raised in this case. See Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1010.

IV.
Though the court must assume the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims for purposes of assessing their standing, the same is not true when assessing Plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive relief. As discussed in Gomez (and incorporated by reference in this decision), Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Proclamation 10052 is ultra vires. See Gomez Mem. Op. at 39–58. For that reason, the court denied the Gomez non-diversity visa plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunctive relief, holding that they had not established that their irreparable harm would be redressable by the requested injunctive relief or that such relief would be in the public interest. Id. at 75–79. The same goes for the Panda Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
Irreparable Harm. “[T]he basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm ....” Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974) (cleaned up). “[T]o demonstrate irreparable harm, ‘the movant must show that the alleged harm will directly result from the action which the movant seeks to enjoin,’ ” E.B. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 88 (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)), and that the court’s injunction is likely to “eliminate the harm that already exists,” Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 91, 102 (D.D.C. 2005) (cleaned up); see also Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez, 141 F. Supp. 3d 60, 69 (D.D.C. 2015) (denying preliminary injunctive relief where “the injunctive relief requested would not necessarily help this plaintiff”). “[C]ourts generally will not base a finding of irreparable injury on a procedural violation standing alone.” Elk Assocs. Funding Corp. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1, 31 (D.D.C. 2012) (cleaned up).
As discussed, this court has already held that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their challenges to Proclamation 10052, Gomez Mem. Op. at 39–58, and so the ban on Plaintiffs’ entry into the United States will remain regardless of whether they succeed on their APA challenges to Defendants’ withholding of adjudication of their visa applications. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claimed irreparable harms—“lost income” and “the inability to return to the United States to resume employment or rejoin family members ... or tend to their property in the United States,” Pls.’ Mem. at 38—will persist even if the court requires Defendants to adjudicate their visa

Panda v. Wolf, --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2020) 2020 WL 5545554

applications: Proclamation 10052 will continue to prevent Plaintiffs from “return[ing] to the United States” to resume employment and reunite with family members. Plaintiffs have therefore not met their burden of demonstrating that an injunction is likely to “eliminate the harm that already exists.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 102 (cleaned up).
Public Interests. Preliminary injunctive relief would not serve the public interest for much the same reasons. Plaintiffs seek an order directing the Secretary of State and the United States consulates “to process, adjudicate, and render final decisions on Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Court’s order,” Pls.’ Mem. at 40, but requiring such swift processing would be an exercise in futility when Plaintiffs would remain ineligible to enter the country until January 1, 2021, at the earliest.3 Such an order would risk diverting limited resources away from visa applicants who are eligible under an exception to the Proclamation, and could create substantial confusion for visa recipients attempting to enter the country only to be denied at ports of entry.
V.
*5 On the merits, the court has already determined that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their ultra vires challenge to the Proclamation, and are likely to succeed on their APA challenge that Defendants’ suspension of processing their visas pursuant to the Proclamation is

arbitrary and capricious. Gomez Mem. Op. at 39–66. That leaves Plaintiffs’ third claim—that the suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved nonimmigrant labor petitions violates the APA’s procedural requirements governing the suspension of licenses, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). See Pls.’ Mem. at 36–37. The court does not decide whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim, because, as discussed, Plaintiffs have not met the other requirements for injunctive relief. See Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (explaining that “[a] movant’s failure to show any irreparable harm is ... grounds for refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, even if the other three factors entering the calculus merit such relief.”).
VI.
In sum, Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims, but because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their challenge to Proclamation 10052, an injunction would not remedy their claimed irreparable harms and would not be in the public interest. Therefore, the court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3.
All Citations
--- F.Supp.3d ----, 2020 WL 5545554

Footnotes

1

One Plaintiff is currently in Canada. Compl. ¶¶ 149, 1851–52.

2

The court acknowledges that it has already determined that the Panda Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their

claim that the Proclamation is unlawful. See Gomez Mem. Op. at 38–54. If Plaintiffs do not ultimately succeed on

that claim, the concrete harms underlying Bhatia’s and her co-Plaintiffs’ procedural injuries (“the loss of income ...

separation from their family members ... [and] the inability to tend to their financial affairs and real property in the

United States, see Pls.’ Mem. at 21) cannot be remedied by a favorable decision on Plaintiffs’ APA claims. However,

the court has not yet rendered a final decision on this issue, and it must assume for standing purposes that Plaintiffs

will succeed on all their claims, including their challenge to the Proclamation. See Estate of Boyland, 913 F.3d at 123.

3

It is also unclear whether H-1B and H-4 visas issued to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of the court’s order would be

valid after January 1, 2021. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(2) (providing that “[a] nonimmigrant visa shall be valid for such

periods as shall be by regulations prescribed.”); 22 CFR § 41.112(c) (stating that, in general, “a nonimmigrant visa

Panda v. Wolf, --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2020) 2020 WL 5545554
shall have the validity prescribed in schedules provided to consular officers by the Department”); Pls.’ Reply, Ex. E (H-1B visa stamp from the Indian consulate with an expiration date of less than three months).

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 21 of 186 COMPLAINT
Proclamation 10052’s H-1B/H-4 visa ban hurts the United States economy, separates families, and defies congress. While the two former points render it unseemly, the latter point renders it unlawful. As such, 174 Indian nationals—including 7 minor children—now challenge Proclamation 10052’s H-1B/H4 visa ban. They seek an order (1) declaring Proclamation 10052’s restriction on issuing new H-1B or H-4 visas or admitting new H-1B or H-4 visa holders as unlawful; (2) compelling the Defendant Department of State to issue decisions on the Plaintiffs pending requests for H-1B and H-4 visas; and (3) enjoining the Defendant Department of Homeland Security from refusing entry to the United States based on Proclamation 10052.
PARTIES 1.
21

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 43 of 186
172. Defendant Chad Wolf is the long-time Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity, he is in charge of the sub-agency U.S. Customs and Border Protection throughout the United States. Proclamation 10052 orders Secretary Wolf to implement its terms. 173. Defendant Michael Pompeo is the Secretary of the United States Department of State. In his official capacity he is in charge of the United States Embassies throughout India, including the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, the Consulate General in Chennai, Consulate General in Hyderabad, Consulate General in Kolkata, Consulate General in Mumbai, and the Virtual Consulate in Bengaluru. Proclamation 10052 orders Secretary Pompeo to implement its terms. 174. Defendant Eugene Scalia, Secretary, United States Department of Labor. In this capacity, he is in charge of the Department of Labor’s. In this capacity, he is in charge of the United States Department of Labor and enforcing and implementing its policies under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Proclamation 10052 orders Secretary Scalia to implement its terms.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 175. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 106 (1977). 176. Under its federal question jurisdiction, this Court can hear claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.) (“APA”). 177. Under the APA, this Court can compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld and set aside final agency action that is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706.
43

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 44 of 186
178. The Court has jurisdiction to review executive action that is ultra vires. Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 179. Under its federal question jurisdiction, this Court can also provide declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 180. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because Defendants reside in the District of Columbia. 181. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies or constructively exhausted all administrative remedies. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). 182. Regardless of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability this Court has jurisdiction over this complaint because Plaintiffs challenge “the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action.” Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997). 183. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit as they all have substantial connections to the United States including but not limited to bona fide job offers or jobs, houses, mortgages, spouses in the United States, United States citizen children, bank accounts, years of lawful residence, cars, car payments, and insurance. 184. Joinder is appropriate here because Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are refusing to issue their visas based on the June 22, 2020 Proclomation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronovarus Outbreak (“Proclamation 10052"). See, e.g., Al Daraji v. Monica, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76205, 2007 WL 2996408 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2007) (finding joinder appropriate where plaintiffs challenge a common practice, order, or policy).
44

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 45 of 186
LEGAL BACKGROUND 185. This case presents a question left open by Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2411 (2018): whether the 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) allows the president to override particular provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2411 (“We may assume that §1182(f) does not allow the President to expressly override particular provisions of the INA.). 186. Unlike the ban challenged in Hawaii, Proclamation 10052 overrides a detailed and reticulated statutory regime, and subverts Congress’s legislative compromises, regulating the employment of foreign nationals and providing for the needs of United States employers.
H-1B Visas
187. “H-1B visas” are available for foreign nationals who will work in the United States in a specialty occupation. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H). 188. A specialty occupation is, essentially, a job that requires a college degree in a specific field. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i). 189. For each fiscal year, congress allots only 65,000 Cap H-1B Visas for foreign nationals with a college degree. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(1)(A)(vii). It allots an additional 20,000 Cap H-1B Visas for applicants with master’s degrees or higher. This pool of 85,000 Cap H-1B Visas comprises “Cap H-1B Visas.” 190. There are also cap-exempt H-1B Visas available to employees of public universities and some non-profit entities. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g). 191. Every fiscal year employers seek far more than 85,000 Cap H-1B Visas. See generally Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B Petitions on Behalf of CapSubject Aliens, 84 Fed. Reg. 888, 925 (Jan. 31, 2019).
45

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 46 of 186
192. In fact, for Fiscal Year, 2021—the period between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021—employers sought nearly 300,000 Cap H-1B visas. 193. As such, the Agency conducts a lottery each year to determine who gets that Fiscal Year’s allotment of Cap H-1B Visas. See generally 84 Fed. Reg. at 925-926. 194. If an employer’s petition is chosen in the lottery, the employer can then file a Form I-129, Petition for a Non-Immigrant Worker on behalf of their employee with proof that their petition was selected in the lottery. Id. 195. As part of the application Form I-129, the employer must also complete a Labor Condition Application with the Department of Labor. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n). To complete a Labor Condition Application, all H-1B employers must attest to the following:
a. They will pay the H-1B higher of the prevailing wage (as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) or the wage the employer actually pays similar employees;
b. They will provide the H-1B employee working conditions “that will not adversely affect the working conditions” of other similar workers; and
c. They will post notice of the proposed H-1B employment or provide such information to a union representative.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1). 196. In addition, “H-1B Dependent” employers must attest that they did not displace and will not displace, directly or indirectly, a United States Worker “beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing of any” H-1B visa petition.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(E)(i), (F).
46

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 47 of 186
197. H-1B Dependent employers must also attest that they have “taken good faith steps to recruit . . . United States workers” and “offered the job to any United States worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the job.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(G). 198. The Secretary of Labor has significant civil enforcement powers to investigate and penalize any H-1B employers who violate the terms of their Labor Condition Applications. 199. Once the Labor Department certifies the Labor Certification Application, the employer may file the Form I-129 with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), who then reviews the application to determine whether the position and the beneficiary are eligible for the visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(a). 200. Typically, USCIS approves an initial cap H-1B visa for three years. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(15(ii)(B) (“The alien’s total period of stay may not exceed six years.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4). 201. A beneficiary can acquire Cap H-1B Visa status, generally, for up to 6 years. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(15(ii)(B) (“The alien’s total period of stay may not exceed six years.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4).
Employment Based Immigrant Visas 202. During these six years, employers often seek an immigrant visa on behalf of their foreign national employee. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) (listing employment-based immigrant visas). 203. Immigrant visas are not limited in duration or scope and, colloquially, provide a path to a “green card.” Id. 204. Because H-1B workers are employed in a position that requires at least a college degree and those workers have a relevant college degree or equivalent experience, the positions and H-
47

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 48 of 186
1B employees typically meet the standards for an employment based immigrant visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3), or if they have a master’s degree under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 205. Before applying for these types of immigrant visas, employers must, generally, go through a labor certification process with the Department of Labor. 206. The statute requires employers to obtain a certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) stating that there are no qualified, able, and willing United States workers available to fill the employer’s job opportunity. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(3)(C), 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I). 207. DOL must also certify that the employment of foreign nationals will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(II). 208. To get a labor certification, DOL’s current regulations require an employer to engage in a good faith effort to recruit United States workers before obtaining certification, see 69 Fed. Reg. 77,326, 77,348 (Dep’t of Labor) (Dec. 27, 2004) including advertising the position, see 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e), and demonstrating that the job opportunity is clearly open to any qualified United States workers. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(8). 209. The employer is also required to offer employment and advertise its position at no lower than the prevailing wage rate, which DOL determines. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.17(f)(5), 656.40(a)(b). 210. The employer must also document that its requirements for the job opportunity represent the employer’s “actual minimum requirements” for the job opportunity. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i). 211. DOL is only authorized to issue an approved labor certification for permanent employment of a foreign national when the employer, after completing the mandated test of the
48

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 49 of 186
domestic labor market, is unable to locate an able, willing, qualified, and available United States worker for the advertised job opportunity. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(b)(2). 212. The approved labor certification must be filed in support of a Form I-140 petition within 180 calendar days of the date DOL granted the certification. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(b)(1). 213. USCIS is bound by DOL’s determination that there are no qualified and available United States workers to fill the employer’s job opportunity. Hoosier Care, Inc. v. Chertoff, 482 F.3d 987, 988 (7th Cir. 2007). 214. Once USCIS approves the immigrant visa, a foreign national may qualify for an immigrant visa, but only if one is available to a person from their country of nationality.
Immigrant Visa Country Caps 215. The INA, however, imposes a country-cap on the number of immigrant visas nationals of any particular countries may acquire during a fiscal year. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(d). When single country’s demand for immigrant visas exceeds its allotted number, nationals with an approved immigrant visa from that country must wait until the following fiscal year for new visas become available. Id. 216. The Department of State is charged with maintaining a visa bulletin, which indicates which countries are backlogged and for how long. See, e.g., July 2020 Visa Bulletin (available at https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Bulletins/visabulletin_july2020.pdf (last visited July 14, 2020)). 217. Relevant to this case, employment-based immigrant visas are available to Indian nationals who had their immigrant visa approved on or by June or July of 2009. Id.
49

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 50 of 186
218. This would seem to imply that Indian nationals with approved immigrant visas would have to wait approximately 11 years for them to be available. However, month-to-month the priority date for Indian nationals typically moves less than a month at a time. 219. Some experts predict Indian nationals will wait 54 years for an immigrant visa to be available for those immigrant visas that go through the labor certification process. See Bier, David J., Immigration Wait Times from Quotas Have Doubled: Green Card Backlogs Are Long, Growing, and Inequitable, Policy Analysis No. 873 (CATO Inst. June 18, 2019) (available at https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/immigration-wait-times-quotas-have-doubledgreen-card-backlogs-are-long (last visited July 14, 2020)).
American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 220. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, congress recognized that this 6-year limitation on an H1B combined with the growing backlog often disrupted labor for United States companies and sought a legislative fix. 221. In 2002, congress passed the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (“AC21”), Public Law 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251, as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 Start Printed Page 82400 (2002). 222. Congress intended AC21 to “improve economic growth and job creation by immediately increasing U.S. access to high-skilled workers.” Final Rule, Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81 Fed. Reg. 82398, 82409 (Nov. 18, 2016). 223. One such provision sought to increase employers’ continuous access to specialty occupation workers from countries with long waits for immigrant visas. Id.
50

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 51 of 186
224. Prior to AC21, employers would hire foreign national workers, sponsor their Cap H-1B
Visas, and then sponsor an immigrant visa for the same worker. However, after six years in H-
1B status, the worker would have to leave the United States to wait for the immigrant visa to be
available. This wait could be years long. Thus, employers would lose highly skilled, experienced
employees for years while the workers returned home after six years in Cap H-1B Visa status.
225. This problem effected Chinese and Indian nationals primarily. Id. (“This provision
recognized ‘‘the discriminatory effects of [the per country limitations] on nationals from certain
Asian Pacific nations,’’ specifically Chinese and Indian nationals, which ‘‘prevent[ed] an
employer from hiring or sponsoring someone permanently simply because he or she is Chinese
or Indian, even though the individual meets all other legal criteria.’’)
226. To fix this problem, AC21 mandated one-year extensions for Cap H-1B Visa holders with
approved immigrant visa petitions who were waiting for visas to become available:
AC21 also sought to more generally ameliorate the impact of the lack of employment-based immigrant visas on the high-skilled beneficiaries of approved Form I–140 petitions. Sections 106(a) and (b) of AC21, as amended by section 11030A of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107–273 (2002), authorized the extension of H– 1B status beyond the statutory 6-year maximum for H–1B nonimmigrant workers who are being sponsored for LPR status by U.S. employers and are subject to lengthy adjudication or processing delays. Specifically, these provisions exempted H–1B nonimmigrant workers from the 6-year limitation on H–1B status contained in INA 214(g)(4), if 365 days or more have elapsed since the filing of a labor certification application (if such certification is required under INA 212(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)), or a Form I–140 petition under INA 203(b), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b). These provisions were intended to allow such high-skilled individuals to remain in the United States as H– 1B nonimmigrant workers, rather than being forced to leave the country and disrupt their employers due to a long-pending labor certification application or Form I–140 petition. See S. Rep. 260, at 23.
Id.
51

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 52 of 186
227. AC21 also improved a Cap H-1B Visa holder’s ability to change employers but while maintaining Cap H-1B Visa status and “porting” an approved immigrant visa to a new employer. Id.; see AC21 § 104(c), P.L. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1253 (Oct. 17, 2000). 228. In light of the long backlogs for immigrant visas, based on the AC21 extensions, it is common for nationals of certain countries to be in Cap H-1B Visa Status for years. 229. As such, long-time United States residents, often with United States citizen children, must go to their home consulate when they travel international if they do not have a current “visa.”
Proclamation 10052 230. On June 22, 2020, the President of the United States issued Proclamation 10052. 231. In it, the President, inter alia, ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to prevent the “entry into the United States of any alien seeking entry pursuant to any hoof the following nonimmigrant visas . . . (a) an H-1B . . . and any alien accompanying or following to join such alien.” Proclamation 10052 § 2(a). 232. The President applied this new rule to “any alien” who “is outside of the United States” on June 22, 2020 who “does not have a non-immigrant visa that is valid on” June 22, 2020 and who has no other type of travel authorization. Id. at § 3(a). 233. Proclamation 10052 orders the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce its terms. 234. The Secretary of State is interpreting this Proclamation 10052 to refuse to issue H-1B and H-4 visas at its consulates in India. To this end, the Secretary is cancelling visa appointments, refusing to schedule new appointments, and refusing to make decisions on pending DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa Applications that request H-1B visas and H-4 visas.
52

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 53 of 186

235. The Secretary of State is withholding all action on DS-160 requests for H-1B and H-4

visas at all of the consulates in India.

236. Upon information and belief, the Secretary of Homeland Security is interpreting

Proclamation 10052 to refuse entry to any foreign national who has an H-1B or H-4 visa issued

after June 22, 2020.

237. Proclamation 10052 contravenes duly enacted statues and regulations, and its

enforcement therefore is unlawful.

PLAINTIFFS’ FACTS

Plaintiffs

238. Plaintiff

is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B visa petition with Receipt

Number

that was approved on 9/26/2019.

239. The H-1B visa petition has a validity period from 2/29/2020 to 2/28/2023 to work in a

position with standard occupation code 15-1132.

240. Plaintiff

also has an approved EB2 immigrant visa with Receipt Number

and a priority date of 5/22/2014.

241. This immigrant visa approval is based on an approved permanent labor certification

application completed by Plaintiff’s employer.

242. Plaintiff

is married to Plaintiff

.

243. Plaintiff

has a 1-year-old child named .

244.

a citizen and national of United States.

245.

spouse is eligible for an H-4 visa because she is a derivative of

53

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 54 of 186

246.

recently traveled from the United States to

India.

247. While they were in India, they applied to the appropriate consulate for a non-immigrant

visa, either an H-1B or an H-4, by electronically submitting a DS160.

248. The receipt number for

DS160 is

249. The receipt number for

DS160 is

250. As of June 22, 2020, no consular officer had made a final decision on any of these

pending DS160s.

251.

have substantial ties to the United States.

252. Defendants refusal to make a decision on these pending DS160s is causing significant

harm to

.

253. Defendants refusal to make a decision on these pending DS160s is unlawful.

Plaintiffs

254. Plaintiff

is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B visa petition with Receipt

Number

that was approved on 9/5/2018.

255. The H-1B visa petition has a validity period from 8/27/2021 to 6/14/2021 to work in a

position with standard occupation code 15-113.

256. Plaintiff

also has an approved EB2 immigrant visa with Receipt Number

and a priority date of October 24, 2017.

257. This immigrant visa approval is based on an approved permanent labor certification

application completed by Plaintiff’s employer. The Department Labor approved this labor

certification on April 5, 2018 and assigned it Receipt Number

258. Plaintiff

is married to Plaintiff

.

54

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 55 of 186

259.

spouse is eligible for an H-4 visa because they are derivatives of

260.

recently traveled from the United States to India.

261. While they were in India, they applied to the appropriate consulate for a non-immigrant

visa, either an H-1B or an H-4, by electronically submitting a DS160.

262. The receipt number for

DS160 is

.

263. The receipt number for

DS160 is

264. As of June 22, 2020, no consular officer had made a final decision on any of these

pending DS160s.

265.

have substantial ties to the United States.

266. Defendants refusal to make a decision on these pending DS160s is causing significant

harm to

and

.

267. Defendants refusal to make a decision on these pending DS160s is unlawful.

55

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 178 of 186 1950.
1953. Defendants refusal to make a decision on this DS160 is unlawful.
1962. Defendants refusal to make a decision on this DS160 is unlawful. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Non-Statutory Action for Ultra Vires Conduct) 1963. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations above as though restated here. 1964. Proclamation 10052 was issued outside the jurisdictional limitations of the INA.
178

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 179 of 186
1965. The Proclamation’s suspension of the entry of foreign nationals returning to the United States to resume employment under approved H-1B petitions constitutes an ultra vires attempt to regulate the domestic economy. 1966. The Proclamation’s suspension of the entry of foreign nationals returning to the United States to resume employment under approved H-1B petitions subverts Congress’s careful balance of interests reflected in the text and purpose of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A) and 8 U.S.C. 1184(n). 1967. The application of the Proclamation’s suspension of entry of foreign nationals returning to resume H-1B status by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security is ultra vires and contrary to the INA. 1968. As such, this Court should order the Defendants to issue H-1B and H-4 visas without regard to Proclamation 10052 and to consider applications for admission to the United States without regard to Proclamation 10052.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (APA – Agency Action Unlawfully Withheld) 1969. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations above as though restated here. 1970. Proclamation 10052 was issued outside the jurisdictional limitations of the INA. 1971. The Proclamations’ suspension of the entry of foreign nationals returning to the United States to resume employment under approved H-1B petitions constitutes an ultra vires attempt to regulate the domestic economy. 1972. The Proclamation's suspension of the entry of foreign nationals returning to the United States to resume employment under approved H-1B petitions subverts Congress’s careful balance of interests reflected in the text and purpose of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A) and 8 U.S.C. 1184(n).
179

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 180 of 186
1973. The application of the Proclamation’s suspension of entry of foreign nationals returning to resume H-1B status by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security is ultra vires and contrary to the INA. 1974. Proclamation 10052 and the Defendants’ refusal to act based thereon are actions in excess of “statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations” and, therefore, violate the Administrative Procedure Act.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). 1975. Because Proclamation 10052 is ultra vires, the Defendants refusal to issue H-1B or H-4 visas or to allow entry to the United States based solely on the terms of Proclamation 10052 constitutes unlawfully withheld action and this Court can compel “agency action unlawfully withheld” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 1976. As such, this Court should set aside Proclamation and order the Defendants to issue H-1B and H-4 visas without regard to Proclamation 10052 and to consider applications for admission to the United States without regard to Proclamation 10052.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (APA – Suspension of Licenses Contrary to Required Procedure) 1977. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations above as though restated here. 1978. Proclamation 10052 violates the APA because it was issued without observance of procedure required by law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). 1979. Under the APA, the executive may not withdraw, suspend, revoke or annul a license unless it gives notice and provides an opportunity to comment. 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). 1980. USCIS's granting of a petition to classifying a foreign national as H-1B non-immigrant or an H-4 non-immigrant constitutes the granting of a license within the meaning of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 551(8).
180

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 181 of 186
1981. USCIS’s granting of a petition to classify a foreign national as an H-1B non-immigrant allows the foreign national to reside and work in the United States for the foreign national's sponsoring employer. 1982. USCIS’s granting of a petition to classify a foreign national as an H-1B non-immigrant allows the foreign national to apply for an H-1B visa for entry into the United States. And it allows the H-1B non-immigrant’s spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one to apply for an H-4 visa. 1983. Each Plaintiff has a valid, approved, and unexpired H-1B petition, or is a derivative beneficiary qualifying for H-4 status. 1984. Proclamation 10052 suspended each Plaintiff’s approved H-1B petition. 1985. The Secretary of Homeland Security’s and the Secretary of State’s application of Proclamation 10052 to each Plaintiff constitutes a suspension of their approved H-1B petitions. 1986. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State failed to provide each Plaintiff with notice in writing of the facts or conduct which warranted the suspension of their petitions. 1987. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State failed to provide each Plaintiff with an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all requirements for maintaining a valid H-1B petition. 1988. In applying Proclamation 10052, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State violated 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). 1989. The Defendants’ refusal to issue visas or admit foreign nationals is unlawful. 1990. Under the APA, this court has authority to compel unlawfully withheld action. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
181

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 182 of 186
1991. Defendant Department of State does not have discretion to refuse to make decisions on pending DS160 visa applications.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (APA – Arbitrary and Capricious Action) 1992. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations above as though restated here.
1993. Defendants refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission based on the application of Proclamation 10052 are arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 1994. Defendants’ unlawful refusals have aggrieved Plaintiffs. 1995. An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if:
the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 1996. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem, primarily the legislative and executive findings that indicate the importation of H-1B workers and their derivatives is good for the economy and promotes domestic job growth. 1997. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem, primarily that these non-immigrants are not taking jobs from American workers because they are returning to jobs they already had. There is no net loss in jobs.
182

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 183 of 186
1998. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider application for admission ignores pertinent facts relating to the Department of Labor’s approved permanent labor certifications showing that there are no available and qualified United States workers to fill the jobs in which Plaintiffs are or will be employed. 1999. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission is based on irrational decision making because Plaintiffs are not competing with United States workers who lack bachelor’s degrees. 2000. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem, primarily that H-4 minor children do not work. 2001. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem, primarily that the executive determined that H-4 derivatives who are eligible for employment are good for the economy and promote domestic job growth. 2002. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem, primarily because it did not restrict the issuance or entry of other specialty occupation workers on visas under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(e)(3) or 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(h)(1)(B)(1). 2003. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission lack reasoned decisionmaking. 2004. Defendants refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission lack a factual basis, and to the extent there is one, the refusals run counter to the evidence.
2005. This Court should compel the Defendants to adjudicate H-1B and H-4 visas and consider their applications for admission regardless of Proclamation 10052.
183

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 184 of 186
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Denial of Equal Protection) 2006. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations above as though restated here. 2007. Defendants’ refusals to issue visas or consider applications for admission violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States because their decisions disparately impact Indian nationals. 2008. In Fiscal Year 2018, Indian nationals comprised 73.9% of all H-1B visa holders. See H1B Petitions by Gender and Country of Birth for Fiscal Year 2018 (available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-petitions-by-gender-country-of-birth-fy2018.pdf (last visited Jul. 14, 2020). 2009. Because USCIS publishes these statistics, Defendants are aware that a ban on all H-1B and H-4 visas would disparately impact Indian nationals. 2010. Such knowledge is probative of purposeful discrimination. 2011. Proclamation 10052 treats Indian nationals differently on the basis of their nationality on the basis of arbitrary and irrational classifications. 2012. Upon information and belief, Proclamation 10052 is intended to have adverse effects on Indian nationals. 2013. Thus, this Court should declare as unconstitutional Proclamation 10052 as a violation of the equal protection clause. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Denial of Due Process) 2014. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations above as though restated here. 2015. Plaintiffs have a legitimate claim of entitlement to a decision on their DS160 visa requests.
184

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 185 of 186
2016. Plaintiffs also have a legitimate claim of entitlement to their approved H-1B or H-4 visa petitions. 2017. Plaintiffs have a cognizable due process right. 2018. Defendants are depriving them of these interests without process required by law as they are providing no notice or meaningful opportunity to comment on Proclamation 10052, the Defendants’ refusal to issue H-1B or H-4 visas or accept applications for admission from such visa holders. 2019. Thus, this Court should declare as unconstitutional Proclamation 10052 as a violation of the due process clause.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Plaintiffs reserve the right to add additional allegations of agency error and related causes of action under common law or the APA after receiving the certified administrative record.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs pray that this Court will do the following: 2020. Take jurisdiction over this case. 2021. Declare Proclamation 10052 unlawful. 2022. Declare the Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052 unlawful. 2023. Enjoin the Department of State from applying Proclamation 10052 to Plaintiffs and order the Department of State to render decisions on all of Plaintiffs’ pending non-immigrant visa applications within 14 days. 2024. Enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from refusing entry to Plaintiffs based on Proclamation 10052.
185

Case 1:20-cv-01907 Document 1 Filed 07/14/20 Page 186 of 186

2025. Enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from rescinding, suspending, or abrogating

any approved H-1B petition based on Proclamation 10052.

2026. Enjoin the Department of Labor from rescinding, suspending, or abrogating any approved

Labor Condition Applications or Permanent Labor Certification Applications based on

Proclamation 10052.

2027. Award attorneys’ fees to each Plaintiff under the Equal Access to Judgment Act.

2028. Enter all necessary writs, injunctions, and orders as justice and equity require.

July 14, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

JONATHAN WASDEN Wasden Banias LLC
GEOFFREY FORNEY Wasden Banias LLC
s/Bradley B. Banias BRADLEY B. BANIAS Wasden Banias LLC Bar No.: SC76653 DC Bar No.: SC0004 1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Suite D100 Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 843.410.9340 brad@wasdenlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

186

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 53

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHANDAN PANDA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 1:20-01907-KBJ

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dated: July 15, 2020

JONATHAN D. WASDEN Wasden Banias, LLC
BRADLEY B. BANIAS Wasden Banias, LLC
GEOFFREY FORNEY Bar No. PA0088 Wasden Banias, LLC
1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd. Suite D-100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………..iii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND…………………………………...……2
A. Permanent Labor Certification Program………………………………………………3 B. The H-1B Program…………………………………………………………………….5 C. The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act……………………………...8 D. Visa Requirements for Entry………………………………………………………...11 E. The Presidential Proclamation……………………………………………………….11 FACTUAL BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………..…......13 A. Plaintiff Vinod Winston Albuquerque……………………………………………….14 B. Plaintiff Siddhartha Adla…………………………………………………………….16 C. Plaintiff Anup Bhagirathbhai Tiwari………………………………………………...17 BASIS AND SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW………………………………………………...18 STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF………..………...……………….20 ARGUMENT…………………………………..………………………………….……….….....20 A. Plaintiffs Have Standing……………………………………………………………..20 B. Plaintiffs Are Challenging Final Agency Actions…………..…………………...…..22 C. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims…………………….24
1. Proclamation 10052 and its Application are Ultra Vires……………………...24 2. Defendants’ Withholding Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Visa Applications
was Arbitrary and Capricious……..................................................................32 i

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 53 3. Proclamation 10052 Resulted in a Procedurally Defective Suspensions of Plaintiffs’Approved H-1B Petitions………………………………………….31
D. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm in the Absence of Preliminary Relief……...37 E. A Preliminary Injunction Serves the Public Interest and Will Not Harm the
Agencies…………………………………………………………………………...…38 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE APPENDIX [Declarations and Exhibits] (filed under separate docket entries)
ii

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 53
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAW
Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1998)-----------------------------------------------------------------------21
Air North America v. DOT, 937 F.3d 1427, 1436 (9th Cir. 1991)--------------------------------------------------------------------36
Alliance to Save Mattaponi v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2007)---------------------------------------------------------------- 19, 24
Am. Bankers Ass’n v. NCUA, 934 F.3d 649, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2019)---------------------------------------------------------------- 19, 30
Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2013)---------------------------------------------------------------------19
Am. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 110 (1902) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
Anchustegui v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 257 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001).-------------------------------------------------------------------37
*API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013). --------------------------------------------------------------- 27, 31
Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 395 (2012) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------25
Blackwell College of Business v. Att’y Gen., 454 F.2d 928, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1971). --------------------------------------------------------------------36
Butte County v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2010)---------------------------------------------------------------------35
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164, 176-77 (1994)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------30
*Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1327-28 (D.C. Cir. 1996) --------------------------------------------------------- passim
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006)---------------------------------------------------------------------20
iii

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 53
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 286, 301-02 (1979).----------------------------------------------------------------------35
Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 579 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2009)---------------------------------------------------------------------------34
Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 901 F.2d 107, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 1990)-----------------------------------------------------------------22
Cyberworld Enterprise Technologies v. Napolitano, 602 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp, 571 F.3d 1288, 1291-92 (D.C. Cir. 2009)--------------------------------------------------------------20
de Nolasco v. ICE, 319 F. Supp. 3d 491, 502-03 (D.D.C. 2018)-----------------------------------------------------------38
*Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25, 34
Everglades Harvesting & Hauling v. Scalia, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217474 *29 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2019) ---------------------------------------38
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 828-29 (1992)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Fresno Mobile Radio v. FCC, 165 F.3d 965, 969-70 (D.C. Cir. 1999)-----------------------------------------------------------------34
Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, 890 F.3d 304, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------33
Goings v. Court Services, 786 F. Supp. 2d 48, 78 (D.D.C. 2011)------------------------------------------------------------------38
Greater Mo. Med. Pro-Care Providers, v. Perez, 812 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2015) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
H.C. LaMarche Enterprises, 87-INA-607 (BALCA Oct. 27, 1988) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. EPA, 912 F.2d 1525, 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1990)------------------------------------------------------------------23
iv

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 53
Hoosier Care, Inc. v. Chertoff, 482 F.3d 987, 988 (7th Cir. 2007)------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5
Human Touch DC, Inc. v. Merriweather, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186805, *6 (D.D.C. May 26, 2015) ----------------------------------------20
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 330 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) ----------------------------------------------------18
Intercontinental Placement Service, Inc. v. Shultz, 461 F.2d 222, 223 (3d Cir. 1972) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476, 483-84 (2011) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 613 (1838) -----------------------------------------------------------------------31
Kutty v. Dep’t of Labor, 764 F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2014)------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------20
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1990)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 731 (2d Cir. 2015) -----------------------------------------------------------------------21
Motions Systems Corp. v. George W. Bush, 437 F.3d 1356, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2006), -------------------------------------------------------------30
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------20
North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1059 (D.N.D. 2015) -----------------------------------------------------------38
NTEU v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 604 (D.C. Cir. 1974)---------------------------------------------------------------------31
Parcha v. Cuccinelli, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22197, *8 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2020). ---------------------------------------21
Patel v. Johnson, 2 F. Supp. 3d 108, 113-14 (D. Mass. 2014) --------------------------------------------------------- 3, 4
v

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 53
Prod. Tool Corp. v. ETA, 688 F.2d 1161, 1168 (7th Cir. 1982)-----------------------------------------------------------------3, 25
*Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81, 86 & 96 (2002)--------------------------------------------------------------------19, 25, 27
Safe Extensions v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593, 604-05 (D.C. Cir. 2007). ----------------------------------------------------------------35
Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783, 793 (D.C. Cir. 1987)---------------------------------------------------------------------23
Stellar IT Sols., Inc. v. USCIS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196284, *14 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2018) --------------------------------------21
Tesoro Alaska Petroleum v. FERC, 234 F.3d 1286, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2000)------------------------------------------------------------------34
Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2006)---------------------------------------------------------------- 18, 19
*Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2407 (2018) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 12, 27-28
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). --------------------------------------------------------------------38
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 589 (1952)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------32 CONSTITUTION
U.S. CONST. Art. II, § 3, cl. 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------31
STATUTE LAW
5 U.S.C. § 551(13) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
vi

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 53
5 U.S.C. § 551(8)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36 5 U.S.C. § 559 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37 5 U.S.C. § 703 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 5 U.S.C. § 704 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 5 U.S.C. § 706 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------24, 35, 39 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------32 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19, 37 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------1, 11, 23, 24 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)-------------------------------------------------------------------------5, 31 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 11, 24 8 U.S.C. § 1151(d)(1)(A)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)--------------------------------------------------------------------------3, 26 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A), (n)(1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11, 36
vii

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 53
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A)(i), (D) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(2)(A)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 8 U.S.C. § 1184(b), (c)(1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(9)(A)-(B)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------31 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 9 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(A)-(B) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(B) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1184(i) ----------------------------------------------------------------31 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(2)(A), (b)(3)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(F) ------------------------------------------------- 3 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(3)(C), 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)----------------------------------------------------------- 3 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b), 1154(b)----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 9 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(5), 1182(n), 1184(c), 1184(g), 1184(i)-------------------------------------------25 Pub. Law No. 101–649 § 205(c) (Nov. 29, 1990) -------------------------------------------------------- 6 Pub. Law No. 102-232, § 303(a)(7)(B) (Dec. 12, 1991)------------------------------------------------- 6 Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 411 (Oct. 21, 1998)-------------------------------------------------- 7 Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 412 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 413(a)------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 414…………………………………………………………..31 Pub. Law No. 106-313, § 106(a)-(b) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 26, 39
viii

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 53
Pub. Law No. 106-313, § 106(a)-(b) (Oct. 17, 2000) ---------------------------------------------------- 9 Pub. Law No. 107-273 § 11030A(a)-(b) (Nov. 2, 2002) ------------------------------------------------ 9 Pub. Law No. 107-296, § 451(b)(1) (Nov. 25, 2002). --------------------------------------------------- 3
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY House Rep. No. 101-723, Part 1, at 6743-44 (Sept. 19, 1990)------------------------------------------ 6 144 Cong. Rec. E2323, E2324 (Nov. 12, 1998) (Rep. Lamar Smith) --------------------------------- 7 144 Cong. Rec. S12741, S12749 (Oct. 21, 1998) (Sen. Abraham) ------------------------------------ 7 House Rep. No. 101-723, Part 1, at 6743 (Sept. 19, 1990)---------------------------------------------- 6 Senate Report No. 106-260, at 11 (Apr. 11, 2000) ---------------------------------------------------9, 31
REGULATIONS
22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 23 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 20 C.F.R. § 656.17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(5), 656.40(a)-(b) -------------------------------------------------------------------26 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(b)(2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(b)(1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.730(c)(4), 655.731(a)-------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.805-807------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.17(f)(5), 656.40(a)-(b) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 22 C.F.R. § 14.121(a). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 22 C.F.R. § 42.51(a)-(b) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
ix

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 53
22 C.F.R. §§ 41.53(a), 41.103(a)(1). ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 36 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(c) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(n)(1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 8 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(f). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 36 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(a) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5, 39 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.5(n)(1), 245.1(a) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(13)(i), 274a.12(b)(9) ------------------------------------------------------------8, 36
FEDERAL REGISTER 56 Fed. Reg. 54720, 54,721 (Dep’t of Labor) (Oct 22, 1991) ------------------------------------------ 6 57 Fed. Reg. 1316, 1318 (DOL) (Jan. 13, 1992). --------------------------------------------------------- 6 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110; 80,169-71 (Dep’t of Labor) (Dec. 20, 2000). ----------------------------------- 8 69 Fed. Reg. 77,326, 77,348 (Dep’t of Labor) (Dec. 27, 2004) ---------------------------------------- 4 80 Fed. Reg. 10284, 10286-87 (USCIS) (Feb. 25, 2015). ----------------------------------------------- 9 81 Fed. Reg. 82398, 82408-11 (USCIS) (Nov. 18, 2016) ----------------------------------------------10 80 Fed. Reg. at 10285, 10295, 10309 ---------------------------------------------------------------------34 80 Fed. Reg. at 10287, 10289 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 80 Fed. Reg. at 10289----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------39 80 Fed. Reg. at 10289 at 10285, 10295 ------------------------------------------------------------------10 80 Fed. Reg. at 10296.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 80 Fed. Reg. at 10309----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------34 81 Fed. Reg. at 82408-11------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10, 22
x

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 53
81 Fed. Reg. at 82409----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 81 Fed. Reg. at 82469----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------34 81 Fed. Reg. at 82479-------------------------------------------------------------------------------10, 27, 33
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES Avenue Dental Care,
ARB No. 07-101 (Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Rev. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010) --------------------------------- 7 *Greater Missouri Medical,
ARB No. 12-015 at 9-10 (Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Rev. Bd. 2014)-----------------------------6, 26 Karl Story Endoscopy-America,
2011-PER-00040, at *14-17 (BALCA Dec. 1, 2011) ------------------------------------------------26 Rajan v. Int’l Business Solutions,
ARB No. 03-104 at 7 (Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Rev. Bd. Aug. 31, 2004) ------------------------- 8 Simply Soup, Ltd.,
2012-PER-00940, *4-6 (BALCA Jan. 13, 2015) -----------------------------------------------------26
OTHER AUTHORITIES Tom C. Clark, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act
(Dep’t of Justice 1947)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law 729-32 (West 1951) ---------------------------------------18 Carolyn Edie, Revolution and the Rule of Law: The End of the Dispensing Power, 1689,
10 Eighteenth-Century Studies 434 (1977) ------------------------------------------------------------31 Harry T. Edwards, et al., Federal Standards of Review 150 (Thomson Reuters 3d Ed. 2018) ---18 Federalist Papers Nos. 33 & 78 (Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter Ed. 1961). --------------------------32 William Holdsworth, IV History of English Law 240 (Sweet and Maxwell 2d Ed. 1937) --------31
xi

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 53
INTRODUCTION Each Plaintiff is the beneficiary of an approved skilled worker H-1B petition, or the derivative beneficiary of an H-1B worker, who were recently residing in the United States in lawful non-immigrant status under petitions approved by the Department of Homeland Security. The H-1B Plaintiffs have been working in the United States for their sponsoring United States employers and several have approved immigrant petitions that allow them to pursue permanent resident status. Each Plaintiff has substantial connections to the United States in terms of employment or family ties (or both) and, in some cases, ownership of real property. Plaintiffs want to return to the United States to resume employment or reunite with family members (or both) based on approved H-1B petitions. Based on those approved H-1B petitions filed on their behalf, or on behalf of their family members, Plaintiffs submitted DS-160 applications to obtain visas that will allow them to return to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status. However, the United States consulates, acting under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, have decided to withhold the adjudication of those DS-160 visa applications. See 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a). The consulates are withholding a final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications based on the application of the President’s recently issued Proclamation 10052 (dated June 22, 2020), which purports to suspend the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States in H-1B or H-4 status. The Proclamation directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to exclude the entry of Plaintiffs despite the fact that they are the beneficiaries, or derivative beneficiaries, of approved H-1B petitions filed by United States employers who have already been employing the H-1B Plaintiffs as skilled workers. The Proclamation also excludes the entry of many Plaintiffs who are the beneficiaries

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 14 of 53
of approved immigrant petitions based on their employers’ receiving approved labor certification applications from the Department of Labor showing there are no qualified United States workers available for the permanent positions that their employers intend to have those Plaintiffs fill.
As a result of Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052, many Plaintiffs are deprived of income and related employment in which they are authorized to engage under their approved H-1B petitions. Several Plaintiffs are also deprived of the ability to re-unite with immediate family members in the United States. Still others are deprived of the ability to attend to their financial affairs and the real property they own in the United States.
Based on Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052 in withholding the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications, Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule 65(a) to enjoin the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security from applying Proclamation 10052 in determining whether Plaintiffs qualify for visas and admission to the United States. The Proclamation and its application by Defendants are ultra vires in violation of the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, in which Congress crafted a balanced and reticulated scheme to allow for and encourage the entry of skilled foreign workers to fill critical technology sector jobs upon the completion of detailed statutory conditions that Plaintiffs and their employers have already met. Proclamation 10052 subverts that congressionally created balance by precluding the H-1B Plaintiffs’ return to the United States to perform skilled services under already approved petitions issued by the Department of Homeland Security based on certifications from the Department of Labor.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND Through the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA), Congress provided detailed grounds on which foreign nationals abroad are rendered inadmissible to the United
2

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 15 of 53
States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a); Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2407 (2018). In the employment-based context, the statute specifies detailed criteria for determining whether foreign nationals may be admitted to the United States to perform temporary or permanent labor for United States employers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A), (n)(1).
A. Permanent Labor Certification Program The INA provides that an “employer” may petition for the classification of a foreign national seeking admission to the United States based on an offer of permanent employment as a skilled worker or a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(2)(A), (b)(3)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(F). Congress delegated to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) the authority to adjudicate immigrant visa petitions to classify foreign nationals under defined preference categories. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. Law No. 107-296, § 451(b)(1) (Nov. 25, 2002). But before filing a petition with USCIS to classify a foreign national as an employment-based immigrant, the statute requires employers to obtain a certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) stating that there are no qualified, able, and willing United States workers available to fill the employer’s job opportunity. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(3)(C), 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I); Patel v. Johnson, 2 F. Supp. 3d 108, 113-14 (D. Mass. 2014). DOL must also certify that the employment of foreign nationals will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(II). Through those statutory requirements, Congress provided protections for the domestic labor market. See Intercontinental Placement Service, Inc. v. Shultz, 461 F.2d 222, 223 (3d Cir. 1972). The labor market findings DOL must make are designed to effectuate that purpose. See Prod. Tool Corp. v. ETA, 688 F.2d 1161, 1168 (7th Cir. 1982).
3

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 16 of 53
In applying the statute, DOL’s regulations have traditionally set forth several provisions designed to ensure that the permanent employment of foreign nationals does not adversely affect the domestic labor market. For example, DOL’s current regulations require an employer to engage in a good faith effort to recruit United States workers before obtaining certification, see 69 Fed. Reg. 77,326, 77,348 (Dep’t of Labor) (Dec. 27, 2004); H.C. LaMarche Enterprises, 87INA-607 (BALCA Oct. 27, 1988),1 including advertising the position, see 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e), and demonstrating that the job opportunity is clearly open to any qualified United States workers. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(8). The employer is also required to offer employment and advertise its position at no lower than the prevailing wage rate, as determined by DOL. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.17(f)(5), 656.40(a)-(b). The employer must also document that its requirements for the job opportunity represent the employer’s “actual minimum requirements” for the job opportunity. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i).
DOL is only authorized to issue an approved labor certification for permanent employment of a foreign national when the employer, after completing the mandated test of the domestic labor market, is unable to locate an able, willing, qualified, and available United States worker for the advertised job opportunity. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(b)(2). After DOL approves the labor certification application, the employer may file a Form I-140 immigrant visa petition with USCIS to classify the foreign national beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(c); Patel, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 114. The approved labor certification must be filed in support of a Form I-140 petition within 180 calendar days of the date DOL granted the
1 The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) consists of administrative law judges of DOL assigned to hear appeals of denied labor certification applications. See 52 Fed. Reg. 11217, 11218 (Dep’t of Labor) (Apr. 8, 1987).
4

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 17 of 53
certification. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(b)(1). USCIS is bound by DOL’s determination that there are no qualified and available United States workers to fill the employer’s job opportunity. Hoosier Care, Inc. v. Chertoff, 482 F.3d 987, 988 (7th Cir. 2007).
Once USCIS approves an immigrant visa petition, the foreign national may use the approved petition to apply for adjustment of status to a lawful permanent resident if he has already been admitted and is physically present in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.5(n)(1), 245.1(a). If the foreign national beneficiary is overseas, he may use the approved immigrant visa petition to apply for an immigrant visa at a United States Consulate abroad for subsequent admission into the United States as a permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(n)(1). However, due to backlogs in available immigrant visas, many foreign nationals must wait several years before applying for adjustment of status or an immigrant visa overseas. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(a); 22 C.F.R. § 42.51(a)-(b); see also Dep’t of State, Visa Bulletin, available at: travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visabulletin/2020/visa-bulletin-for-july-2020.html. In the meanwhile, if the foreign national meets the statutory qualifications, he or she may work in the United States in a temporary capacity for an employer as a non-immigrant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(b), (c)(1).
B. The H-1B Program The INA also provides for the admission of temporary, skilled workers in H-1B classification to perform services for United States employers in specialty occupations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The statute defines “specialty occupation” to mean an occupation that requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(A)-(B).
5

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 18 of 53
The regulations require employers to establish that their jobs require the minimum of a bachelor’s degree as a pre-condition for employing foreign nationals in H-1B classification. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).
The current H-1B program was established through the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, which was the product of a legislative compromise to afford United States businesses greater access to skilled foreign workers while providing protections to the domestic labor market. See Pub. Law No. 101–649 § 205(c) (Nov. 29, 1990); Greater Missouri Medical, ARB No. 12-015 at 9-10 (Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Rev. Bd. 2014),2 overruled on other grounds, Greater Mo. Med. Pro-Care Providers, v. Perez, 812 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2015); 56 Fed. Reg. 54720, 54,721 (Dep’t of Labor) (Oct 22, 1991). Responding to the concerns of organized labor, Congress capped the number of H-1B visas issued where no quota had existed in prior law and introduced the labor condition application (LCA) process into the H-1B program. See Greater Missouri Medical, ARB No. 12-015 at 10. The LCA process was designed to prevent employers from using foreign workers to undercut domestic wages and working conditions. Id.; see also House Rep. No. 101-723, Part 1, at 6743-44 (Sept. 19, 1990). However, Congress addressed the recognized need of United States businesses to have expedited access to skilled H-1B workers by requiring DOL to approve LCAs under strict deadlines. See Pub. Law No. 102-232, § 303(a)(7)(B) (Dec. 12, 1991); 57 Fed. Reg. 1316, 1318 (DOL) (Jan. 13, 1992).
Recognizing the continued need for skilled foreign workers in the technology sector, Congress increased the number of available H-1B workers for Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2003. See American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA),
2 Decisions of the Administrative Review Board are available at: https://www.dol.gov/arb/decisions.htm.
6

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 19 of 53
Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 411 (Oct. 21, 1998). The congressional statements accompanying the increase in H-1B visa numbers recognized that the continued competitiveness of the technology sector in the United States is crucial for this nation’s economic development and for expanded economic opportunity for domestic workers. See 144 Cong. Rec. S12741, S12749 (Oct. 21, 1998) (Sen. Abraham). The new legislation addressed the issue of labor shortages and recognized that skilled workers create more jobs for everyone in the domestic market. Id. But Congress also put in place protections to ensure that businesses would not displace domestic workers with foreign nationals. See ACWIA, Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 412; see also 144 Cong. Rec. E2323, E2324 (Nov. 12, 1998) (Rep. Lamar Smith) (“It is the intent of the Congress through this provision to prevent covered employers from replacing or displacing American workers with H-1B nonimmigrants.”).
Congress also ensured that the importation of H-1B workers would not adversely affect the domestic labor market by mandating that employers pay foreign workers a required wage rate. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A)(i), (D); House Rep. No. 101-723, Part 1, at 6743 (Sept. 19, 1990). When filing an LCA with DOL, the employer must identify the specialty occupation position, the location of employment, and attest that it will comply with the mandated wage rate. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.730(c)(4), 655.731(a); Kutty v. Dep’t of Labor, 764 F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2014). Employers must pay H-1B workers the required wage rate for all work performed in the United States. See Avenue Dental Care, ARB No. 07-101 (Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Rev. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010).3 Moreover, Congress further protected the domestic labor market by requiring that
3 Although DOL is generally not permitted to investigate the veracity of the employer’s attestations on the LCA prior to certification beyond obvious inaccuracies, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1), Congress authorized DOL to investigate an employer’s compliance with the terms and conditions of employment specified in the LCA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R.
7

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 20 of 53
employers pay the H-1B workers the required wage during any time the employer places the H-1B worker in non-productive status. See ACWIA, Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 413(a); Rajan v. Int’l Business Solutions, ARB No. 03-104 at 7 (Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Rev. Bd. Aug. 31, 2004) (“if the H-1B nonimmigrant is not performing work and thus is in a nonproductive status because of lack of assigned work, lack of a permit or license, or some other employmentrelated reason, the employer is required to pay the wages due under the LCA.”).4
After DOL approves an LCA, the employer may file a petition with USCIS to classify the foreign worker as an H-1B nonimmigrant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(1). USCIS may approve the H-1B petition if the employer establishes that its job requires the minimum of a bachelor’s degree for entry into the position. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The approved H-1B petition allows the foreign national beneficiary to reside in United States and work in the position identified in the petition. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(13)(i), 274a.12(b)(9). The spouses and children of H-1B workers who accompany the H-1B principal are permitted to stay in the United States in H-4 classification during the same period of admission as the H-1B nonimmigrant. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
C. The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act Although skilled H-1B workers are limited to a six-year period of authorized stay in the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4), employers may file immigrant visa petitions on behalf of those workers to retain their services as permanent residents. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b),
§§ 655.805-807; Cyberworld Enterprise Technologies v. Napolitano, 602 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2010). 4 The employer’s decision to place an H-1B worker in non-productive status is referred to as “benching,” during which time the employer is required to pay the H-1B worker the wage rate identified in the LCA. See 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110; 80,169-71 (Dep’t of Labor) (Dec. 20, 2000).
8

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 21 of 53
1154(b). However, employment-based immigrant visas are limited to 140,000 for each fiscal year, see 8 U.S.C. § 1151(d)(1)(A), stratified according to preference category, see 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b), with further specific numerical limits per country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2). As a result of those numerical limits, many of the employment-based preference categories are oversubscribed, limiting the ability of skilled H-1B workers to obtain permanent resident status and continue to fill the sustained needs of American companies. See 80 Fed. Reg. 10284, 1028687 (USCIS) (Feb. 25, 2015).
In 2000, Congress again recognized the importance of retaining skilled H-1B workers long term by enacting an extension of the normal six year limit, see 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4), for those H-1B workers who are beneficiaries of an employer’s pending or approved employmentbased immigrant visa petition or labor certification application as part of the process for their obtaining permanent resident status. See American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), Pub. Law No. 106-313, § 106(a)-(b) (Oct. 17, 2000); Pub. Law No. 107-273 § 11030A(a)-(b) (Nov. 2, 2002). Congress addressed the issue of long waiting times for skilled H-1B nonimmigrants in obtaining permanent resident status by, among other things, directing legacy INS (now USCIS) to extend the stay of H-1B workers in one-year increments during the pendency of their employer’s immigrant visa petition and the H-1B worker’s application for adjustment of status to permanent resident. Id. As stated in the legislative history, Congress was concerned that artificially limiting United States companies’ ability to hire skilled foreign professionals would stymie this country’s economic growth and thereby partially atrophy its creation of new jobs. See Senate Report No. 106-260, at 11 (Apr. 11, 2000). In support of amending the statute to allow for H-1B workers to remain in the United States long term, the legislative history noted that forcing those workers to return home at the conclusion of their
9

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 22 of 53
allotted six-year time limit would disrupt projects and American workers. Id. at 22. The amendment was designed to limit disruption to American businesses. Id.
Under the legislative mandate of AC21, the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that Congress sought to improve economic growth and job creation by immediately increasing this country’s access to high-skilled workers. See 81 Fed. Reg. 82398, 82408-11 (USCIS) (Nov. 18, 2016). According to the agency, Congress “passed legislation specifically encouraging, and removing impediments to, the ability of H-1B nonimmigrants to seek LPR [legal permanent resident] status, such that they may more readily contribute permanently to United States economic sustainability and growth.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 10289. Obtaining and retaining skilled labor, as the Department of Homeland Security recognized, provides this country with competitive economic advantage and induces further job creation. Id. at 10285, 10295, 10309. It stated that foreign-born high-skilled individuals play an important role in domestic economic prosperity and the competitiveness of United States companies in numerous fields. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 82409.
To implement the congressional policy of AC21, the Department of Homeland Security recently published regulations to ensure employers retain skilled foreign workers in H-1B classification while those workers are pursuing permanent resident status. Id. at 82486-89. In assessing the costs and benefits of those regulations, the agency acknowledged that they would likely have no adverse effect on the domestic labor market because in many instances, the need for those individuals’ employment has already been demonstrated under the labor certification process through which DOL has certified that there are no United States workers who are ready, willing, and available to fill those positions in the area of intended employment. Id. at 82479.
10

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 23 of 53
By increasing flexibility and mobility for H-1B workers, they are more likely to remain in the United States to help fill the demonstrated need for their services. Id.
D. Visa Requirements for Entry If the foreign national is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B petition, but is outside the United States, she must present a valid visa to apply for admission and entry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II); 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(f). Based on the approved H-1B petition, the foreign national beneficiary may apply for a visa with the United States consulate using Form DS-160. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(B); 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.53(a), 41.103(a)(1). When the foreign national completes and signs Form DS-160, the consular officer “must either issue or refuse the visa.” 22 C.F.R. § 14.121(a). Visa refusals “must be based on legal grounds.” Id. In addition, the consular officer must inform the applicant of the grounds of ineligibility. See 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b). Consular officers work under the direction of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a). E. The Presidential Proclamation The statute provides that the President may by proclamation suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants if he finds that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Although the statute entrusts to the President decisions whether and when to suspend entry of foreign nationals seeking admission, it does not allow the President to expressly override particular provisions of the INA. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2411 (2018). On April 22, 2020, President Trump issued Proclamation 10014 suspending the entry of immigrants who are outside the United States without an approved immigrant visa or other valid travel document. See Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the
11

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 24 of 53
U.S. Labor Market, § 2(a) (April 22, 2020).5 On June 22, 2020, the President issued Proclamation 10052 continuing to suspend the entry of immigrants outside the United States in addition to adding further suspensions to the entry of several classes of non-immigrants outside the United States. See Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market, §§ 1-3 (June 22, 2020). Among other classes, Proclamation 10052 suspends the entry of any alien seeking admission to the United states as an H-1B non-immigrant, including any alien accompanying or following to join an H-1B nonimmigrant, who is outside the United States without a non-immigrant visa or other travel document that is valid on or before June 24, 2020. Id. §§ 2(a), 3(i)-(iii).6
Proclamation 10052 states that suspending the entry of various non-immigrant categories is meant to address the unemployment rate due to COVID-19. Id., Preamble. By its express terms, the Proclamation seeks to regulate domestic economic relations by preventing the entry of H-1B non-immigrants with already-approved petitions so that domestic workers might fill the high-skilled jobs for which employers sought foreign nationals with a bachelor’s degree. Id. In support of that theory, the Proclamation states, without disclosing any details, that the Secretary of Labor found the present admission of workers within several non-immigrant visa categories poses a risk of displacing United States workers. Id. However, the Proclamation did not discuss whether or to what extend the Secretary of Labor determined that the Department of Labor’s prior certification of employers’ testing the job market through the permanent labor certification
5 The relevant Proclamations are available at: www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/ 6 On June 29, 2020, the President issued an amendment to Proclamation 10052 clarifying that the suspension applies to non-immigrants outside the United States who do not have a valid H-1B visa on or before June 24, 2020. See Proclamation on Amendment to Proclamation 10052, § 1 (June 29, 2020).
12

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 25 of 53
program was no longer relevant or insufficient. Id. Although Proclamation 10052 purported to address the high unemployment rates due to COVID-19, it did not make any factual findings in connection with the congressional policy, as reflected in ACWIA and AC21, that the importation of skilled foreign labor makes the United States more competitive economically and helps overall with domestic job creation.
Proclamation 10052 also states that suspending the entry of non-immigrant workers will supposedly address the historical disadvantage that domestic workers without college degrees face in competing for job opportunities. Id. However, the Proclamation does not address the fact that H-1B classification mandates that the employer’s job opportunity require a bachelor’s degree as a minimum qualification for entry into their positions as a pre-condition for using the H-1B program. The Proclamation does not make any factual findings about whether the employment of foreign nationals with bachelor’s degrees adversely affects the domestic labor pool composed of workers lacking bachelor’s degrees. Nor does the Proclamation address the congressional finding that employing skilled foreign labor helps with job creation.
Proclamation 10052 requires the Secretary of State, consular officers, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Labor to implement the mandatory suspension specified in the Proclamation. Id. § 4(a). The Proclamation went into effect on June 24, 2020, and expires on December 31, 2020. Id. Preamble, § 7.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are 171 nationals of India who are currently in India,7 but they maintain a residence in the United States based on their living and working in this country in lawful H-1B
7 Plaintiff Anju Toor, though an Indian national, is currently stranded in Canada. See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 194. She is the only Plaintiff not stranded in India.
13

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 26 of 53
status or H-4 status. Many Plaintiffs are also in the process of pursuing permanent residency based on their approved immigrant visa petitions that they obtained through their employer’s approved permanent labor certification applications filed on their behalf. However, Plaintiffs are prevented from returning to the United States to resume employment and residence in this country in H-1B or H-4 status based on Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052. Acting under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, the consulates are withholding the processing of Plaintiffs’ visa applications based on Proclamation 10052. See Appendix 220 (consulate’s email to Nisha Balakrishan stating that the Department of State will continue not to issue visas based on Presidential Proclamations), 331, 484, 648.8
To provide a succinct summary of the relevant facts, Plaintiffs detail the situation of the three Plaintiff families below. Those Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the other Plaintiffs on the issues of financial harm or separation from immediate family members, or both, based on Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052.
A. Plaintiff Vinod Winston Albuquerque Mr. Albuquerque has been working in the United States in H-1B status for the past three years. App’x 139-142. USCIS recently approved an extension for his H1B status through July 31, 2022. Id. Mr. Albuquerque, his wife, and his 6-year-old son have a residence in Duluth Georgia. Id. His son is in school in Gwinnett County, but due to COVID-19 precautions, he has been attending online and will continue online in the fall. Mr. and Mrs. Albuquerque are expecting their second child in September 2020. Id.
8 Plaintiffs file a separate Appendix containing their declarations and exhibits in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Due to the size of the Appendix, Plaintiffs’ counsel is filing the Appendix through ECF under at least two separate, subsequent docket entries.
14

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 27 of 53
On February 20, 2020, Mr. Albuquerque’s father had a stroke, and so, on February 21, 2020, Mr. Albuquerque flew to India to visit him. Id. Mr. Albuquerque’s wife and son did not travel to India primarily because Mr. Albuquerque’s wife is pregnant and his son was still in school at that point. Id. After arriving in India, Mr. Albuquerque’s father passed away. Id.
Mr. Albuquerque submitted a DS-160 to the Chennai Consulate to obtain a visa commensurate with his recent H-1B extension. As is common with extension visa appointments, Mr. Albuquerque scheduled a “drop box appointment,” where he would deposit his passport with the consulate and the consulate would return it with the visa foil inserted. But the consulate in Chennai cancelled his appointment. He repeatedly requested to expedite his appointment, but those requests were denied. In June 2020, the Chennai Consulate told him all appointments had been withdrawn.
Mr. Albuquerque and his family are suffering significantly from family separation. Mr. Albuquerque’s wife is on H-4 status and does not have authorization to work. She also does not drive a car. Despite those impediments, she is required to attend various prenatal checks because her pregnancy is considered at risk. When she goes to the OB/GYN, she must take a cab or convince a friend to transport her. As a result, they are concerned about the risk of infection to her when she goes to the doctor. During this critical time, Mr. Albuquerque is separated from his wife and child, unable to support them from afar, standing helpless in India with no return in sight and little hope of being present at his second child’s birth.9
9 Various other Plaintiffs have similar stories of the irreparable harm related to family separation. See Poorva Dixit, App’x 164 (separated from minor daughter), Dharmendra Dixit, App’x 234 (separated from wife and son with autism, where child’s therapy had to stop because wife does not have driver’s license and can’t get son to appointments), Sridher Medishetti, App’x 281 (child in U.S. with autism), Saptha Asiwini Gidugu, App’x 358 (enhanced post-partum depression from separation), and Siva Krishna Ptola, App’x 694 (will miss the birth of child).
15

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 28 of 53
B. Plaintiff Siddhartha Adla Mr. Adla has lived in the United States for at least 12 years. App’x. 1240-1245. He has a valid H-1B petition, and an approved immigrant visa petition based on an approved permanent labor certification. Id. Mr. Alda, his wife, and two children (both of which are United States citizens) live in Texas where they own their home. Id. Mr. Adla’s older child is 5 years of age and expected to start school this August in Texas. In June of 2019, Mr. Adla’s 3-year-old son was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Because early childhood treatment is imperative for such diagnosis, treatments began immediately. In December 2019, the family traveled to India to get a second opinion from a world-renowned physician in India. The physician in India confirmed that Mr. Alda’s son is exhibiting extreme signs of autism. The family intended to return to the United States as quickly as possible to re-start treatments. Despite making timely visa appointments, the consulates have not issued Mr. or Mrs. Adla their visas. In addition to Mr. Adla’s son’s continued deterioration, Mr. Alda continues to make payments on his mortgage. Based on Proclamation 10052, it is likely Mr. Adla’s company will put him on their “Indian payroll,” which means he will be paid wages commensurate with those paid in India, not the United States. Those wages are significantly lower. As Mr. Alda states in his declaration: “This payroll conversion will cause me a lot of financial distress since I’ll not be able to make my mortgage payments anymore due to the drastic difference in pay once converted to Indian payroll.” App’x 1244.10 In addition, he states, “I may have to either sell my house or
10 Many other Plaintiffs are suffering similar immediate or impending, irreparable financial harm in terms of lost or reduced income. See, e.g., Narendra Singh, App’x 344 (losing U.S. salary will disallow loan payments), Devendrakumar Ramachandran, App’x 475 (loss of salary due to furlough and now termination), Rohit Seshadri, App’x 743 (out of paid time off and lost salary), Revathy Janakiraman, App’x 786 (lost salary from January to June), Chandan Panda, App’x
16

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 29 of 53
file for bankruptcy soon depend on how worst things turn into[] [and] Our home may end up undergoing foreclosure as well.” Id.
C. Plaintiff Anup Bhagirathbhai Tiwari Mr. Tiwari has lived and worked in the United States for the last six and a half years in H-1B status. App’x 1126-1229. In addition, he has an approved immigrant petition that is based on an approved labor certification application. Swati Sharma, Mr. Tiwari’s wife, also has an approved H-1B with an approved immigrant visa based on an approved labor certification. They reside in the United States where they continue to rent an apartment for $2,700 a month. Mr. Tiwari and Mrs. Sharma traveled to India in February of 2020 to deal with a family emergency. At the time, Mrs. Sharma was 5-monthts pregnant. The couple timely made visa appointments and filed DS-160 applications in February 2020, but the consulate has yet to make decisions on their applications. App’x 1226-1229. Due to the stress of the delay, Mrs. Sharma had a lot of anxiety and depression in her last trimester of pregnancy. She eventually gave birth to their child in India amidst the troubling situations at the hospital due to COVID-19. Id. In addition to the stress of the pregnancy, the family did not have health insurance in India, requiring them to pay out of pocket for the pregnancy and hospitalization, despite paying medical insurance in the United States. They continue to pay their rent every month and bills, totally over $2,700 a month. Mr. Tiwari also recently filed a DS-160 application on behalf of his newborn, AT, but has yet to receive a decision based on Proclamation 10052, which prevents AT from acquiring an
1211 (furloughed without pay), Plaintiff Gospisetty, App’x at 01097 (wife lost job because she could not remotely work), Anju Toor, App’x 1083 (cannot continue research from India).
17

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 30 of 53
H-4 visa to travel to the United States because, according to Proclamation 10052, the newborn may take jobs from unemployed United States workers.
BASIS AND SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In the absence or inadequacy of a special statutory review provision under the agency’s organic statute, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides for review of a final agency action, see 5 U.S.C. § 704, under “any applicable form of legal action, including acts for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction” in a court of competent jurisdiction. 5 U.S.C. § 703; see also Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1990). The APA incorporated the common law forms of action that the courts historically used to review agency action. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 330 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring); Tom C. Clark, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 97 (Dep’t of Justice 1947). The courts traditionally used, and the APA incorporates, the equity injunction as a form of action for judicial review. See 5 U.S.C. § 703; Am. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 110 (1902); Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law 729-32 (West 1951). Judicial review is also available when an agency acts ultra vires. See Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1327-28 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “Section 702 of the APA eliminates the defense of sovereign immunity as a bar to judicial review of federal administrative action in a broad array of suits against the federal agencies, agency officials, and agency employees, provided the relief sought is not for money damages.” Harry T. Edwards, et al., Federal Standards of Review 150 (Thomson Reuters 3d Ed. 2018). The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity also applies outside the context of the APA where the plaintiff brings a non-statutory cause of action alleging ultra vires conduct. See Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Under a non-statutory cause of action,
18

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 31 of 53
based on the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court has jurisdiction to review the legality of Presidential action in a suit seeking to enjoin the officials who attempt to enforce the President’s directive. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 828-29 (1992) (Scalia, J. concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at 1328.
For claims under the APA, the statute authorizes the Court to “(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 706. Accordingly, the Court may review at least two types of claims: those seeking to compel required agency actions not yet taken (§ 706(1)), and those seeking to set aside arbitrary agency actions and determinations (§ 706(2)). See Alliance to Save Mattaponi v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2007). The APA also permits the Court to set aside agency action that fails to observe procedures required by law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). Under those provisions, the APA provides a generic cause of action in favor of persons aggrieved by agency action. See Trudeau, 456 F.3d at 188.
The APA imposes on all agencies the requirement of reasoned decision making. See Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476, 483-84 (2011). More specifically, an agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or the agency’s explanation runs counter to the evidence before it. See Am. Bankers Ass’n v. NCUA, 934 F.3d 649, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2019). An agency acts contrary to law when it issues a decision inconsistent with the statute. See Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81, 86 & 96 (2002); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
19

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 32 of 53
STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative position of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held. See Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A party moving for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction. See Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Courts in this circuit traditionally have evaluated the four factors on a “sliding scale”—if a movant makes a particularly strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor. See Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp, 571 F.3d 1288, 1291-92 (D.C. Cir. 2009).11 A movant’s demonstration of likelihood of success on the merits is particularly important. See Human Touch DC, Inc. v. Merriweather, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186805, *6 (D.D.C. May 26, 2015). The first two factors are the most important, and the third and fourth factors typically “merge when the Government is the opposing party.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009).
ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs Have Standing Before addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA, they will briefly discuss the issue of standing, which the H-1B Plaintiffs have based on suffering an injury in fact through the loss of their ability to benefit from the economic and immigration-related grants afforded to
11 The D.C. Circuit has not ruled on whether the sliding scale standard no longer applies after Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). See League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
20

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 33 of 53
them as beneficiaries of approved petitions permitting them to return to the United States to resume work for their United States employers. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 731 (2d Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs have established an injury in fact through the loss of income or the separation from their family members (or both) along with, in some cases, the inability to tend to their financial affairs and real property in the United States as a result of Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052. See Stellar IT Sols., Inc. v. USCIS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196284, *14 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2018). Moreover, a judicial order setting aside the Proclamation, or enjoining Defendants from applying the Proclamation, will redress their grievances by correcting the lost opportunity of having their visa applications decided based on their approved H-1B petitions. See Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiffs state in their declarations that as a result of the consulates’ refusal to process their visa applications based on the application of Proclamation 10052, they are prevented from returning to the United States, where many have resided for years in lawful nonimmigrant status. See App’x. As a result, many Plaintiffs are deprived of income and related employment in which they are authorized to engage under their approved H-1B petitions. Several Plaintiffs are also deprived of the ability to re-unite with close family members in the United States. Still others are deprived of the ability to attend to their financial affairs and their real property that they own in the United States. Any one of those injuries easily satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement. Likewise, the identified economic and personal harms are directly traceable to Defendants’ application of Proclamation 10052, which establishes Plaintiffs’ standing in this case. See Parcha v. Cuccinelli, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22197, *8 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2020).
Moreover, many Plaintiffs are the beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions and, on that basis, are pursuing permanent residence status while working as H-1B non-immigrants so
21

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 34 of 53
that they may remain in the United States to continue contributing to the economic development of this country. In that connection, the Department of Homeland Security’s own statements further show that those Plaintiffs have standing. See Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 901 F.2d 107, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (relying on the “agency’s own experience and sound market analysis” and the “public comments” contained in the administrative record as evidence of standing). In a recent rulemaking, the Department acknowledged that Congress through ACWIA and AC21 sought to retain skilled foreign workers, which the Department hoped to achieve by implementing rules to make it easier for H-1B workers to remain in the United States and develop professionally. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 82408-11. The Department also published another rule allowing for the employment of H-4 nonimmigrants to “incentivize H-1B non-immigrants and their families to continue to wait and contribute to the United States” by working “through an often lengthy waiting period for an immigrant visa to become available.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 10296. In that rule, the Department sought to “assist H-1B families in integrating into the U.S. community and economy.” Id. at 10304. Thus, the Secretary of Homeland Security already acknowledged that H-1B nonimmigrants are harmed by being deprived of an opportunity to continue working in the United States while pursuing permanent resident status.
B. Plaintiffs Are Challenging Final Agency Actions Each Plaintiff is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B petition, or the derivative beneficiary of an H-1B non-immigrant, who were recently residing in the United States in lawful non-immigrant status under approved petitions. The H-1B Plaintiffs have been working in the United States for their sponsoring United States employers and several have approved immigrant petitions that allow them to pursue permanent resident status. Based on approved H-1B
22

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 35 of 53
petitions, Plaintiffs submitted DS-160 applications for visas that will allow them to return to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status. However, the consulates acting under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, decided to withhold the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications based on Proclamation 10052. See 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a); see also App’x 220, 484, 648, 3331.
The regulation requires the consular officer to issue or refuse a visa after the applicant files a complete DS-160. See 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a). Despite that mandate, the consulates have withheld adjudicating, or refused to issue decisions on, Plaintiffs’ applications based on Proclamation 10052. Those decisions to withhold adjudications are final agency actions for which Plaintiffs may seek relief under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704.
In the administrative law context, it is black letter law that inaction may represent effectively final agency action that the agency has not frankly acknowledged. See Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783, 793 (D.C. Cir. 1987). When administrative inaction has precisely the same impact on the rights of the parties as denial of relief, an agency cannot preclude judicial review by casting its decision in the form of inaction rather than in the form of an order denying relief. Id.; see also Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. EPA, 912 F.2d 1525, 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Moreover, because “agency action” encompasses a “failure to act,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13), a failure to act amounts to consummated agency action that is final, notwithstanding the fact that the agency did nothing, which allows a party may seek relief under the APA. See Alliance to Save Mattaponi, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 9.
Applying those principles in this case shows that Plaintiffs are challenging final agency actions. Even if the consulates are withholding actions on Plaintiffs’ applications, which it apparently admits is compelled by Proclamation 10052, the withheld actions deprive Plaintiffs of
23

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 36 of 53
the opportunity to obtain visas so that they may return to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status. Thus, Plaintiffs have a cause of action available to challenge the agency’s decision to withhold action as arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law.
C. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims The consulates acting under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, see 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a), committed at least three reversable errors in refusing to process Plaintiffs’ visa applications. The first error relates to the Proclamation’s ultra vires suspension of Plaintiffs’ entry in violation of the INA’s detailed and reticulated criteria for determining whether and under what conditions to admit skilled foreign workers. The second error relates to the arbitrary and capricious application of the Proclamation by Defendants in failing to support their decisions with sufficient factual information to show that Plaintiffs’ entry would adversely affect the domestic labor market despite the Department of Labor prior approval of related LCAs and permanent labor certification applications. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The third error relates to Defendants’ unlawful suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved and valid H-1B petitions contrary to the procedural requirements of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 558(c), 706(2)(D). Because Proclamation 10052 violates the INA and Defendants’ application of the Proclamation as a basis for refusing to consider Plaintiffs’ applications constitutes reversible error, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their ultra vires and APA claims. 1. Proclamation 10052 and its Application are Ultra Vires Congress already addressed the economic and domestic employment concerns supposedly underlying the Proclamation through an “extensive and complex” framework governing the categories of aliens who are deemed inadmissible to the United States. See
24

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 37 of 53

Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 395 (2012). The INA sets forth in detail a highly reticulated scheme regulating the categories of aliens who are authorized to work in the United States and the bases for determining whether they should be admitted to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(5), 1182(n), 1184(c), 1184(g), 1184(i); Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 207 L. Ed. 2d 353, 385 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). The statute bears in its text and purpose the legislative compromises that Congress balanced between competing interest groups to determine how best to regulate the domestic economy by allowing for the entry of skilled foreign workers. Proclamation 10052 and its application by Defendants subvert that careful balance by precluding the entry of H-1B workers with approved petitions, many of whom are the beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions that stem from their employers’ Department of Labor-authorized recruitment efforts to locate United States workers. See Ragsdale, 535 U.S. at 93-94.
Proclamation 10052 enters and displaces an area of economic regulation for which Congress provided an express process to determine the admissibility of skilled foreign labor. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I); Prod. Tool Corp., 688 F.2d at 1168. Under that congressional directive, the Department of Labor already has in place detailed requirements for employers to test the domestic labor market whenever they propose to hire skilled foreign workers. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17; Simply Soup, Ltd., 2012-PER-00940, *4-6 (BALCA Jan. 13, 2015) (en banc) (employers are required to prepare a full recruitment reports showing their efforts to locate United States workers).12 The Department of Labor also has a process for ensuring that the employment of the foreign national will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of

12

The Department of Labor’s BALCA decisions are available at:

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/INA/REFERENCES/CASELISTS/BALCA_DECIS

IONS_PERM.

25

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 38 of 53
the domestic labor market by setting prevailing wage rates. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(II); 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(5), 656.40(a)-(b); see also Karl Story Endoscopy-America, 2011-PER00040, at *14-17 (BALCA Dec. 1, 2011) (en banc) (discussing requirement to engage in recruitment using prevailing wage determination).
Similarly, Congress set detailed requirements for determining whether temporary skilled foreign workers may be admitted to the United States. Over the course of thirty years, Congress carefully crafted a balance between providing skilled foreign labor to United States businesses and protecting the domestic labor market through directing the Department of Labor to oversee the filing of LCAs and the enforcement of related employer attestations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n); Greater Missouri Medical, ARB No. 12-015 at 9-10. Congress has consistently sought to make available skilled foreign labor because they benefit the national economy and help induce job growth. And Congress spoke in a detailed textual manner under AC21 to ensure, despite limits on the number of immigrant visas, that skilled foreign workers will be able to remain in the United States to help the domestic economy. See AC21, Pub. Law No. 106-313, § 106(a)-(b); 81 Fed. Reg. at 82409-11; 80 Fed. Reg. at 10287, 10289. Nor will the continued retention of H-1B workers harm the domestic economy because, as the Department of Homeland Security recently recognized, many of those H-1B workers already had their jobs subjected to a detailed labor market test through which no available United States workers have been located. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A); 81 Fed. Reg. at 82479.
By preventing the entry of Plaintiffs into the United States to resume their employment as H-1B workers, Proclamation 10052 subverts Congress’s detailed regulatory scheme that intertwines the H-1B and permanent labor certification programs to ensure the retention of skilled foreign labor to benefit the national economy and induce job growth while protecting
26

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 39 of 53
domestic workers. See Ragsdale, 535 U.S. at 93-94. Rather than fill in the details of the statute by determining whether Plaintiffs may be admitted consistent with the statutory requirements, the Proclamation specifically overrides 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A) and § 1182(n) by completely blocking the return of skilled foreign workers who already have approved petitions allowing them to work in the United States. Proclamation 10052 also blocks the entry of Plaintiffs contrary to statute because it contradicts the Department of Labor’s specific factual findings and certifications satisfying the statutory conditions for permitting Plaintiffs’ return to this country to help United States businesses while they pursue permanent resident status. The Proclamation’s broad programmatic objective of purporting to help the domestic labor market cannot trump the statute’s specific instructions to allow for the importation of skilled foreign labor under the statutory conditions that have already been satisfied. See API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Acting contrary to the INA’s express terms, Proclamation 10052’s suspension exceeds the outer reaches of the President’s authority that the Supreme Court outlined in Trump v. Hawaii. In that case, the Court based its analysis of Section 1182(f) on the assumption that the statute does not allow the President expressly to override particular provisions of the INA. See 138 S. Ct. at 2411. The proclamation at issue in Trump v. Hawaii set out a detailed process used for determining whether each foreign government had supplied sufficient information to assess the risks that those countries pose to the national security of the United States when their nationals enter this country. Id. at 2408-09. Based on findings about the deficiency in information from specific countries, the proclamation directed the suspension of entry of foreign nationals from those countries with information gaps, which served to protect, as the title of the proclamation indicated, against the entry of persons who may be inadmissible on terrorism-
27

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 40 of 53
related grounds. Id. at 2404. As such, the proclamation served as an information gathering mechanism advancing the individualized approach for determining admissibility to exclude actual or potentially dangerous individuals. Id. at 2411; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) (inadmissibility of foreign nationals for terrorist activities).
Unlike the proclamation in Trump v. Hawaii, Proclamation 10052 does not advance an individual case-by-case approach for determining inadmissibility, but rather supersedes express provisions of the INA that determine the conditions for admitting skilled foreign nationals to perform labor or services on temporary and permanent bases. Moreover, unlike the proclamation related to terrorism concerns, Proclamation 10052 does not serve to gather relevant factual information regarding admissibility, but expressly negates or countermands factual findings and certifications that the Department of Labor already made with respect to Plaintiffs’ and their current temporary or intended permanent employment in the United States in positions requiring skilled labor and persons with bachelor’s degrees. Thus, Proclamation 10052 is contrary to the limited scope of the President’s power in suspending the entry of foreign nationals.
Proclamation 10052 is the type of executive action that the court in Chamber of Commerce v. Reich found to be ultra vires as contrary to statute law. In that case, the D.C. Circuit precluded the Secretary of Labor from applying an executive order prohibiting the government from contracting with employers who permanently replaced lawfully striking employees. See Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at 1324. The executive order sought to balance between allowing business to operate during a strike and preserving workers’ rights in engaging in collective action. Id. Although the executive order was issued to govern Federal contracting and procurement, the Court held the order ultra vires because it attempted to regulate and restrict
28

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 41 of 53
the employers’ economic activities of terminating employees which Congress authorized through the National Labor Relations Act. Id. at 1332.
Proclamation 10052 creates a similar ultra vires conflict in this case. Congress carefully balanced the need to develop the economy through the importation of skilled foreign workers while protecting the domestic labor market. Congress also sought to supply businesses with a labor supply to meet a recognized and sustained shortage in skilled workers in the technology sector. In that connection, the Department of Labor already certified the need for Plaintiffs’ skills and services while in many cases additionally certifying that the employment of Plaintiffs will not adversely affect the domestic labor market based on the recruitment efforts of their employers. Proclamation 10052 upends the carefully crafted legislative scheme and countermands the operation of the specific statutory conditions relating to the Department of Labor’s certifications. Like in Chamber of Commerce, the Proclamation here takes away the economic activity that Congress specifically authorized upon completing the conditions specified under Sections 1182(a)(5)(A) and 1182(n). Because Plaintiffs and their employers have obtained those statutory certifications, Proclamation 10052 seeks to negate the operation of those foreign labor certification programs in violation of the statute. See Am. Bankers Ass’n v. SEC, 804 F.2d 739, 754 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (agency cannot “change basic decisions made by Congress”).
Relatedly, the free-floating regulation of economic relations that the Proclamation attempts to achieve further shows its transcending statutory authority. The Proclamation evokes Section 1182(f) to address the current downturn in employment by blocking the entry of skilled labor into the United States. See Proclamation 10052, Preamble. The purported goal is to assist vulnerable domestic workers without college degrees in finding employment. Id. However, outside the required certification needed to employ skilled foreign workers, which the
29

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 42 of 53
Department of Labor has already issued to Plaintiffs’ employers in this case, the INA does not authorize the President to regulate further economic relations among employers and the foreign nationals they are approved to employ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n). Unlike other statutes that expressly authorize the President to regulate economic relations in connection with foreign imports, see Motions Systems Corp. v. George W. Bush, 437 F.3d 1356, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2006), it has not done so in the context of the INA. See Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164, 176-77 (1994) (“Congress knew how to impose aiding and abetting liability when it chose to do so.”).
Nor does Proclamation 10052 operate in a narrow compass by directing Defendants to engage in information gathering in the service of making admissibility determinations within the limits of the INA. Rather, Proclamation 10052 purports to block globally the entry of all H-1B workers purportedly to help domestic workers without college degrees find employment in the United States. See Proclamation 10052, Preamble. The irrationality of that stated goal shows how the Proclamation is unmoored from the text of the INA because domestic workers lacking bachelor’s degrees are not by definition competing for the same jobs in which employers hire H-1B foreign nationals who must possess bachelor’s degrees to qualify. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1184(i). Moreover, Congress already addressed the issue of assisting the domestic work force in obtaining employment by providing education and training programs funded through surcharges on United States employers seeking to import foreign workers. See ACWIA, Pub. Law No. 105-277, Title IV § 414; Senate Report No. 106-260 at 10; 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(9)(A)-(B). Again, Proclamation 10052 countermands the legislative programs that Congress specifically tailored to address the economic relations and employment conditions that the Proclamation now attempts to regulate in a different manner. See API, 706 F.3d at 479.
30

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 43 of 53
Nor does the President have a general power to dispense with statute law. Rather, the President is bound to abide by the requirements of duly enacted and otherwise constitutional statutes. See U.S. CONST. Art. II, § 3, cl. 3 (the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”); Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 613 (1838) (“To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the Constitution, and entirely inadmissible . . .”); Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at 1332 (denying the President can bypass statutory limitations on governmental activity); NTEU v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 604 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (the President may not refrain from executing laws duly enacted by the Congress as those laws are construed by the judiciary). The purported power of the head of state to grant a dispensation non obstante or to suspend enacted law has a dark history that was in any event resolved in favor of legislative supremacy by the time the Constitution was ratified. See Carolyn Edie, Revolution and the Rule of Law: The End of the Dispensing Power, 1689, 10 Eighteenth-Century Studies 434 (1977); William Holdsworth, IV History of English Law 240 (Sweet and Maxwell 2d Ed. 1937) (under the English Bill of Rights the suspending power was absolutely condemned). As a result, under the Constitution, the President is not endowed with a general dispensing power. See Kendall, 37 U.S. at 613. He lacks the authority to set aside specific provisions of the INA to achieve a perceived public good.13 Rather, that legislative power remains in the hands of
13 The purported emergency nature of the current economic downturn also fails to trigger an executive power to suspend statute law or regulatory norms. Aside from the ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in times of rebellion or for public safety, see U.S. CONST. Art. I, § 9, the Constitution does not provide for a state of exception permitting the suspension of the laws. Compare Carl Schmitt, Constitutional Theory 80, 214 (Duke Univ. Pr. 2008) (1928) (discussing Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution that expressly provides for a state of exception). An emergency cannot create a power that does not already exist. See Home Bldg & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426 (1934).
31

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 44 of 53
Congress. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 589 (1952); cf. Federalist Papers Nos. 33 & 78 (Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter Ed. 1961).
Without a general dispensing authority on which to base Proclamation 10052, the power to suspend the entry of foreign nationals must be based in statute law. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 585. However, Proclamation 10052 fails on that basis because the purported suspension it effects is contrary to the parameters of the INA. Thus, Proclamation 10052 is ultra vires and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State must be enjoined from applying the Proclamation to the Plaintiffs in this case who seek to return to the United States to resume H-1B employment or follow to join H-1B family members. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C); Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at 1332.
2. The Agencies’ Withholding Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Visa Applications is Arbitrary and Capricious
Under the direction of Proclamation 10052, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, through the consulates, refused to process visa applications for Plaintiffs who are seeking to return to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status and employment for United States companies under already approved petitions. See Proclamation 10052, § 2(a), 3(a), 4(a). However, neither the Proclamation, the Secretaries, nor the consulates justified the suspension of Plaintiffs’ entry in terms of their already approved LCAs, and in many cases, approved labor certification applications supporting their continued stay in the United States under AC21. Nor did they explain how restricting the entry of skilled workers holding positions that require bachelor’s degrees will assist domestic workers lacking college degrees in locating employment. Defendants’ ignoring that relevant information at odds with their conclusions is the hallmark of arbitrary and capricious conduct. See Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, 890 F.3d 304, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
32

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 45 of 53
In addition to approved H-1B petitions relating to their current United States employers, many Plaintiffs also have approved immigrant petitions based on approved labor certification applications showing the lack of available and qualified United States workers to fill their positions. Despite those approved petitions and labor certifications, the Secretary of Labor apparently found in support of Proclamation 10052 that the admission of H-1B workers like Plaintiffs pose a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers. See Proclamation 10052, Preamble. The Proclamation did not discuss whether or to what extend the Secretary of Labor determined that the Department of Labor’s prior certifications of employers’ testing the job market through the permanent labor certification program was no longer relevant or insufficient. Id. Nor did the consulates address the relevant facts regarding Plaintiffs’ approved labor certifications when deciding to withhold visa application processing. But those facts cannot be brushed aside because the Department of Homeland Security found them pertinent in justifying the continued retention of H-1B workers in the United States while they pursue permanent residence. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 82479.
Given those relevant facts and the pertinent regulatory history following AC21, the conclusion is inescapable that Defendants in applying Proclamation 10052 erred in failing to consider an important aspect of the issue relating to the continued employment of skilled H-1B workers and their contribution to domestic economic development. See Dep’t of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of Ca., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 207 L. Ed. 2d 353, 375-76 (2020). By failing to explain the decision to withhold the processing of visa applications in the face of obviously contradictory facts regarding relevant labor market tests underlying many of Plaintiffs’ approved labor certification applications, Defendants’ decisions to withhold adjudication were arbitrary and capricious. See Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 579 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The
33

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 46 of 53
agencies must at minimum respond meaningfully to relevant evidence. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum v. FERC, 234 F.3d 1286, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Moreover, the Secretary of Labor’s terse and unexplained factual findings conflict with the basic economic theory that the Department of Homeland Security used to justify retaining H-1B workers and their dependents in the United States while they pursue permanent residency. 80 Fed. Reg. at 10285, 10295, 10309; 81 Fed. Reg. at 82469. The Department stated that from a labor market perspective, it is important to note that the number of jobs in the United States is not fixed or static. Id. Basic principles of labor market economics recognize that individuals not only fill jobs, but also stimulate the economy and create demand for jobs through increased consumption of goods and services. Id. Moreover, consistent with the legislative findings underlying ACWIA and AC21, the Department also noted that highly skilled foreign workers contribute to important advances in research and development with a positive impact on domestic economic growth. 80 Fed. Reg. at 10309. The Proclamation and the Secretary of Labor’s purported findings stated in the Proclamation depart from those basic principles of economics without explanation. The consulates similarly fail to justify their decisions in the face of countervailing economic theory. Such a conflict with basic economics constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision making. See Fresno Mobile Radio v. FCC, 165 F.3d 965, 969-70 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Similarly, neither the Proclamation nor Defendants resolve the flat contradiction of restricting the entry of skilled H-1B workers filling positions requiring bachelor’s degrees to assist in re-employ domestic workers lacking college degrees. See Proclamation 10052, Preamble. An agency’s decision cannot stand without factual support. See Safe Extensions v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593, 604-05 (D.C. Cir. 2007). More critically, as a matter of logic is unclear how
34

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 47 of 53
Defendants could resolve the contradictory reasoning given the economic theory the Department of Homeland Security used to justify the continued retention of H-1B workers as a tool of economic development. This flaw is fundamental. An agency’s statement must be one of reasoning and not just a conclusion. See Butte County v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2010).14
Because the Proclamation and Defendants charged with implementing it failed to explain or provide adequate support for the decision to withhold the processing of visa applications for Plaintiffs, those decisions or unlawfully withheld actions must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
3. Proclamation 10052 Resulted in a Procedurally Defective Suspensions of Plaintiffs’ Approved H-1B Petitions
In addition to the ultra vires nature of Proclamation 10052 and Defendants’ arbitrary and capricious application of the Proclamation, the suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved H-1B petitions was also done in violation of the procedural protections under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 558(c); Air North America v. DOT, 937 F.3d 1427, 1436 (9th Cir. 1991).
After the Department of Labor approves an employer’s LCA, and USCIS approves a related H-1B petition, the foreign national beneficiary is permitted to reside in United States and work in the position identified in the petition. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(13)(i), 274a.12(b)(9). Based on the approved H-1B petition, the foreign national beneficiary may also apply for a visa,
14 The Supreme Court brushed aside without resolving the question of whether a Proclamation under Section 1182(f) must contain sufficient factual findings. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2409. As a result, the level of factual support required is an open question. However, even if the Proclamation is not required to contain detailed factual assertions, those assertions cannot present a flat contradiction. Moreover, even if the Proclamation itself is not required to contain detailed facts, the agencies applying it must still adhere to the strictures of the APA. Cf. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 286, 301-02 (1979).
35

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 48 of 53
which is required for entry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II); 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(f); 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.53(a), 41.103(a)(1).
The authorization to work and reside in the United States permitted through Plaintiffs’ approved H-1B petitions constitutes a license within the meaning of the APA. The definition of license is extremely broad. See Air North America, 937 F.2d at 1437. It includes “the whole or a part of an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(8). Proclamation 10052 and its application by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State operated to suspend the Department of Homeland Security’s approval of Plaintiffs’ H-1B petitions permitting them to reside and work in the United States. However, neither the Proclamation nor Defendants’ implementing it provided Plaintiffs with prior notice and opportunity to demonstrate or achieve whatever compliance may have been required under the INA.
The resulting suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved H-1B petitions without prior notice and opportunity to provide any corrective action violated the requirements under the APA for suspending licenses. See 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). The statute requires before a suspension occurs that the licensee be afforded an opportunity to put its house in lawful order before more formal agency proceedings are undertaken. Blackwell College of Business v. Att’y Gen., 454 F.2d 928, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1971). The Proclamation obliquely suggests, through the purported finding of the Secretary of Labor, that Plaintiffs’ approved H-1B petitions are apparently defective because, despite the Department of Labor’s approved certifications, Plaintiffs’ entry into the United States poses a risk to the domestic labor market. See Proclamation 10052, Preamble. Whether the Secretary of Labor’s factual predicate is valid or not, the statute entitled Plaintiffs to written
36

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 49 of 53
notice that would afford them an opportunity to correct any apparent deficiencies in the approved petitions. See Anchustegui v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 257 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001).
Because Proclamation 10052 and Defendants’ application of the Proclamation resulted in procedurally defective suspensions of Plaintiffs’ approved petitions, the resulting decisions must be set aside. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). It is not a legitimate response to this defect to suggest that Section 1182 supersedes or overrides the APA’s procedural requirements. Statutes may only supersede the APA’s procedural requirements to the extent that they do so expressly. See 5 U.S.C. § 559. Nothing in the INA suggests that Section 1182(f) supersedes the procedural requirements of the APA with respect to suspending licenses, which leaves in place those procedures required for suspensions that Defendants violated in this case.
D. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm in the Absence of Preliminary Relief Plaintiffs will suffer and are currently suffering immediate irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction compelling the Department of State to adjudicate their applications without the restrictions imposed by Proclamation 10052. Plaintiffs declarations detail the ongoing, irreparable harm to themselves or family members because of the agency’s refusing to process or adjudicate visa applications, resulting in their lost income, the inability to return to the United States to resume employment or rejoin family members (or both), or tend to their property in the United States. See App’x. As a legal matter, financial harm is irreparable in this context because there is no way for Plaintiffs to recover lost wages or reduced income against Defendants through a money judgment. See 5 U.S.C. § 702 (suits for money damages precluded); Everglades Harvesting & Hauling v. Scalia, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217474 *29 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2019); North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1059 (D.N.D. 2015). Similarly, those Plaintiffs that are prevented
37

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 50 of 53
from maintaining close physical relationships with their immediate relatives because of the agency’s action (or inaction) is also a form of irreparable harm. See de Nolasco v. ICE, 319 F. Supp. 3d 491, 502-03 (D.D.C. 2018); Goings v. Court Services, 786 F. Supp. 2d 48, 78 (D.D.C. 2011). The harm that Plaintiffs suffer in lost income or through family separation, or both, constitute injury for purposes of a preliminary injunction because the injury is both certain and actual. See Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
E. A Preliminary Injunction Serves the Public Interest and Will Not Harm the Agencies
The equities militate in favor of the requested relief. One of the primary purposes of the H-1B program is to provide a consistent source of highly skilled labor to United States companies. Through ACWIA and AC21, Congress issued statutory directives to ensure that the United States may compete economically in the global market by having skilled workers in the technology sector. Moreover, the congressional policy of providing access to skilled foreign labor ensures innovation that helps create jobs in the domestic economy. The Department of Homeland Security recognized those statutory goals recently in a rulemaking, stating that Congress intended through relevant statutory amendments to the H-1B program to improve economic growth and job creation by immediately increasing U.S. access to high-skilled workers. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 82409. The agency acknowledged a clear congressional intent that H-1B non-immigrants are intended to provide United States employers a consistent source of talent necessary to compete in today’s global economy. Id. Because Plaintiffs’ interests mirror those that Congress sought to protect, as expressed in express statutory terms, the equities favor the Plaintiffs in their request to have their visa applications decided based on their approved H-1B petitions and without Defendants applying the unlawful suspension set forth in Proclamation 10052.
38

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 51 of 53
Many of Plaintiffs are also the beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions filed by their United States employers. As such, they intend to pursue permanent residency status once a visa number becomes available. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(a). Plaintiffs’ continued employment as H-1B workers while they wait for available immigrant visa numbers to pursue permanent residence is also in line with the statutory amendment allowing skilled workers like Plaintiffs to continue working in the United States while pursuing permanent status. See AC21, Pub. Law No. 106-313, § 106(a)-(b). Under that statutory amendment, the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that Congress has passed legislation specifically encouraging, and removing impediments to, the ability of H-1B nonimmigrants to seek lawful permanent resident status, such that they may readily contribute permanently to United States economic sustainability and growth. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 10289.
Finally, the public also has an interest in ensuring that the government acts lawfully and within the bounds of statute law and reason. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). This Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction to set aside Defendants’ arbitrary and capricious refusal to act will reinforce that public interest. Thus, Defendants are not be harmed in any way by a preliminary injunction compelling lawful conduct.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoin Defendants from applying Proclamation 10052 (issued on June 22, 2020) in adjudicating their visa applications and determining whether they are admissible to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status. The Court should further direct the Secretary of State and the United States consulates to process, adjudicate, and render final decisions on Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Court’s order.
39

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 52 of 53

Dated: July 15, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
JONATHAN WASDEN Wasden Banias LLC
BRADLEY B. BANIAS Wasden Banias LLC
s/Geoffrey Forney GEOFFREY FORNEY Wasden Banias LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd. Suite D-100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 843-410-9340/ geoff@wasdenbanias.com
Home Office: 411 West Ellet Street Philadelphia, PA 19119 202-615-8315
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

40

Case 1:20-cv-01907-KBJ Document 3-1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 53 of 53
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 15, 2020, I filed the forgoing PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION through the Court’s CM/ECF system. After filing, I will cause a true and correct copy to be served on Defendants at the United States Attorney’s Office by express delivery: U.S. Attorney’s Office Civil Process Clerk 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 After filing, I will also deliver a copy of the forgoing PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to Daniel Van Horn, Civil Chief, United States Attorney’s Office, by transmitting an electronic copy to following email address: daniel.vanhorn@usdoj.gov.
s/Geoffrey Forney GEOFFREY FORNEY Wasden Banias LLC
41

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 37 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHANDAN PANDA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 1:20-1907-APM

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), Plaintiffs hereby notice their appeal of this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 16, 2020 (ECF No. 36), and the incorporated memorandum opinion in Gomez v. Trump, Civil No. 20-1419 (ECF No. 123), denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 3 & 8). Plaintiffs seek expedited consideration of their appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) because it relates to the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

Dated: September 16, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
BRADLEY B. BANIAS Wasden Banias LLC
s/Geoffrey Forney GEOFFREY FORNEY Bar No. PA0088 Wasden Banias LLC 411 West Ellet Street Philadelphia, PA 19119 202-615-8315/ geoff@wasdenbanias.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 37 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 16, 2020, I filed the forgoing PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will transmit an email notification of the filing and provide an electronic hyperlink for accessing the document to the attorneys of record in this case.
s/Geoffrey Forney GEOFFREY FORNEY Wasden Banias LLC

 </s> Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

CHANDAN PANDA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

Case No. 20-cv-1907 (APM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs in this case are Indian nationals who were recently residing in the United States

in lawful nonimmigrant status under temporary labor petitions approved by the Department of

Homeland Security. For various reasons, they traveled to India, and now must receive visas to

return to the United States. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the United States consular offices, acting

under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, have withheld

the adjudication of of their visa applications pursuant to the President’s recently issued Presidential

Proclamation 10052 (dated June 22, 2020), which suspends the entry of foreign nationals within

certain categories of nonimmigrant visas. Plaintiffs ask the court to preliminarily enjoin

Defendants from applying Proclamation 10052 in adjudicating their visa applications, and to order

Defendants to adjudicate their applications within fourteen days.

Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion raises three claims, two of which overlap

substantially with claims raised in a related action, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM). The

court considered the merits of those overlapping claims in that action, and reserved for adjudication

in this separate action the merits of Plaintiffs’ third claim (which was not raised by the Gomez

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 11
Plaintiffs), along with all non-merits defenses. For substantially the same reasons discussed in Gomez, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established that injunctive relief would prevent their irreparable harm or that an injunction would be in the public interest. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs in this case are 169 Indian nationals with approved H-1B skilled worker petitions and their derivative beneficiaries. See Compl., Panda v. Wolf, 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], at 21; see also Oral Arg. Tr., Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 122, at 54 (updating the court on the number of Plaintiffs in this action). Plaintiffs were all residing and working in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status, but for various reasons went to India1 and now require visas to travel back to the United States. See Pls.’ Am. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Their Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 8 [hereinafter Pls.’ PI Mem.], at 1. They have all submitted DS-160 applications to obtain visas that will allow them to return to the United States. Id. However, on June 22, 2020, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 10052 (“Proclamation 10052”), which suspends until December 31, 2020, the entry of foreign nationals seeking admission to the United States pursuant to specified categories of nonimmigrant visas, including the visas Plaintiffs seek, unless an applicant is eligible for an enumerated exception. See 85 Fed. Reg. 38,263 (June 22, 2020). Plaintiffs allege that “consulates are withholding a final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications based on the application of the President’s recently issued Proclamation 10052.” Pls.’ PI Mem. at 1.
Plaintiffs assert that (1) the Proclamation is ultra vires; (2) Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation by withholding the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ visa applications is arbitrary and
1 One Plaintiff is currently in Canada. Compl. ¶¶ 149, 1851–52.
2

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 3 of 11
capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); and (3) the suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved nonimmigrant labor petitions violates the APA’s procedural requirements governing the suspension of licenses, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). Pls.’ Mem. at 24–37. They seek a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining Defendants from applying Proclamation 10052 in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ visa applications and determining whether they are admissible to the United States to resume H-1B or H-4 status, and (2) directing the Secretary of State and the United States consulates to process, adjudicate, and render final decisions on Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications within fourteen days. Id. at 40.
The court bifurcated briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion, considering the merits of Plaintiffs’ first two claims alongside overlapping claims raised in a related action, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv1419 (APM). See Am. Order, Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 79; Order, Panda v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 23. The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on those issues on September 4, 2020, see Mem. Op. & Order, Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv1419 (APM), ECF No. 123 [hereinafter Gomez Mem. Op.], finding that the challenges to Proclamation 10052 were unlikely to succeed on the merits, id. at 39–58, and that the APA challenges to Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation were likely to succeed, id. at 58– 66. However, the court held that only a subset of the plaintiffs in the Gomez action—foreign nationals seeking diversity immigrant visas—had established the additional prerequisites for injunctive relief. Id. at 75–79. In the interest of time and judicial economy, the court incorporates by reference its analysis of the overlapping issues in that case, along with its resolution of the Defendants’ arguments regarding consular nonreviewability and whether Plaintiffs had identified a cause of action. See id. at 34–38.
3

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 4 of 11
Because the court only addressed the merits of the Panda Plaintiffs first two claims in the Gomez opinion, it did not consider the merits of their third claim (whether Defendants’ actions constitute an unlawful suspension of a license under 5 U.S.C. § 558(c)), or any other non-merits defenses. See id. at 24 n.4, 75 n.25. Now, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing and have not shown that they have suffered irreparable harm or that a preliminary injunction would be in the public interest. See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 26 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n], at 10–13, 18–25. On the merits, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs do not challenge discrete final agency action, and that 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) does not apply because, among other reasons, approved H-1B nonimmigrant worker petitions are not “licenses” under the APA. See id. at 13– 18.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a motion, the movant bears the burden of showing that: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Where, as here, the federal government is the opposing party, the balance of equities and public interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).
To establish standing at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiffs must show, based on record evidence, that it is substantially likely that at least one of them has (1) suffered a concrete and particularized injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and
4

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 5 of 11
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 878 F.3d 371, 376–77 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see also Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that, where multiple plaintiffs assert the same claims, “the court need only find one plaintiff who has standing” to establish jurisdiction over the action). The redressability requirement is “relaxed” when a plaintiff alleges a procedural injury. WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298, 305–06 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “[I]nstead of needing to establish that compelling the agency to follow the correct procedure would lead to a substantive result that favors the [plaintiff’s] concrete interests, the [plaintiff] need only show that [her] concrete interests could be better protected.” Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Pres. Office v. FERC, 949 F.3d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submit the declaration and visa application files of Plaintiff Yukti Bhatia. Bhatia has studied and worked in the United States for the past six years. Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., ECF, No. 3, App’x, ECF No. 4-47 [hereinafter Pls.’ App’x], at 635 ¶¶ 9–11. She is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B visa petition. Id. at 634 ¶¶ 4–6. Before the President issued Proclamation 10052, Bhatia had returned to India where she applied for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa by submitting a DS-160 application. Id. at 635–36 ¶ 11, 638. Bhatia completed her visa interview at the Indian consulate on February 10, 2020. Id. at 636 ¶ 12. Her application was temporarily refused pursuant to § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and she was asked to submit additional employer documents. Id. Though her employer submitted the required documents on February 19, 2020, id., Bhatia heard no updates about the status of her application until July 1, 2020, when she was informed that “Embassies and Consulates will not be able to accept H1b/H4 visa applications or to continue processing of pending applications which are subject to the [Proclamation 10052]” for the duration of the Proclamation,
5

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 6 of 11
Pls.’ App’x, ECF No. 4-48, at 648. Bhatia reached out to the consulate in August to ask when the consulate would resume processing her visa and was told that the “Department of State temporarily will continue . . . not to issue H-1B . . . nonimmigrant visas, apart from certain exceptions as laid out in the Proclamation itself.” Pls.’ Notice of Recent Agency Activity, ECF No. 24 [hereinafter Pls.’ Notice], Ex. A, ECF No. 24-1, at 73.
Because of Proclamation 10052 and Defendants’ refusal to adjudicate her DS-160 application, Bhatia has been unable to re-enter the country. Due to this inability to return to the United States, she is at risk of losing her job in the United States. Pls.’ App’x, ECF 4-47, at 635 ¶ 9. She now must pay to store her belongings in the United States (she traveled to India with only a few pairs of clothes), and she continues to pay her U.S. phone bill and other expenses. Id. at 635–37 ¶¶ 9, 11, 14. The standstill has also affected her mental health—at risk of losing all she worked to achieve in the United States, she has experienced severe mental and emotional strain, has lost weight, and worries that she will be unable to help her father repay her student loans. Id. at 637 ¶ 14.
The concrete financial and emotional harms Bhatia is experiencing easily establish injury in fact, see, e.g., E.B. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d 81, 86–87 (D.D.C. 2019); Defendants do not contend otherwise. Instead, Defendants focus their attacks on the causation and redressability requirements of standing. On the causation front, Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs “allege injuries related to the adjudications of visa applications or in the scheduling of visa application interviews, none of which are traceable to the issuance of the Proclamation,” and stress that “Plaintiffs’ applications have not yet been completed, so they can only speculate—and without basis—that the Proclamation affects their claims.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 11. This is a surprising position, given Defendants’ insistence in the Gomez briefing that the “legal consequences that
6

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 7 of 11
Plaintiffs challenge”—i.e., the suspension of adjudication of their visa applications—“flow from the Proclamations.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Gomez v. Trump, 20-cv-1419 (APM), ECF No. 94, at 31. It is also is blatantly contradicted by the record evidence before the court. As discussed at length in the court’s Gomez opinion, Defendants have interpreted Proclamation 10052 to suspend the issuance of all covered, non-exempt nonimmigrant visas, see Gomez Mem. Op. at 12–14, and the Panda Plaintiffs, including Bhatia, have received communications from the State Department confirming that their applications are not being processed due to the Proclamation, see, e.g., Pls.’ Notice, Ex. A at 73–74 (stating in response to Ms. Bhatia’s inquiries that “[u]nder the Proclamation, the Department of State temporarily will . . . not issue H-1B, H-2B, L, and certain J nonimmigrant visas, and their derivative visa categories for family members, apart from certain exceptions as laid out in the Proclamation itself.”). Bhatia’s injuries are traceable to Proclamation 10052 and Defendants’ implementation thereof.
Defendants also assert that Bhatia’s injuries are not redressable “given the very limited nature of consular operations across the world at this time.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 13. They foretell that it is “unlikely” that Bhatia and the other Panda Plaintiffs “would have their visa interviews scheduled, or their visas adjudicated, absent a showing of emergency circumstances and eligibility for an exception.” Id. That is wrong for multiple reasons. First, if Bhatia succeeds on the merits of her claims, she would not need to demonstrate “eligibility for an exception” to Proclamation 10052—Defendants would be enjoined from refusing to adjudicate her visa application based on the Proclamation. See Pls.’ Mem. at 40; see also Estate of Boyland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 913 F.3d 117, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (stating that, when considering a plaintiff’s standing, a federal court must assume the merits of his or her legal claim). Second, in addition to other forms of injury, Bhatia has alleged a procedural injury—that Defendants have “refus[ed] to make a decision on
7

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 8 of 11
[her] pending DS160” application, see Compl. ¶ 1691—meaning that she need only show that a favorable decision “could . . . change the substantive outcome in [her] favor.” Narragansett, 949 F.3d at 13 (emphasis added). While the Indian consular offices have not resumed routine visa operations, they are open and capable of processing at least some visa applications, and Defendants have not shown that it would be impossible to process Bhatia’s visa. See Pls.’ Notice (documenting two H-4 visas granted); Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Their Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 28 [hereinafter Pls.’ Reply], Ex. E, ECF No. 28-3 (H-1B visa stamp issued by the Indian consulate on August 10, 2020). Bhatia has therefore established a substantial likelihood that her procedural injury can be redressed.2
In sum, Bhatia has a substantial likelihood of standing, and the court therefore has subjectmatter jurisdiction over each claim raised in this case. See Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1010.
Though the court must assume the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims for purposes of assessing their standing, the same is not true when assessing Plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive relief. As discussed in Gomez (and incorporated by reference in this decision), Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Proclamation 10052 is ultra vires. See Gomez Mem. Op. at 39–58. For that reason, the court denied the Gomez non-diversity visa plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunctive relief, holding that they had not established that their irreparable harm
2 The court acknowledges that it has already determined that the Panda Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claim that the Proclamation is unlawful. See Gomez Mem. Op. at 38–54. If Plaintiffs do not ultimately succeed on that claim, the concrete harms underlying Bhatia’s and her co-Plaintiffs’ procedural injuries (“the loss of income . . . separation from their family members . . . [and] the inability to tend to their financial affairs and real property in the United States, see Pls.’ Mem. at 21) cannot be remedied by a favorable decision on Plaintiffs’ APA claims. However, the court has not yet rendered a final decision on this issue, and it must assume for standing purposes that Plaintiffs will succeed on all their claims, including their challenge to the Proclamation. See Estate of Boyland, 913 F.3d at 123.
8

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 9 of 11
would be redressable by the requested injunctive relief or that such relief would be in the public interest. Id. at 75–79. The same goes for the Panda Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
Irreparable Harm. “[T]he basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm . . . .” Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88 (1974) (cleaned up). “[T]o demonstrate irreparable harm, ‘the movant must show that the alleged harm will directly result from the action which the movant seeks to enjoin,’” E.B. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 88 (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)), and that the court’s injunction is likely to “eliminate the harm that already exists,” Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 91, 102 (D.D.C. 2005) (cleaned up); see also Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez, 141 F. Supp. 3d 60, 69 (D.D.C. 2015) (denying preliminary injunctive relief where “the injunctive relief requested would not necessarily help this plaintiff”). “[C]ourts generally will not base a finding of irreparable injury on a procedural violation standing alone.” Elk Assocs. Funding Corp. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1, 31 (D.D.C. 2012) (cleaned up).
As discussed, this court has already held that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their challenges to Proclamation 10052, Gomez Mem. Op. at 39–58, and so the ban on Plaintiffs’ entry into the United States will remain regardless of whether they succeed on their APA challenges to Defendants’ withholding of adjudication of their visa applications. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claimed irreparable harms—“lost income” and “the inability to return to the United States to resume employment or rejoin family members . . . or tend to their property in the United States,” Pls.’ Mem. at 38—will persist even if the court requires Defendants to adjudicate their visa applications: Proclamation 10052 will continue to prevent Plaintiffs from “return[ing] to the United States” to resume employment and reunite with family members. Plaintiffs have therefore not met their
9

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 10 of 11
burden of demonstrating that an injunction is likely to “eliminate the harm that already exists.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 102 (cleaned up).
Public Interests. Preliminary injunctive relief would not serve the public interest for much the same reasons. Plaintiffs seek an order directing the Secretary of State and the United States consulates “to process, adjudicate, and render final decisions on Plaintiffs’ DS-160 visa applications within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Court’s order,” Pls.’ Mem. at 40, but requiring such swift processing would be an exercise in futility when Plaintiffs would remain ineligible to enter the country until January 1, 2021, at the earliest.3 Such an order would risk diverting limited resources away from visa applicants who are eligible under an exception to the Proclamation, and could create substantial confusion for visa recipients attempting to enter the country only to be denied at ports of entry.
On the merits, the court has already determined that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their ultra vires challenge to the Proclamation, and are likely to succeed on their APA challenge that Defendants’ suspension of processing their visas pursuant to the Proclamation is arbitrary and capricious. Gomez Mem. Op. at 39–66. That leaves Plaintiffs’ third claim—that the suspension of Plaintiffs’ approved nonimmigrant labor petitions violates the APA’s procedural requirements governing the suspension of licenses, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c). See Pls.’ Mem. at 36–37. The court does not decide whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim, because, as discussed, Plaintiffs have not met the other requirements for injunctive relief. See Chaplaincy of
3 It is also unclear whether H-1B and H-4 visas issued to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of the court’s order would be valid after January 1, 2021. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(2) (providing that “[a] nonimmigrant visa shall be valid for such periods as shall be by regulations prescribed.”); 22 CFR § 41.112(c) (stating that, in general, “a nonimmigrant visa shall have the validity prescribed in schedules provided to consular officers by the Department”); Pls.’ Reply, Ex. E (H-1B visa stamp from the Indian consulate with an expiration date of less than three months).
10

Case 1:20-cv-01907-APM Document 36 Filed 09/16/20 Page 11 of 11
Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (explaining that “[a] movant’s failure to show any irreparable harm is . . . grounds for refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, even if the other three factors entering the calculus merit such relief.”).
In sum, Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims, but because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their challenge to Proclamation 10052, an injunction would not remedy their claimed irreparable harms and would not be in the public interest. Therefore, the court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3.

Dated: September 16, 2020

Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge

11


[CONTENT]  ||| March 20 | 2020 | the State Department | Trump | Presidential Proclamation 10014 | April 20 | U.S. | two months ||| Two months later | December 31, 2020 | Proclamation 10052 ||| the State Department ||| the next year ||| May 28, 2020 | U.S. | Trump | the State Department | the Department of Homeland Security | District Court | Amit P. Mehta |||  ||| the Administrative Procedure Act | APA | 5 | 706 | the Immigration and Nationality Act | 8 | U.S.C. | § | 1185 | the Due Process Clause ||| June 2 | June 23 | Mehta ||| Mehta ||| 2020 WL | 3429786 ||| July 17, 2020 | September 30 ||| four | 1 | Sept. 30 ||| 2 | Citizens ||| 3 ||| 4 | U.S. ||| the District of Columbia ||| Three | between July 10, 2020 | August 5, 2020 | August 13 | 20 | Mohammed v. Pompeo</i> | 20 | Fonjong ||| Presidential Proclamations 10014 | 10052 | APA | two ||| Mehta | Panda | 20 ||| APA | Proclamation 10052 | Indian ||| September 16 | Mehta ||| 2020 | 5545554 ||| September 29 |||  ||| Adobe | Amazon | Apple | Google | Microsoft | Paypal | Reddit | Twitter | Uber Technologies | Zillow ||| second | August 23, 2020 | the Mandamus Act | 28 ||| September 4, 2020 | Mehta |||  |||  ||| the COVID Guidance |||  |||  ||| 2020 WL | 5367010 ||| September 14, 2020 | the State Department | 14 days ||| 2020 WL 5886855 ||| September 24, 2020 | the U.S. Court of Appeals | the D.C. Circuit ||| September 30, 2020 | the U.S. Department of State’s | Visa Lottery | April 23, 2020 | the Presidential Proclamation 10014 | Presidential Proclamation 10052 |||  ||| the State Department | 9,095 | COVID-19 ||| 2020 WL |||  [SUMMARY] This case involves a dispute about visa processing. Following a March 20, 2020 decision by the State Department to cease most visa services, President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10014 on April 20, suspending the entry of all immigrants into the U.S. for two months, unless they qualified for an exception. Two months later, the entry suspension was extended to December 31, 2020 and expanded to include temporary nonimmigrant visas in Proclamation 10052. As a result, the State Department suspended review and adjudication of visas for non-excepted applicants (the No-Visa Policy). 

Many groups were affected, including diversity lottery (DV-2020) winners who had not yet been issued a visa and who would not have their eligibility carry over into the next year, and minors who would age out of the preferential treatment for which they were eligible. 

On May 28, 2020, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who had sponsored noncitizen minor children or other relatives for immigrant visas filed this class action lawsuit against President Trump, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with Judge Amit P. Mehta presiding. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the government from acting to “deny or refuse consideration” of their visa petitions, a declaration that the Proclamations were unlawful, and attorney’s fees. They sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. § 706) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1185) and alleged that the defendants’ conduct exceeded their authority and violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause. 

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of visa sponsors whose beneficiaries or derivative beneficiaries were subject to the Proclamations and at risk of aging out on June 2. 

On June 23, Judge Mehta denied the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification because they failed to show that a justiciable case or controversy existed. Specifically, Judge Mehta found that the plaintiffs had not shown that they faced imminent injury because some of the plaintiffs’ minor beneficiaries had successfully applied for visas under the “national interest exception” (a separate administrative procedure), and others had been unable to apply for visas for reasons unrelated to the Proclamations. 2020 WL 3429786. 

The plaintiffs then amended their complaint on July 17, 2020, adding as plaintiffs corporations that were unable to hire necessary workers because workers’ visas had not been issued along with diversity visa selectees whose visas had to issue by September 30 to remain eligible for entry. They also proposed the following four subclasses: 

1.	Those who will be unable to receive their diversity visas before Sept. 30 deadline, and will thus be unable to immigrate. 

2.	Citizens who have sponsored an immediate relative who now cannot immigrate. 

3.	Lawful permanent residents who have an “approved immigrant visa petition for a preference relative” who, because of the Proclamations, will be unable to immigrate.

4.	 U.S. employers whose employees or potential employees cannot now immigrate.

Several states and the District of Columbia also filed an amicus brief arguing that immigrants were good for their economies and that the presidential action would hurt their recovery.

Three other suits filed between July 10, 2020 and August 5, 2020 were fully consolidated with this case on August 13: <i>Aker v. Trump</i>, No. 20-cv-1926; <i>Mohammed v. Pompeo</i>, No. 20-cv-1856; and <i>Fonjong v. Trump</i>, No. 20-cv-2128. In all of these cases, the plaintiffs were diversity visa selectees and derivative beneficiaries challenging Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052 under the APA; two (<i>Mohammed</i> and <i>Fonjong</i>) were filed by the same law firm. 

Judge Mehta also partially consolidated <i>Panda v. Wolf</i>, No. 20-cv-1907, with this case to the extent that <i>Panda</i> raised similar issues. <i>Panda</i> involved an APA challenge to Proclamation 10052 but also included an equal protection argument that the government's conduct disparately impacted Indian nationals. On September 16, Judge Mehta denied the <i>Panda</i> plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction in the part of that case continuing separately. 2020 WL 5545554. The <i>Panda</i> plaintiffs appealed, and on September 29, <i>Panda</i> was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Following the consolidation, many influential companies filed an amicus brief as well, arguing that they would suffer serious economic harm from the proclamations. The companies included Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Reddit, Twitter, Uber Technologies, and Zillow. 

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 23, 2020, adding a claim under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) and requesting that the court issue an order of mandamus requiring defendants to adjudicate visa petitions. 

On September 4, 2020, Judge Mehta granted the DV-2020 plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. The defendants were ordered to “undertake good-faith efforts . . . to expeditiously process and adjudicate DV-2020 diversity visas.” Defendants were preliminarily enjoined “from interpreting and applying the COVID Guidance to DV-2020 selectees” in such a way as not to process their visas because they were not “mission critical.” The remaining motions and requests were not granted. The court also delayed certifying a class, and the non DV-2020 plaintiffs did not obtain injunctive relief because vacatur of the policy would not eliminate their family separation problem. 2020 WL 5367010.

On September 14, 2020, the court amended the preliminary injunction to prevent the State Department from waiting 14 days to issue visas to DV-2020 applicants who were inside certain COVID-affected regions because the delay served no rational purpose. 2020 WL 5886855. On September 24, 2020, non DV-2020 plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over the ruling against their motion for a preliminary injunction. 

On September 30, 2020, the court certified a class in <i>Gomez</i> consisting of all “Individuals who have been selected to receive an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect.” But the court declined to certify a class in <i>Aker</i> because it was unclear how many applicants who were issued visas before the Proclamation had not been able to have them renewed, and because there was no legal impediment to renewing a visa. It also ordered the State Department to reserve 9,095 visas (calculated based on the expected reduction due to COVID-19) to correct for the loss of visas due to the illegal processing delays. 2020 WL 5861101. 

This case is ongoing.
