On August 17, 2018, 29 parents who were forcibly separated from their children by the federal government filed this lawsuit in U.S. District Court of District Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Justice for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.), the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.), and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs, represented by Muslim Advocates as well as the Legal Aid Justice Center and the law firm of Eversheds & Sunderland, LLP, sought an order compelling the defendants to vacate the results of credible fear interviews, which had found them eligible for removal, as well as the resulting orders of removal. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and new credible fear interviews.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that under DOJ policy, parents were forced to undergo credible fear interviews while they were suffering from emotional and psychological trauma from being separated from their children. Credible fear interviews determine whether an asylum seeker faces a credible fear of persecution or torture when returned to their home country. Unable to articulate their experiences due to trauma, the plaintiffs received negative credible fear determinations and faced immediate deportation.

This case was assigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman.

On August 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed under pseudonyms and a redacted complaint. The defendant filed a motion to extend time to file an answer on October 22, 2018. On December 31, 2018, the defendant again filed such a motion.

Along with two related cases, MMM v. Sessions and Ms. L v. ICE, this case settled. On November 15, 2018, Judge Dana M. Sabraw (the judge assigned in Ms. L. v. ICE) issued a final approval of the settlement. According to this settlement, the government committed to conducting a good faith review of the plaintiff’s prior credible fear findings to determine if reconsideration would be appropriate. However, the government refused to return any parent who had already been deported.

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. This case is now closed, but the court in Ms. L v. ICE retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. For more information on that case, including disputes that have developed over the settlement's terms, see here.

Bogyung Lim - 02/05/2020


compress summary