UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK; HECTOR DANILO RUIZ; BERTHA AVILA; JOSE MEJIA; NOEMI ROMERO; JOSE LUIS PISCIL; and ANIBAL FUENTES AGUILAR, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and JEH JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants. The facts alleged herein are alleged upon information and belief except where otherwise stated: 1. This is a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., challenging the failure of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to respond within a reasonable time to the Petition for Rulemaking (“Petition”) submitted by the Plaintiffs on February 4, 2014, urging issuance of a rule to suspend deportations, grant deferred action to qualifying undocumented immigrants, and reform harsh immigration enforcement practices. 2. Plaintiffs’ Petition requested that the agency issue a rule that would exercise the inherent authority of the Executive Branch to suspend deportations for a broad class of undocumented immigrants who have eared the right to membership in our national community and who continue to suffer unjustly as a result of DHS’s arbitrary and destructive immigrationenforcement policies and practices. 3. The Executive Branch alone is constitutionally vested with the power to determine whether to initiate enforcement actions or whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion for undocumented immigrants and their families. Congress explicitly delegates this authority to DHS in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 103, 8 U.S.C. § 1103. 4. The Petition requests that DHS exercise this power to grant relief to a broad class of undocumented immigrants, 5. DHS has a legal responsibility under the APA to provide a reasoned response to Plaintiffs’ Petition without unreasonable delay. 6. The President and top administration officials have publicly and repeatedly announced that a forthcoming new DHS policy will grant relief to a broad class of undocumented immigrants to, at a minimum, provide temporary protection from deportation. 7. President Obama made a clear promise on June 30, 2014, when he announced forthcoming executive action to make DHS policy “more humane.” 8 At that time, the President further stated that he expected recommendations from Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Attomey General Eric Holder by the end of the summer and vowed to “adopt those recommendations without further delay.” 9. The President and other administration officials publicly stated the length of time they needed to develop the contemplated policy when they promised action before the end of the summer of 2014. 10, However, DHS subsequently delayed such action, but not because additional time was necessary for reasoned consideration of the Petition or the issues it raises, Rather, as hundreds of potential beneficiaries of the forthcoming rule are deported each day, DHS and otherAdministration officials have expressly stated that the delay in action was driven not by substance, but by electoral politics." 11, The President subsequently stated that he would not announce executive action until after the midterm elections in November 2014. The Executive Branch has not attributed the delay to any need for additional time to craft the rule, indicating that DHS could respond to Plaintiffs? Petition on its merits yet chooses to delay its response. 12, Thus, while DHS has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition, it has continued to aggressively deport and criminalize immigrants, mainly through operations of one of its constituent agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), An entire population that would benefit from the President's promised action continues to face the daily risk of deportation because of electoral political calculations. ICE has acted arbitrarily and, in the most egregious of cases, has even retaliated against people who dared to organize and protest its abuses, 13, Through these shortsighted enforcement actions, DHS continues to cause immeasurable human harm by separating communities and disrupting the lives of people who would benefit from the contemplated rule. 14, Immigrant family and commu members who are deported while DHS delays its response based on political considerations are very likely to lose their chance at obtaining the relief for which Plaintiffs petitioned. 15. DHS’s unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that thousands of potential beneficiaries of the forthcoming rule will be deported without recourse. 16. Immigrant communities and families have been anxiously waiting for action, since long " See Michael D. Shear, Obama Delays Immigration Action, Yielding to Democratic Concerns, NY. Times, Sept. 6, 2014, available ar hup:/iwww.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/polities/obama-said-to-delay-executive-action-on- immigration. htm!?_r=0,before the Petition was filed, to see if and when DHS would exercise its executive powers to ‘grant relief to the broad class of individuals contemplated in the Petition, either by expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program created in 2012 or by other similar measures, and to ensure just practices in enforcement of immigration laws. 17, Plaintiffs in this action are immigrants who have been gravely affected by DHS’s continued delay in responding to their Petition, as well as a human and civil rights organization, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (*NDLON”), whose members represent thousands of persons affected by DHS’s immigration enforcement activities and failure to respond to the Petition. NDLON members also represent many people who have been deported during DHS’s delay, and are thus now unlikely to benefit from the forthcoming rule, and many more who will be deported without recourse if DHS continues to delay its response. Plaintiffs include many of the people who are most directly affected by DHS’s response or non-response to the Petition and yet are also those who are often excluded from the debate and the decision making process on the very issue. 18. More than nine months have passed since Plaintiffs filed the Petition. 19. ‘The current administration has been aware of the need for action to reform immigration enforcement standards at least since the Presidential campaign in 2008, 20. DHS has failed to respond to the Petition within a “reasonable time,” as required by 5 USS.C. § 555(b), and has “unreasonably delayed” action, within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 21. In the alternative, DHS’s failure to respond constitutes an effective denial that is arbitrary, capricious and void of any legitimate explanation in further violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) and (2).22, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to direct DHS to respond to the Petition and to craft and implement a reasoned policy to defer action and grant relief for a broad class of undocumented people, many of whom live with uncertainty about how the current immigration enforcement system will affect them. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). The district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the APA (5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 555, 702 and 706). The APA authorizes district courts to review any federal administrative action which “adversely affects or aggrieves” an individual. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Furthermore, the APA empowers the district courts to compel agency action which has been “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 24, Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), because Defendant DHS resides in this district at 201 Varick Street, New York, New York. Additionally, Plaintiff NDLON resides in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. PARTIES 25. Hector Danilo Ruiz, a member of NDLON’s member organization, the New Orleans Congress of Day Laborers, was on his way to a weekly bible study group when he was arrested by ICE in front of his wife and children as part of ICE’s Criminal Alien Removal Initiative CARI’), a pilot enforcement program operating in New Orleans which is the subject of a government investigation for potential civil rights abuses. Mr. Ruiz, an undocumented father of two United States citizen daughters, was handcuffed while his girls and their mother watchedtheir beloved father and husband forced into an unmarked van. He was detained at an immigration detention center in Basile, Louisiana for one month, until he was released because his family and the New Orleans Congress of Day Laborers denounced his detention and advocated for his freedom. During his detention, Mr. Ruiz’s wife struggled to support the family and faced multiple threats of eviction. Mr. Ruiz and his wife are concemed about their daughters’ mental health because of the nightmares they continue to have today as a result of witnessing their father’s arrest. He has requested a stay of removal, most recently in Sune 2014, and has yet to hear a response. Consequently, he is at imminent risk of deportation and has no assurance that he will be allowed to stay in the country. Mr, Ruiz, who co-filed the Petition to DHS, would benefit from the rule requested in the Petition. However, DHS's unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that Mr. Ruiz could be deported before the contemplated rule is issued. 26. Bertha Avila is the mother of five United States citizen children. She came to the United States over 20 years ago and she is currently undocumented. On November 16, 2012, on her way to a baptism, she was stopped by immigration officers at a check point purportedly because her vehicle looked “suspicious.” Separated from her children and her family, she spent her next six months between the Yuba County Detention Facility in Marysville, California and Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Her children feared they would never see their mother again. Ms. Avila suffers from asthma but in detention, she was denied medical attention and basic necessities. She suffered tremendously from the horrible conditions in these detention centers and from harassment by her cellmates. Her cries for help were seemingly unnoticed by ICE officials, She was finally released after the work and advocacy of her family and a local community organization, Puente Human Rights movement, which is a member of NDLON. Shehas asked for her immigration case to be closed several times, but she still awaits an answer. She faces an ongoing risk of imminent deportation and separation from her children. Ms. Avila, who co-filed the Petition to DHS, would benefit from the rule requested in the Petition, However, DHS"s unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that Ms. Avila could be deported before the contemplated rule is issued. 27. Jose Mejia came to the United States over thirteen years ago and is currently undocumented. He is a construction worker and the hard working father of three United States citizen children, One day last October, while loading his work materials into a truck for his construction job at 4:30 a.m., he was arrested by Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joseph ‘Arpaio's officers. The arrest resulted in a felony charge of identity theft alleging that Mr. Mejia used false documents to work, After four months of incarceration in County custody, Mr. Mejia was detained by DHS for four additional months due to DHS’s collaboration with Sheriff Arpaio. He was finally released in response to a supportive rallying cry from his community. His deportation case was closed, but the arrest left Mr. Mejia with a felony charge on his record, and he fears being targeted by law enforcement again. Deferred action is critical to Mr. Mejia because of the catastrophic effect his deportation would have on his family. His oldest U.S. citizen daughter suffers from a serious heart condition. Being removed from the U.S. would imperil her access to essential medical treatment. Deferred action would protect Mr. Mejia’s ability to work and provide for his family and would bring certainty and stability to his eldest daughter's health and to his family's lives and futures. Mr. Mejia, who co-filed the Petition to DHS, would benefit from the rule requested. However, DHS’s unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that Mr. Mejia could be deported before the contemplated rule is issued. 28. Noemi Romero is a 21-year-old resident of Arizona who was brought to the United Statesfrom Mexico when she was three years old and is currently undocumented. In 2012, Ms. Romero started to work in order to raise money to pay for her application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, when Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputies raided her worksite. Ms. Romero was arrested and charged with using her mother's social security number to work, She was detained for a total of three months by the police and ICE and became ineligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) as a result of the felony conviction. Ms. Romero has graduated from high school and aspires to attend college, but she presently cannot because federal and state policies make the cost much higher for undocumented students. DHS"s inaction leaves Ms. Romero in indefinite limbo. She has filed requests for DACA several tis s and has been denied. In August 2014, as part of the 1 of 11 million campaign, Ms. Romero filed a request for deferred action with USCIS, the agency within DHS responsible for processing deferred action, including DACA, applications, in Washington, D.C. She has yet to receive a response and still faces an imminent risk of deportation in the absence of DHS rulemaking. Ms. Romero, who co-filed the Petition to DHS, would benefit from the rule requested in the Petition. However, DHS's unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that Ms. Romero could be deported before the contemplated rule is issued. 29. Jose Luis Piscil is a hard-working father and husband living in Connecticut who came to the United States in 2007 when he was only 18 years old and is currently undocumented. Mr. Piscil was arrested by local police on false charges that were quickly dismissed, but the controversial Secure Communities program was a gateway between his wrongful arrest and federal immigration detention, Mr. Piscil received an immigration removal order, which he is still fighting in court, even though his criminal charges were immediately dismissed. Although ICE may choose to exercise prosecutorial discretion, it has refused to do so in his case. Mr.Piscil is his family’s main breadwinner and has two young children, including a son who suffers from a heart condition, DHS's delay in responding to the Petition prolongs the Piscil family’s uncertainty and fear of separation. Mr. Piscil, who co-filed the Petition to DHS, would benefit from the rule requested in the Petition. However, DHS’s unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that Mr. Piscil could be deported before the contemplated rule is issued. 30. Anibal Fuentes Aguilar came to the United States from Guatemala when he was only 16 years old in order to help earn money for his parents’ survival and is currently undocumented. On December 6, 2013, ICE agents wearing vests labeled “Police” came knocking at his door. Mr. Fuentes Aguilar opened the door, assuming they were poli officers, and they proceeded to show him a picture of a man Mr. Fuentes Aguilar did not recognize. The agents then asked for his identification, and when he produced it, they entered his home with guns drawn and gathered his family in the living room. Despite the fact that Mr. Fuentes Aguilar was not the man the agents were looking for, they detained him and placed him in deportation proceedings after discovering that Mr. Fuentes Aguilar had been stopped at the border years before. Mr. Fuentes Aguilar was stopped at the border returning from a trip to see his parents for the last time in Guatemala before they passed away, As a result of community pressure on ICE, Mr. Fuentes ‘Aguilar was released with an electronic ankle bracelet with an order to leave the country by January 31, 2014, which was then extended to September. Today, Mr. Fuentes Aguilar is waiting for a response to his new request for a stay of removal and to his DACA application. Mr. Fuentes Aguilar currently lives in Chicago and is the sole provider for his wife and young son. The ongoing delay in DHS’s response continues to burden the family with apprehension of having to return to a life facing violence and poverty. Mr. Fuentes Aguilar, who co-filed the Petition to DHS, would benefit from the rule requested in the Petition. However, DHS'sunreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that Mr. Fuentes Aguilar could be deported before the contemplated rule is issued. 31. The National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) is a non-for-profit organization founded in 2001 that today includes forty-three local member organizations, including the Hispanic Resource Center in Mamaroneck, New York, Neighbors’ Link in Mount Kisco, New York, the United Community Center of Westchester in New Rochelle, New York, New Immigrant Community Empowerment (NICE) in Queens, New York, Workers Justice Project in Brooklyn, New York, Centro del Inmigrante in Staten Island, New York, Workplace Project in Hempstead, New York, and Don Bosco Workers in Port Chester, New York. As a network, NDLON has a principal place of business in each jurisdiction where it has a member organization, NDLON’s mission is to improve the lives of day laborers in the United States. It does this by strengthening members’ efforts to foster safer and more humane working and living environments for day laborers, both men and women, so they can eam a living, contribute to society, and integrate into their local communities. Since its inception, NDLON has focused on strengthening communities where day laborers live and work. NDLON has been forced to divert organizational resources away from its mission and work because members are uniquely targeted and disadvantaged by the immigration enforcement system at an astonishingly disproportionate rate. NDLON, including its members, such as the Hispanic Resource Center, Neighbors’ Link, the United Community Center of Westchester and Don Bosco Workers,” has to shift its focus and resources from its main purpose in order to respond to the uniquely ? Bach NDLON member organization has had to divert resources away from its principal mission in order to protect its constituents from the harms discussed in the Petition occurring in its local community. See, e-g., Ni Una Mas Depontacion: Don Bosco Workers, Inc, United Community Center of Westchester, Inc., and Obreros Unidos of Yonkers Call To End Deportations, June 10 ~ 14, 2013, htp:/donboscoworkers.org/programs/ organizing-actions/; United Community Center of Westchester, Jmmigration Reform Now! Rally on April 10. 2013, bttp:/www.ayudandovidas.org/?p=1400. 10disproportionate impact felt by its members resulting from the detention, deportation, and mistreatment of immigrants. Deferred action for day laborers and others at risk of deportation would allow NDLON to resume its focus on its primary NDLON co-filed the Petition to DHS and would benefit from the rule requested in the Petition. However, DHS’s unreasonable delay in responding to the Petition means that NDLON will continue to suffer harm while its members face unnecessary deportations and deprivation of workplace rights before the contemplated rule is issued. Defendants 32. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the federal agency responsible for the implementation of law and policy related to immigration, including the adoption of a rule suspending deportations of undocumented immigrants. DHS is the agency in control of several sub-agencies that implement immigration enforcement policies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Customs and Border Protection. DHS is the agency to which Plaintiffs directed their Petition, has the authority to respond to the Petition, and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 703. DHS resides at 201 Varick Street, New York, New York, and operates from various other locations in the Southern District of New York. 33. Sch Johnson is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Johnson is responsible for the implementation of law and policy related to immigration, including the adoption of a rule suspending deportations of undocumented immigrants. He is being sued in his official capacity. He directs DHS, the agency to which Plaintiffs directed their Petition, and has the authority to respond to the Pet ulSTATEMENT OF FACTS DHS’s Arbitrary and Overly Aggressive Immigration Enforcement Practices Unnecessaril Devastate Immigrant Communities, Undermining American Families and the Americ Economy 34. The current historically unprecedented, harsh, and often arbitrary immigration enforcement system is devastating immigrant communities and our national economy. ‘The scale of harm is vast; the Executive Branch has carried out more deportations in the last ten years than in the previous 110 years, Millions of immigrants without current immigration status have been integrated into American families, communities, and neighborhoods, and have become vital components of our national economy. While all of these immigrants live with the shadow of deportation hanging over their head—burdening their families and disrupting our economy— chance is the single greatest factor in determining which immigrants get caught up in the deportation system. Despite repeated public recognition by the President that many of these immigrants have earned the right to membership in our society, current enforcement practices fail to define with reliable specificity whom DHS will not subject to deportation. 35. Immigrants are generally deported or put at risk of deportation because of chance encounters with immigration or other law enforcement agents not resulting from serious, or often any, wrongdoing. Similarly, many are deported or put at risk of deportation as the result of civil rights violations, including racial profiling, by law enforcement agents. For many immigrants, DHS's lack of clear enforcement standards means that an immigrant’s risk of deportation often tums less on federal priorities than on whether or not they live in a jurisdiction where state or local law enforcement have hostile or welcoming policies toward immigrant communities. Despite the issuance of prosecutorial discretion guidelines, rational and significant factors such as community and family ties to the United States, relatives with U.S. citizenship or lawful 12immigration status, long-term U.S residence, potential legal immigration relief, productive employment history, good moral character, health or humanitarian needs, efforts to protect civil and due process rights, and many other factors often play little or no role in enforcement decisions or outcomes affecting people with deep roots in the United States. 36. The current brutal and arbitrary enforcement scheme dehumanizes and inflicts material suffering and psychological pain on millions of people. 37. While the administration delays its response to the Petition, the deportation machine continues to run, and every day, hundreds of people who may benefit from DHS’s promised actions lose their chance to ever obtain relief. 38. DHS estimated that as of 2011, there were about 630,000 undocumented immigrants living in the state of New York. About 500,000 undocumented immigrants live in New York City, where about 40 percent of all residents were born outside of the United States. Upon information and belief, a significant portion of the undocumented immigrants who live in New York City and in the state of New York who may currently be at risk of deportation would benefit from the relief sought in the Petition. 39. From October 1, 2013, through August, 2014, 3,343 people were ordered deported at the Immigration Court at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, and 758 people were ordered deported at the Immigration Court at 201 Varick Street, New York, New York.’ During the same time period, 12,628 people had new charges filed that could lead to deportation at the Immigration Court at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, and 921 people had such new Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, U.S. Deportation Outcomes by Charge, Completed Cases in Immigration Courts, Syracuse University, http:/trac-syt edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/deport_outcome_ ccharge.php, Aug, 2014. 13charges filed at the Immigration Court at 201 Varick Street, New York, New York.‘ Upon information and belief, a significant portion of the persons ordered deported in New York City Immigration Courts would have benefitted from the relief sought in the Petition. 40. From October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, 2,045 people were held by the New York City Department of Corrections beyond the time when they would otherwise have been released because of civil immigration detainers, and 2,016 people were transferred by the Department of Corrections to ICE custody because of such detainers. Upon information and belief, a significant portion of the persons subject to immigration detainers recently, currently, or soon to be in the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections and the New York Police Department would benefit from the relief sought in the Petition. 41. The experiences of Plaintiffs, who filed the Petition for Rulemaking to DHS, reflect the all too common- experiences of immigrant community members at the hands of DHS’s arbitrary enforcement mechanisms. 42. Bertha Avila was pulled over and ultimately torn away from her three daughters solely because her car purportedly looked “suspicious” to an immigration agent. ‘The officers had no reason to stop her. This mother of five United States citizen children had lived in the United States for more than twenty years, and had never had previous trouble with the law. Ms. Avila does not fall within any of DHS’s stated enforcement priorities, but nonetheless, she was taken into custody and put at risk of deportation. In the absence of a deferred action program, she continues to face the risk of deportation and prolonged separation from her family. She suffered significant psychological harm when she was pulled over, arrested, and ultimately detained and held at risk of imminent deportation for months. Her family suffered similar trauma because Ms. * Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, U.S. Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts by Nationality, Geographic Location. Year and Type of Charge, Syracuse University, http/trac.syr.edw/phptools/immigration/ charges/deport_filing_charge-php, Aug. 2014. 14‘Avila was stopped arbitrarily and unjustly while committing no wrongdoing. Ms. Avila and her family face an ongoing risk of separation for as long as DHS continues to delay its response to the Petition. 43, Jose Mejia was arrested and criminalized for working in order to support his family, including his three United States citizen children, Mr. Mejia’s eldest daughter has a serious heart condition, and the arrest of the sole provider of the household continues to create fear and uncertainty over the family’s life. It is unreasonable that DHS could consider Mr. Mejia an enforcement priority because of his conviction, which directly resulted from working in order to support his family. For as long as DHS continues to delay its response to the Petition, Mr. Mejia and his family will face an ongoing risk that they will be separated and that their daughter's health will be put in jeopardy. 44, Hector Danilo Ruiz. was targeted by and arrested through DHS’s Criminal Alien Removal Initiative ("CARI"), which has operated as a sweeping stop and frisk program indiscriminately targeting Latinos throughout New Orleans. Notwithstanding its name, many immigrants swept up through the CARI program have never been convicted of any crime. Mr. Ruiz does not fall within any of DHS’s stated enforcement priorities, but nonetheless, he was taken into custody and put at risk of deportation. The memory and mental image of an unmarked van approaching the family car and taking away their father has greatly harmed his daughters’ mental health. Mr. Ruiz and his family face an ongoing risk of separation for as long as DHS continues to delay its response to the Petition. 45, Noemi Romero was three years old when her family brought her to the Unites States from Mexico. In June 2012, she discovered she was eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program. She started working to raise the money to pay for the 15DACA application fees. Her hopes of finally gaining limited immigration relief through DACA were shattered when her workplace was subjected to a random police raid. Had she not been swept up in this raid, Ms. Romero would have been one of the 560,000 young people who have grown up in the United States to receive solace in their lives, albeit temporarily, through the DACA program. It is unreasonable that DHS could consider Ms. Romero an enforcement priority and does not permit her to benefit from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals because of her conviction, which resulted solely from working. She continues to live undocumented in Arizona without being able to benefit from a work permit or any of the other benefits afforded to other DACA recipients, significantly hindering her ability to support herself financially or contribute to her family. She and her family face an ongoing risk of separation for as long as DHS delays its response to the Petition. 46. Anibal Fuentes Aguilar opened the door to his home to agents whom he thought were the police. In the spirit of collaborating with the agents, he truthfully told them that he did not know the individual they were looking for and complied with their request to produce identification. In response, Mr. Fuentes Aguilar and his family were threatened at gunpoint in their own home and Mr. Fuentes Aguilar was detained despite the fact he was not the person the agents were seeking. The fear of arbitrarily being subjected to such horror in their own home continues to haunt Mr. Fuentes Aguilar and his family. It is unreasonable that DHS could consider Mr. Fuentes Aguilar an enforcement priority solely because he had been previously stopped and ordered removed in 2009 after visiting his dying parents in Guatemala, Mr. Fuentes Aguilar’s future remains uncertain, adding to his family’s daily stress and risk of hunger, homelessness, and detrimental physical and mental health problems. Mr. Fuentes Aguilar and his family face an ongoing risk of separation for as long as DHS continues to delay its response to the Petition. 1647. Jose Luis Piscil was arrested by local police on false charges that were quickly dismissed but faces ongoing immigration consequences of the arrest. Mr. Piscil is the primary provider for his family, which includes two young children, one of whom suffers from a heart condition, Arbitrary immigration enforcement practices that do not take into account the dismissal of criminal charges have placed the long-term health and wellbeing of Mr. Piscil and his family at serious risk, It is unreasonable that DHS could cot ler Mr. Piscil an enforcement priority because of charges that were dismissed. Mr. Piscil and his family face an ongoing risk of separation for as long as DHS continues to delay its response to the Petition. 48. These stories are just a few of the millions that reflect the continued detrimental effects of DHS’s delay in responding to the Petition and the agency's failure to implement consistent, predictable standards for enforcement. Current enforcement practices undermine and contradict some of the principles at the very core of American values and immigration laws: family unification and commitment to respecting individuals’ labor, civil and due process rights. DHS has allowed the country’s historical commitment to these principles to unravel, despite having the authority to grant deferred action and restore immigration priorities to uphold our best values. 49. The delay is causing humanitarian and economic harm. The current immigration enforcement policies and practices tear apart families and communities, impair civil and due process rights, spread mistrust of local and federal law enforcement offices, disrupt the economy, and hurt our foreign relations. 50. Family and Community Unity Destroyed: American families and communities are being tom apart by DHS’s mass deportation policies. 51. Family unity, civil rights, and due process are just some of the guiding principles that the nation’s immigration system has had since its formation. Families and communities belong 7together, and every individual has the right to be a part of and to thrive in her chosen relationships and communities. No individual should have her roots torn up from under her. 52. Current arbitrary approaches to immigration enforcement separate children from parents, and spouses from each other, often forever. In February 2009, DHS estimated that more than 100,000 parents of U.S. born children were deported from the country just between 1998 and 2007. According to federal data released to the Applied Research Center in the first six months of 2011, the federal government removed more than 46,000 mothers and fathers of U.S. citizen children, In 2013, according to DHS’s own data, the agency deported 72,410 parents with at least one U.S. citizen child. Nationally, there are almost five million children with at least one undocumented parent, and for every two immigrants apprehended, one child was left behind. 53. Because of DHS's deportations, many children ultimately enter local foster care systems. 54. - For people who identify: as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, DHS enforcement policies exacerbate already existing layers of discrimination and place individuals at higher risk of violence. Of the 11 million undocumented people in the country, several hundred thousand or more identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The actual number of LGBT individuals is much higher since this number does not include undocumented children or LGBT adults who do not openly identify as LGBT. In addition to the discrimination that many LGBT individuals face in workplaces, undocumented LGBT workers further suffer from discrimination and exploitation because of their immigration status. Furthermore, detained members of the LGBT community face hazardous detention conditions, including high rates of physical and sexual abuse while in ICE custody, use of solitary confinement for individuals who face risk, and lack of appropriate medical care for individuals with chronic illnesses such as HIV. DHS’s delay of administrative changes means that these individuals continue to face deplorable conditions in 18detention and great harm to their physical and psychological health, when they could benefit from administrative relief. 55. _ DHS’s delay in responding to the Petition breaks apart families and communities that, but for the delay, would have been likely to benefit from deferred action the President has announced that he is ready to implement. 56. When a family’s wage earner is taken away, family members not only suffer long-lasting emotional distress but are also economically devastated. Economic uncertainty puts families at risk of serious harms, such as eviction and homelessness and inability to access life-saving or other essential health care. In the absence of a deferred action program, a halt to deportations, and administrative changes to immigration enforcement practices, many immigrants continue to be unjustly forced into the dragnet of detention and deportation. 57. Without clear immigration enforcement rules and reasonable protections, the people most vulnerable to unjust and arbitrary enforcement and its resulting damage will continue to pay the of DHS's delay in responding to the Petition. 58. Civil and Due Process Rights Violations through Harsh, Costly, and Arbitrary Deportations: Current deportation policy fails to protect the nation’s public interest of diverting immigration resources away from low-priority immigrants and families, including many who may in the future benefit from congressional legalization. ‘The massive deportation dragnet is anomalous in our nation’s history. In the past decade the number of deportations per year has more than doubled, reaching more than 400,000 per year in recent years. 59. Recent mass deportation policies have contributed to a factually inaccurate and politically harmful narrative that immigration is primarily a public safety and national security issue. 60. Many people like Ms. Avila, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Fuentes Aguilar, and Mr. Piscil are detained 19and put at risk of deportation because of harsh law enforcement practices that invade people's lives, instill fear in communities, and violate civil rights, often through racial profiling, DHS's actions continue to deprive many people of their civil rights and due process in ways that erode the very bedrock of our Constitution and nation. 61. Many people like Ms. Romero and Mr. Mejia are arrested for non-violent violations and are held in jails for extended periods of time while local law enforcement, in collaboration with ICE, check their immigration status. While they suffer duplicate punishment in detention, they are kept away from their families, often losing their jobs and their only sources of income. 62. In 2011, John Morton, then the director of ICE, issued three memoranda claiming to prioritize the removal of aliens who pose a danger to national security or risk to public safety. Despite these memoranda, ICE continues to deport large numbers of individuals with no record of criminal history or who were convicted for nonviolent offenses. ICE data show that roughly 47.7 percent of people targeted with DHS’s immigration detainers had no records of criminal convictions, not even minor traffic violations. And if traffic violations and convictions for marijuana possession are excluded, fully two thirds of all federal immigration detainer requests were for persons who had no record of a conviction. Furthermore, recent ICE data show that only about 14 percent of the detainers issued by DHS in fiscal year 2012 and the first four months of fiscal year 2013 met the agency's stated goal of targeting individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety. ICE continues to act arbitrarily by detaining people whom it considers low-priority, by violating civil rights, and by retaliating against immigrants engaged in organizing or whistleblower efforts. 63. The sum of money expended to carry out this enforcement scheme is staggering. In 2012, the United States spent 3.5 billion dollars more on immigration enforcement than on the 20combined budgets of five major criminal enforcement agencies: FBI, DEA, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Much of the immigration enforcement budget is being used for programs such as Secure Communities (°S-Comm"”) and the Criminal Alien Program that are failing to accomplish their stated purposes of increasing the proportion of immigrants deported who pose an actual threat to public safety. 64. Mistrust in Federal and Local Law Enforcement: Inhumane immigration enforcement has made many immigrant community members wary of any contact with federal, state or local Jaw enforcement officials, even when they are victims of, or witnesses to, crimes. This mistrust is fueled by entanglement of local law enforcement offices with federal programs encouraging them to enforce immigration laws and to engage in racial profiling. Like Mr. Fuentes Aguilar and Ms. Avila, many undocumented immigrants fall victim to this racial profiling, and as result, are more: reluctant to report crimes and cooperate: with the police. This reality greatly undermines the relationship between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, thus putting community safety at risk. 65. S-Comm—a program that effectively drafts local police into routine civil immigration enforcement—not only diminishes community safety, it erodes civil rights and hampers meaningful immigration reform. The S-Comm program runs the fingerprints of anyone arrested through immigration databases and often leads to the arrest, detention and deportation of people convicted only of nonviolent offenses or never convicted of any crime at all. This expanding deportation program is the engine driving the sharp increases in the number of persons deported based solely on nonviolent offenses, such as traffic violations. 66. As a result of these programs and other harsh immigration enforcement practices, immigrant communities are less likely to report crimes to police. About 44 percent of Latinos 2say they are less likely now to contact police if they are victims of a crime because they fear officers will inquire about their immigration status or the status of people they know. This figure is even higher, at 70 percent, among Latinos who are in the country unlawfully. 67. Economie Disruption: Immigrants are catalysts and linchpins to the American economy. 68. The current mass deportation policies substantially disrupt the American economy, inhibit growth, and create substantial labor shortages in a number of critical American industries. 69. Undocumented immigrants play a vital role in many areas of the economy, including the construction, farming and direct care sectors. The national construction industry depends on immigrant labor to meet the needs of growing economy and population. There are seven million people who work as day laborers or in other sectors of the construction industry. It is estimated that about one million of them are undocumented. 70. Approximately 53 percent of the U.S. farm workers who toil to feed the country are undocumented, 71. Estimates suggest that at least a few hundred thousand undocumented immigrants serve as direct care workers, such as home health aides, personal care aides, and other long term health care workers, tending to the health and wellbeing of sick or vulnerable people every day. 72. Despite the fact that many sectors of the U.S. economy depend on undocumented immigrants, undocumented workers do not benefit from their contributions to national progress. Current immigration policies deny them the right to work legally and force them to work underground with low pay and under dangerous working conditions. The harsh enforcement regime in turn puts undocumented workers in constant danger of arrest and deportation, often through unpredictable workplace raids. 2273. Problems in Foreign Relations: Mass deportations have had a substantial impact on USS. foreign relations with key Latin American allies. 74. Central American leaders have expressed concerns that overly punitive U.S. immigrations laws could compel the involuntary return of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the U.S. While the U.S. economy is dependent on these immigrant laborers, many other countries struggle to support the flow of deportes, 75. Negative perceptions of the United States have increased as a result of inhumane immigration enforcement policies, detention abuse and the increasing number of deaths along the United States border with Mexico. ‘The Executive Branch Has the Legal Authority to Establish Clear_and Consistent Enforcement Priorities That Deprioritize Deportation of a Broad Class of Undocumented Immigrants Who Have Earn ip i i it 76. - DHS has the legal authority to put a stop to the mounting harms from arbitrary and unjust immigration enforcement. The Constitution vests sole power in the Executive Branch to determine whether to initiate enforcement actions or whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 103, 8 U.S.C. § 1103, Congress explicitly delegates this authority to DHS. The immigration system contemplated by Congress necessarily relies on the Executive Branch’s prosecutorial discretion, especially in the enforcement realm. The Petition requests that DHS exercise this power to grant relief to a broad class of undocumented immigrants. TT. On September 2, 2014, 136 law professors, including Stephen Legomsky, the former General Counsel to one of DHS’s component immigration agencies, addressed a letter to the President in which they explained that the Executive Branch has clear legal authority to grant administrative relief from immigration enforcement and has done so in both recent and distant 23history. Specifically, the law professors concluded that: “[ W]e believe the administration has the legal authority to use prosecutorial discretion as a tool for managing resources and protecting individuals residing in and contributing to the United States in meaningful ways. Likewise, when prosecutorial discretion is exercised, there is no legal barrier to formalizing that policy decision through sound procedures that include a form application and dissemination of the relevant criteria to the officers charged with implementing the program and to the public. As the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program has shown, those kinds of procedures help officers to implement policy decisions fairly and consistently, and they offer the public the transparency that government priority decisions require in a democracy.” Moreover, the professors explained that while, “[slome have suggested that the size of the group who may “benefit” from an act of prosecutorial discretion is relevant to its legality[, wJe are unaware of any legal authority for such an assumption.” 78. The current administration is not the first to consider or exercise prosecutorial discretion to better our nation’s health, wellbeing, and commitment to human and civil rights. At several es during the course of American history, the Executive Branch has exercised this constitutionally vested power by choosing to not initiate certain administrative proceedings in order to meet important goals. DHS and its predecessor agencies have taken similar executive actions in setting enforcement priorities in the immigration sphere, including, for example, the Roosevelt administration’s Bracero program in 1942 and President George H.W. Bush's order to halt deportations of Chinese citizens in 1990, Another prominent example is the “Family Faimess” policy issued by Gene McNary, Commission of DHS's predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which allowed an estimated 1.5 million undocumented family members of certain lawful immigrants to apply for employment authorization even without meeting a previous “compelling or humanitarian factors” requirement. 2479. DHS and other federal agencies have utilized their prosecutorial discretion power in the immigration realm and in a wide variety of other administrative arenas to determine that certain categories of enforcement actions are not in our national interest. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is but one example of the executive's necessary exercise of authority to set enforcement priorities. Executive Branch agencies have consistently made decisions that reflect their visions of the best interest of the nation and have exercised their executive power to systematically prioritize and de-prioritize certain categories of enforcement. 80. The Rulemaking Petition filed by the Plaintiffs urges DHS to employ t long: practiced power in order to implement necessary reforms and expand already existing relief, 81. DHS and the President have made many public statements acknowledging that the Executive Branch has the legal authority to extend deportation relief to a wide number of people and that it has the legal obligation to be responsive to those who are the most affected by enforcement standards. Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rulemaking and DHS’s Failure to Issue a Timely Response 82. On February 4, 2014, in response to the deportation wave separating families, undermining labor and civil rights, and disrupting our economy, Plaintiffs submitted the Petition to DHS, pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A), requesting that the agency issue a rule suspending deportations of undocumented immigrants, granting them deferred action and employment authorization, and reforming current enforcement practices to make them more humane.* 83. The proposed rule will help recommit the United States’ immigration discourse to its historic values of family unity, economic vitality and national self-identity, Many undocumented immigrants have made the United States their home and contribute daily to make it a better * A copy of the Petition for Rulemaking is attached as Exhibit A. 25country. They are part of the backbone of this country’s workforce and communities, and they deserve a voice in the political and social discourse. 84. More than nine months have passed since the Petition was filed, yet DHS continues to disregard the Petition and Plaintiffs’ entreaties. As the Plaintiffs and other members of communities affected by DHS’s enforcement practices continue to wait for a response, DHS has delayed action without offering any explanation based on the substance of the issue. This delay without response to the affected community's Petition is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. DHS’s Delay in Responding to the Petition Is Unreasonable Because it Is Driven by Politics, Not by the Time Actually Needed for Substantive Deliberations, and Because the Length of Delay Must be Viewed in Light of the Severe Harm the Delay Causes 85. Immigration enforcement policy has been regularly challenged and debated throughout the Obama administration's tenure. The Executive Branch repeatedly asserted its awareness of the plight of immigrant families and communities affected by immigration enforcement and specifically of the need to reform immigration enforcement policies. 86. DHS and the current administration have been aware of the arbitrary implementation and. harmful effects of current enforcement activities since at least the beginning of the Obama Presidency. Remedying the devastating immigration system was a platform of the Obama campaign and he made a clear promise on July 8, 2008: “The American people . . . need us to enact comprehensive immigration reform once and for all. We can’t wait twenty years from now to do it, we can’t wait ten years to do it. We need to do it by the end of my first term as the President of the United States of America.” President Obama further said that “we have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. It is time we did that!” This promise, of course, went unfulfilled. 87. In June 2009, at this administration’s first major discussion of immigration with members 26‘of Congress, the President acknowledged the need to “recognize and legalize the status of undocumented workers who are here.” 88. On July 30, 2010, a draft memorandum addressed to then-director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Alejandro Mayorkas surfaced, recommending administrative relief “to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.” It explicitly suggests that USCIS grant deferred action for the purpose of protecting the public interest. 89. Furthermore, in 2011, then-Director of ICE John Morton issued a series of memoranda that purported to realign immigration enforcement priorities and the use of prosecutorial discretion to achieve these goals. The memos were respectively titled, Civil Immigration Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens; Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs; and Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens. 90. In 2012, ICE setnew, stricter guidelines determining priorities for the issuance of immigration detainers, which are requests from ICE to other law enforcement agencies to hold persons for possible deportation. However, government data reveal that over the subsequent six months, only 10.8 percent of the ICE detainers issued were for persons whose backgrounds satisfied DHS"s stated goal to target individuals posing a serious threat to public safety or national security.® The memoranda have been ineffective and have not resolved inequitable, arbitrary, and brutally harsh immigration enforcement practices. * Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, New ICE Guidelines Have Little Impact, Syracuse University, butp:/trac.syr.edw whatsnew/email.130930.html, Oct. 1, 2013, 2791. This series of memoranda directed ICE employees and attorneys to utilize prosecutorial discretion in redirecting the agency's limited resources away from those who are not a serious threat to public or national security. Unfortunately, the memoranda fell far short of defining the category of people worthy of protection from deportation, Moreover, because the memoranda did not define a bright line process by which clear categories of individuals could apply for deferred action or a similar status, they have been unevenly enforced, and often ignored, by immigration agents. 92. On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum exercising prosecutorial discretion by granting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA, while not permanent relief, demonstrates good public policy that provides temporary relief by diverting resources away from the deportation of young people who are an essential part of American society. 93. The DACA initiative, in sharp contrast to the previous prosecutorial discretion ‘memoranda, was a success because it set forth clear eligibility criteria and a system by which eligible individuals could affirmatively apply for protections. 94, However, this program too fell short of curing the injustice and arbitrariness that plague ‘our immigration system because it only protected a narrow class of immigrants. 95. These actions are examples of the Executive Branch’s authority to determine enforcement priorities but were very limited in scope and still left many immigrant families in the dark. Furthermore, they highlight DHS’s broad discretion that is applied inconsistently. 96. On March 13, 2014, a month after the filing of the Petition, President Obama told the leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that he had directed DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to 28conduct an inventory of DHS enforcement practices and to explore how the agency could carry ut its operations “more humanely.” 97. Despite repeated promises since the beginning of the administration, DHS and the Executive Branch chose to delay any action. On May 27, 2014, only two months after the DHS review process had begun, an administration official revealed that the President asked Secretary Johnson to postpone completing and releasing the review’s results until the end of the summer. 98. The President again promised executive action to implement enforcement reforms before the summer ended. On June 30, 2014, President Obama saic (Today, I'm beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress .... I expect their recommendations before the end of summer and I intend to adopt those recommendations without further delay.” This announcement made clear that DHS would have sufficient time to fully review many of the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Petition, as well as responses including deferred action, and to craft an appropriate rule before summer's end. 99. Also on June 30, 2014, President Obama publicly stated that he had instructed Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson to provide recommendations for executive action to reform the U.S. immigration enforcement system because, as the President stated, “the problem is, is that our system is so broken, so unclear that folks don’t know what the rules are.” These words made clear that the administration was fully aware of the arbitrariness of the current enforcement system. This promise to provide, and acknowledgement of the need for, relief gave hope to the immigrant community that DHS would exercise its legal authority to give, as President Obama put it, a “chance to the eleven million immigrants to come out of the shadows and earn their citizenship and to stop the heartbreak of separated families.” 100. Speaking at the American Bar Association Annual Convention in Boston on August 9, 29BO 2014, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stated: “Our immigration system is broken ~ everyone agrees with that. Yet Congress has refused to act to fix it. We in the Executive Branch cannot wait any longer.” 101. However, communities across the country were dismayed yet again when the President announced on September 6, 2014, that DHS would take no executive action until at least after the November elections. The announcement squarely contradicted the President and DHS's repeated promises and reaffirmations that positive changes were imminent in the near future. 102. DHS’s delay was unrelated to the merits of the contemplated executive action, or the time needed for substantive review of the issue, and was based entirely on political calculations. Speaking on this issue in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the President stated that the “politics did shift” because of the arrival of unaccompanied immigrant children, but he went on. to assure the American public that he still was “going to act because it’s the right thing for the country.” The President's statement was echoed by one official, anonymously discussing White and House strategy with the New York Times: “The president is confident in his authority to a¢ he will before the end of the year."” 103. On October 2, 2014, President Obama assured members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at a dinner that “fixing our broken immigration system is something we have to do and will do.” 104. On November 9, 2014, speaking on CBS News's Face the Nation, President Obama echoed his previous words, admitting that “ [wle’re deporting people that shouldn’t be deported.” * See Sheat, Obama Delays Immigration Action, Yielding to Democratic Concerns, N.Y. Times, Sept. 6, 2014. 30105. While DHS may believe that it can afford to wait to announce its decision until the politics are convenient to the President, undocumented immigrants cannot wait and the APA does not permit of such politically motivated unreasonable delays. While immigrants and their communities and families are waiting for DHS to decide that the right time for relief has arrived, ICE agents are breaking families apart, destroying communities and economies, and deporting as many people as they can. 106. DHS's destructive delay and the President's postponement of action are causing harm to undocumented immigrants, their families and communities. When human lives and health and the future of many generations are at stake, nine months is too long a time to wait for an answer. 107. Under the APA, Petitioners requested that the agency issue a rule under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A), of, in the alternative, under § 553(b\(B), that would suspend deportations for undocumented immigrants and their families, grant deferred action, and reform enforcement practices. As persons suffering and facing further imminent harm as the result of DHS's delay, Petitioners are entitled under the APA and under bedrock democratic principles to a timely, reasoned response to their Petition. 108, Ithas been over nine months since Plaintiffs filed their Petition. 109. DHS has failed to respond. 110. When human lives, health, and the future of many generations are at stake, nine months is too long a time to wait for an answer. 111. DHS has been aware of the problems that the rule the Petition proposes would address for since the inception of the Obama presidency and could have responded on the merits within a short time. 31112, Because of DHS's delay, its ongoing unjust enforcement separates families and communities, hurts the economy, undermines public safety by making immigrant communities fearful of law enforcement agents, and puts peoples lives and health at tremendous risk. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unreasonable Delay in Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)) 113, Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 114. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) provides a right to petition for rulemaking. 5 USS.C. § 553(¢). 115, Ata minimum, the right to petition for rulemaking entitles a party to a reasoned response on the merits of the petition. 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). 116. Such response must be received “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). 117. The APA authorizes reviewing courts to compel agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 118, The ongoing failure of Defendants Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and Secretary Johnson to respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition constitutes unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding within the meaning of § 706(1). SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (In the Alternative, Unlawful Withholding of Agency Action in Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1, 2)) 119. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 120. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and Defendant Johnson, as Secretary of 32Homeland Security, have the power to suspend deportation of undocumented immigrants and their families. 121. Defendants DHS and Johnson’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition amounts to a constructive denial of the Petition and thus a final agency action under the APA. 122. This Court may review and remedy a final agency action if that action is “arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 123. This Court may also “compel agency action unlawfully withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 124. DHS'’s constructive denial of Plaintiffs’ Petition is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 125. DHS's constructive denial of Plaintiffs’ Petition also constitutes unlawful withholding of agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).. 126. Therefore, the Court may compel Defendants to issue the rule sought in Plaintiffs’ Petition under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A), or, in the alternative, 553(b)(B). PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 127. Declare that the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Johnson are in violation of the APA; 128. Direct DHS and the Secretary to immediately issue a rule defining the category of immigrants to whom they will grant deferred action status and work authorization and such other reforms as are necessary to the current immigration enforcement scheme; 129. In the alternative, direct DHS and the Secretary to respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition, including an explanation of their decision and the reasons supporting it within such time as the Court deems proper; 33130. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attomeys’ fees incurred in bringing this action; and 131. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Date: November 12, 2014 New York, New York Aya Tasaki, Law Student Intern IMMIGRATION JUSTICE CLINIC Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Avenue, Ith Floor New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 790-0895 Fax: (212) 790-0256 peter.markowitz@ yu.edu thomas.fritesche@yu.edu Counsel for Plaintiffs 34