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., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01419 VICENTA S., FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 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 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. 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, once- in-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.