Logo
Cuban American Bar Assn v. Christopher: Complaint
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                  SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIRA

                                   CASE NO.: 94-2183-CIV-ATKINS



     CUBAN AMERICAN BAR ASS0CIATION, INC.    )
     et. al.                                 )

               Plaintiff,                    )
                                             )
     vs.                                     )

     WARREN CHRISTOPHER, et. al.             )
               Defendents,                   )

     HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC.,           )

     et. al.                                 )

     Intervenors.                            )

  ___________________________________________)

Plaintiffs, Cuban American Bar Association, Inc. ("CABA"), Cuban Legal ALLIANCE, INC.("CLA"), and Due Process, Inc.("DPI") (hereinafter collectively "Cuban Refugee Service Organizations.); LIZBET MARTINEZ, ARIANNA GONZALEZ NOBAEZ and

ARNIEL DEL CAMPO GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (hereinafter the "Minor Plaintiffs".); JOVANI MIGUEL FIFFE PINO, NELSON TORRES PULIDO, MARITZA EXPOSITO, DAVID BUZZI, ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, and NESTOR RODRIGUEZ LABORI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (hereinafter "the Refugee Plaintiffs"); LEYDIS MILAGROS RUIZ MENDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (hereinafter the "Pregnant refugee Plaintiffs"); ELENA PINO and VIRGINIA PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (hereinafter the "Refugee Family Plaintiffs"), by their undersigned attorneys, allege:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief arising from defendants' illegal and arbitrary actions against the Minor Plaintiffs, the Refugee Plaintiffs, the Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs), the Refugee Family Plaintiffs and the Cuban Refugee Service Organizations, following the decision by President William J. Clinton, announced on August 19, 1994, to bar Cuban political refugees from freely entering the United States, contrary to United States statutory and constitutional law, United States congressional intent, international law and the consistent policies and administrative practices of United States presidential administrations dating back to 1960. Following President Clinton's order that all Cuban refugees interdicted at sea be taken to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay ("Guantanamo"), the defendants, in disregard of binding domestic and international law and longstanding United States policy, have, among other things: (1) taken intentional steps to prevent the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from entering the United States and gaining the protection of U.S. Law, including the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966; (2) detained and plan to detain indefinitely approximately 30,000 Cubans, including thousands of children, in unsanitary, deplorable and medically inadequate detention camps in an apparent effort to demoralize and discourage the refugees into a coerced return to Cuba, where they face political persecution, imprisonment and death; (3) refused to allow the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to assert their legitimate refugee claims in any proceedings unless they return first to Cuba, from whose persecution they fled, and (4) prevented relatives and legal counsel from effectively communicating and associating with the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo and other locations.

2. Defendant officials are unlawfully preventing lawyers and clients from effectively communicating with each other. Although the first Amendment protects the right of lawyers to communicate, associate and confer with their clients, defendants have barred the Cuban Refugee Service Organizations, which consist of United States citizens and residents, from counseling and representing the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, held within United States jurisdiction at Guantanamo and other locations in connection with those refugees' claimed right to resist wrongful repatriation and to receive refugee processing. The Cuban Refugee Service Organizations are being denied access to the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs based upon the viewpoint of the message they would communicate. Defendants have barred the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from effectively communicating with their retained counsel with respect to those and other claims, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

3. Since the presidential announcement on ,August 19, 1994, lower executive officials have acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in violation of unambiguous constitutional, statutory, international, and administrative mandates to coerce and detain the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, to deny their rights to seek refugee status, and to diminish their right to resist repatriation to a country controlled by the dictatorial and repressive Castro regime, which the United States government has condemned for approximately 35 years. In so doing, defendants have ignored and sought to avoid binding United States statutory and constitutional laws and international obligations executed as United States law, which deny defendants discretion to leave refugees in an offshore limbo or to coerce them to return to a country where the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have a well-founded fear of political persecution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), ll57(c), ll58, 1182. 1225, 1226. 1253(h), 1362, the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, 8 U.S.C. 1255, the Refugee Act of 1980, 8 U.S.C. l521, regulations promulgated thereunder, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq., the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and principles of international law, including the l951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951,19 U.S.T. 6259, T.I.A.S. No. 6577 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) 999 U.N.T.S. 171 entered into Mar. 23, 1976.

5. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1331, as this is a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States; 8 U.S.C. 1329, as this is also a civil action arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; 5 U.S.C. 702, as a civil action arising under the Administrative Procedure Act; and 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202, as a civil action seeking, in addition to other remedies, a declaratory judgment.

6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(3) because the defendants include officers, agents and employees of the United States and agencies thereof acting in their official capacity. Furthermore, Plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations are not-for-profit corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida with their principal place of business in Miami, Florida, and Refugee Family Plaintiffs reside in Miami, Florida.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

7. Plaintiff CABA is a Dot-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. It has provided free legal services to indigents, including political refugees, such as the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, seeking asylum singe 1978. CABA's longstanding tradition of pro bono representation has compelled it to assist the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs in their efforts to gain political asylum and freedom for themselves and for their family members. Defendants have unlawfully denied CABA access to its clients at Guantanamo, Panama and other locations, thereby hindering CABA' ability to provide effective legal representation to its clients.

8. Plaintiff CLA is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. CLA has served as a forum for advocacy, information and the promotion of the social and economic development of the Cuban community. CLA has joined in the efforts to provide pro bono legal representation for the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs in their efforts to gain political asylum and freedom for themselves and/or their family members. Defendants have denied CLA access to its clients at Guantanamo and other locations, thereby hindering CLA's ability to provide effective legal representation to its clients.

9. Plaintiff DPI is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. DPI has provided free legal services to Cuban detainees throughout the United States. DPI has also joined the efforts of providing pro bono legal representation for the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs in their efforts to gain political asylum and freedom for themselves and/or their family members. Defendants have denied DPI access to its clients at Guantanamo and other locations, thereby hindering DPI's ability to provide effective legal representation, to its clients.

10. The individual named Minor Plaintiffs LIZBET MARTINEZ, ARIANNA GONZALEZ NOBAEZ, and ARNIEL DEL CAMPO GONZALEZ are Cuban citizens and minors who fled Cuba accompanied by their parents along with other Cuban refugees fearing political persecution. They were interdicted by the United States Coast Guard and transported to Guantanamo, where they are being detained indefinitely in illegal conditions and without any rights. LIZBET MARTINEZ is a 12 year old female. ARIANNA GONZALEZ NOBAEZ is a 10 year old female. ARNIEL DEL CAMPO GONZALEZ is a 6 year old male. These named Plaintiffs also represent other similarly situated minor persons (under the age of eighteen) detained within U.S. jurisdiction at Guantanamo and other locations. On information and belief, this group numbers approximately 3,000.

11. The individual named Refugee Plaintiffs NELSON TORRES PULIDO, MARITZA EXPOSITO, DAVID BUZZI, ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, NESTOR RODRIGUEZ LABORI and JOVANI MIGUEL FIFFE PINO are Cuban citizens who fled Cuba fearing political persecution. They were interdicted by the United States Coast Guard and transported to Guantanamo and Panama, where they are being detained indefinitely in illegal conditions and without any rights.

12. The individual named Refugee Plaintiffs NELSON TORRES PULIDO, MARITZA EXPOSITO and DAVID BUZZI are human rights activists who were affiliated in Cuba with dissident political organizations. The individual named Refugee Plaintiffs ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, NESTOR RODRIGUEZ LABORI and JOVANI MIGUEL FIFFE PINO are former political prisoners in Cuba. The individual named Refugee Plaintiff NESTOR RODRIGUEZ LABORI is one of the survivors of the tugboat 13 de Marzo, which was sunk by Cuban patrol boats on July 13, 1994. During the incident, 41 people died, and the survivors were subjected to political persecution and detention. NESTOR RODRIGUEZ LABORI lost 11 family members who were trapped inside the ship's hull when Cuban government agents deluged the tugboat with powerful hoses and caused it to sink. He was imprisoned on his forced return to Cuba, and then fled on a raft after his release.

13. The individual named Pregnant Refugee Plaintiff, LEYDIS MILAGROS RUIZ MENDEZ, is a twenty-three year old female. She is nine months pregnant. On information and belief, there are approximately 250 Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs.

14. On information and belief, the United States has declared that the above-mentioned Detained Refugee Plaintiffs will only be allowed to leave detention if they return to Cuba, where they face political persecution, imprisonment and/or death. While held at Guantanamo, and other locations, including, Panama, the above named individual plaintiffs through family members and pursuant to immigration custom and practice retained the Cuban Refugee Service Organizations to provide them with representation and advocacy. These named Plaintiffs also represent other similarly situated persons who are being involuntarily and indefinitely detained under the same conditions. On information and belief, this entire group, including Refugee Plaintiffs, Minor Plaintiffs and Pregnant Refugee Plaintiff, currently numbers approximately 32,000.

15. The individual named Refugee Family Plaintiffs, ELENA PINO and VIRGINIA PEREZ, are, respectively, mother and aunt of Cuban refugees presently being detained by the United States government in Panama. ELENA PINO and VIRGINIA PEREZ are permanent residents of the United States both residing in Miami. They sue on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Cuban refugee families lawfully residing in the United States who have relatives detained on Guantanamo, Panama and other locations. The Refugee Family Plaintiffs and the class they represent are being denied their constitutional right to associate and communicate with their detained relatives.

16. The above-named Refugee family Plaintiffs have retained the plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations to provide them with legal advice and representation in connection with their detained family members' claims of refugee processing, political asylum status and parole into the United States and the Refugee Family Plaintiffs desire to speak and associate with their detained relatives.

Defendants

17. Defendant, WARREN CHRISTOPHER, is the United States Secretary of State and in that capacity has the final decision-making authority within his department. Upon information and belief, the State Department has participated with other United States agencies in determining the status and detention of the Cuban refugees at Guantanamo and other locations, and since August 19, 1994, has participated in and otherwise supported the illegal indefinite detention of Cuban refugees under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States government in Guantanamo and Panama. Defendant Christopher is being sued in his official capacity.

18. Defendant, WILLIAM J. PERRY, is the United States Secretary of Defense. Upon information and belief, he is in charge of implementing the practices and procedures under which the Cuban refugees are being detained. All officers and employees of the United States Armed Forces, including the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, are acting under his direction ans supervision. Defendant Perry is being sued in his official capacity.

19. Defendant, DORIS MEISSNER, is the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("lNS"). She is in charge of implementing the practices and procedures under which Plaintiffs are being denied their statutory and constitutional rights to seek refugee processing and resist coerced repatriation. Any and all INS officers involved in determining the Cuban refugees' situation and status are acting under her direction and supervision. Defendant Meissner is being sued in her official capacity.

20. Defendant, JANET RENO, is the United States Attorney General and in that capacity has ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. Defendant Reno is being sued in her official capacity.

21. Defendant, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ("INS"), is the agency charged with direct responsibility for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States.

22. Defendant, BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL WILLIAMS, is the Commander of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, in whose custody the individual Plaintiffs are being held. Defendant Williams is being sued in his official capacity.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

23. Fidel Castro seized control of the Cuban government in 1959 and since then has maintained a dictatorial regime of oppression and terror on the island nation.

24. As evidenced by United States statutory provisions, congressional intent and the policies and administrative practices of the last seven United States presidential administrations, the United States, for almost 35 years, has condemned Castro's Communist regime. The brutality and oppression of Castro's regime has been well documented. The United States has repeatedly sought condemnation of Castro's human rights abuses in the United Nations and other forums. Beginning in approximately 1960, when the Cuban Refugee Assistance Program was created, until President Clinton's announcement on August 19, 1994, the United States government continually encouraged and permitted Cuban refugees fleeing that regime to enter the United States freely and to seek permanent resident status.

25. In January 1961, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Cuba and declared an embargo against that country, which it has maintained to this day. Also, in 1961, the United States organized and implemented the military invasion of Cuba, commonly known as the "Bay of Pigs" invasion, which was led, in part, by Cuban exiles residing in the United States. The failure of the "Bay of Pigs" invasion helped secure Castro's control of the country and the government. One year later, the United States suspended commercial transportation from Cuba.

26. In the early 1960's, large numbers of refugees escaped from Cuba by boat and through other means and were welcomed into the United States. For example, in 1965, the Cuban government allowed tens of thousands of Cubans disaffected with the Communist revolution to leave the island through the port of Camarioca. Relatives used boats to rescue the refugees at that port and to transport them to the United States, which once again openly accepted them.

27. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson "declare[d] [in a speech] to the people of Cuba that those who seek refuge here in America will find it .... [W]e Americans will welcome these Cuban people." This announcement and the United States government's willingness to accept the Cuban refugees resulted in the institution of an airlift procedure known as the "Freedom Flights" on December 1, 1965, and facilitated the arrival of Cuban refugees seeking asylum in the United States.

28. In 1966, Congress passed the Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub. 1-89-732, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1161, codified in part at 8 U.S.C. 1255 (1966) (the "CAA"), in an effort to provide a permanent legal status to the Cuban refugees, to enhance the resettlement of the Cuban refugees, and to promote opportunity for education, employment and advancement in the United States. Pursuant to that law, the Cuban refugees fleeing Castro's brutal regime could obtain permanent residence status in the United States almost immediately, and eventually, citizenship. Under the Act, Cuban refugees needed only to be inspected, paroled and physically present within the United States for a minimum of two years in order to obtain permanent residence status. Detention of these refugees, if any, was minimal.

29. The Report of the House of Representatives accompanying the Cuban Adjustment Act confirms Congress' belief that the Act would "ameliorate the plight of thousands of Cuban nationals who fled to the United States from the Communist Government of Cuba." [H.R. Rep. No. 1978, 89th Cong.,2d Sess. (1966).]

30. The Refugee act of 1980, 8 U.S.C. 1521, amended the Cuban Adjustment Act by reducing from two years to one year the amount of time during which a Cuban refugee had to be present in the United States before he or she could apply for an adjustment of status, further evidencing Congressional intent to aid Cubans fleeing Castro's oppressive regime and to recognize them as political refugees seeking asylum. That same year, the exodus known as the "Mariel boat lift" produced thousands of refugees who traveled by boat to freedom in the United States. As in the past, the United States government granted those Cubans refuge. In 1984, United States Justice Department confirmed that over 100,000 of the "Mariel boat lift" refugees were eligible for legal status and citizenship under United States law.

31. During the Mariel boat lift, the United States continued to condemn the Castro regime and encouraged Cuban refugees to flee that regime and to seek refuge in the United States.

32. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan declared that there were as many as 10,000 political prisoners in Cuban jails.

33. On information and belief, from 1960 through the present, the United States government has directed and supported political operations aimed at Cuba designed to create political dissent in Cuba, to denigrate the communist Castro regime as an appropriate government model for a Western Hemisphere nation and to promote in Cuba the democratic and economic model of the United States. In 1985, for example, Radio Marti, the United States sponsored news service designed to counter anti-American broadcasts within Cuba, began broadcasting to Cuba. A few years thereafter, TV Marti also began broadcasting to Cuba. These broadcasts have conveyed the United States government's encouragement of flight and willingness to welcome political refugees.

34. On July 4, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12854, 58/F.R.36587, implementing the Cuban Democracy Act ("CDA"), 22 U.S.C. 6001, and thereby ratified, approved and affirmed the Congressional intent and express findings of Congress with respect to the CDA. The CDA continues to be law of the land.

35. In connection with the CDA, Congress found, and President Clinton confirmed, that "[T]he government of Fidel Castro has demonstrated consistent disregard for internationally accepted standards of human rights and for democratic values. It restricts the Cuban people's exercise of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and other rights recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948." It is precisely this demonstrated consistent disregard of human rights and democratic values, and restrictions on the exercise of freedom of speech, press and assembly that compelled the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to risk their lives and undertake their piracy for freedom to the United States.

36. In connection with the CDA, Congress found, and President Clinton confirmed, that [T]he Cuban people have demonstrated their yearning for freedom and their increasing opposition to the Castro government by risking their lives in organizing independent, democratic activities on the island and by undertaking hazardous flights for freedom to the United States and other countries.. It is this yearning for freedom and increasing opposition to Castro's oppressive regime that compelled the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to undertake their hazardous journey on rafts to what they reasonably expected would be freedom in the United States.

37. Moreover, as is set forth by the express findings of Congress in the CDA, and ratified by President Clinton. "[E]fforts to suppress dissent [in Cuba] through intimidation, imprisonment, and exile have accelerated since the political changes that have occurred in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.. It is precisely these efforts by the dictatorial Castro regime to suppress dissent through intimidation, imprisonment, and exile, even after changes towards democracy in other parts of the world, that compelled the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to undertake hazardous journeys towards the United States in their reasonable expectation that, like the thousands of Cuban refugees that preceded them, they would receive refuge and adjusted status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.

38. Since 1960 and continuing through the passage and aftermath of the Cuban Democracy Act, Cuban refugees have continued to nee Castro's oppressive regime and seek permanent resident status in the United States, which embraced them until August 19, 1994. On that day, the United States government began instead arbitrarily to intercept fleeing Cubans on the high seas and to detain them in barbed-wire enclosed, military detention camps at Guantanamo and other locations. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs and all the others similarly situated, escaped from Cuba on rafts and other floating devices, in reliance upon prior United States policy, law and practice permitting and encouraging them to travel to the United States to gain refuge from Castro's regime.

IMMEDIATE EVENTS GIVING

RISE TO THIS LAWSUIT

39. The political conditions in Cuba have not changed since the Cuban Adjustment Act, the 1980 Refugee Act, or the Cuban Democracy Act were enacted. To the contrary, the Castro regime continues its reign of oppression and terror. Cuban refugees continue to seek refuge in the United States. Since the 1960's, masses of Cuban refugees have risked death in unseaworthy flotation devices and watercraft, risking shark-infested, rough seas in hopes of reaching the United States.

40. On July 13, 1994, approximately 70 Cuban refugees, including many women and children, boarded the tugboat 13 de Marzo in Cuba in an attempt to escape Castro's brutal regime. Their attempt ended when Cuban patrol boats repeatedly rammed the boat and blasted the tugboat with high-pressure hoses until the boat capsized and sank. Approximately 41 people were killed, including many children. The Cuban government subjected the survivors to political persecution and imprisonment.

41. On August 5, 1994, Cuban police officers sought to prevent a group of Cubans from leaving Havana by raft. In protest, thousands of Cubans openly defied the Castro government and participated in the publicized "Malecon demonstrations" of August 5, 1994. Hundreds were arrested for demonstrating and remain incarcerated today. One of those arrested and incarcerated was named plaintiff Alberto Rodriguez Garcia, a member of the Cuban National Council for Civil Rights. In response, Castro declared that he would permit those persons seeking exodus from Cuba to leave the island nation. "If the United States fails to adopt immediate end efficient measures to stop the encouragement of illegal departures from our country,. Castro said " we will be duty bound to instruct our Coastguards not to intercept any boat leaving Cuba.. FBIS-LAT-94-52 8 Aug. 1994 (emphasis added). The Cuban Coast Guard was instructed "not to hinder any boats to travel to the United States, [and] in addition, not to impede any boats coming from the United States that . . .[would travel] to Cuba to pick up relatives and citizens.. Cuban refugee rafters, including many political activists and dissidents, began setting sail to Florida. By August 18, 1994, 8,237 Cuban refugees had been rescued at sea by the United States Coast Guard. Like their predecessors, these refugees were permitted to enter the United States freely, allowed to seek asylum, and to invoke the protections of the Cuban Adjustment Act.

Action by United States Administration

42. On August 19, 1994, however, President Clinton, without congressional approval and in contravention of United States constitutional and statutory law, United States congressional intent, international law and the policies of the prior seven presidential administrations dating back to 1960, including his own, announced a dramatic turnabout in United States policy toward Cuban refugees. President Clinton confirmed that "[i]n recent weeks the Castro regime has encouraged Cubans to take to the sea in unsafe vessels to escape 'their nation's internal problems [and] [i]n so doing, has risked the lives of thousands of Cubans.. He "ordered that illegal refugees from Cuba will not be allowed to enter the United States. {The Cuban] [r]efugees rescued at sea will be taken to [the United States] naval base at Guantanamo." Although he acknowledged that [t]he Cuban Adjustment Act will continue to be the law of the land, "President Clinton declared that Cuban refugees would "not be permitted to come to the United States."

43. Following the August 19th announcement, United States Coast Guard cutters on patrol in international waters began transporting all Cuban rafters intercepted at sea to Guantanamo. Since then the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have been detained in Cuba, Panama and other locations in makeshift, unsanitary, barbed-wire enclosed camps. In disregard of binding domestic and international law and longstanding United States policy, the defendants forcibly have detained approximately 32,000 Cubans, including thousands of children.

44. The Guantanamo base where the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs were originally, and/or currently are detained, is wholly within the jurisdiction and control of the United States, subject to a lease agreement between the United States and Cuba that grants the United States "complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas." Agreement for the Lease to the United States of Lands in Cuba for Coaling and Naval Stations, February 26, 1903, Art III, T.S. No. 418. The Panamanian and other locations where the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are detained are also wholly within the jurisdiction and control of the United States.

45. Defendants provided no sufficient public notice, in the Federal Register or otherwise, to the Cuban Refugee Service Organizations, to the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs or to anyone else in the United States or elsewhere of these changes in policy and procedure which directly affect the lives and well-being of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs and the Refugee Family Plaintiffs.

46. Despite repeated requests by the Cuban Refugee Service Organizations and other legal and advocacy groups, defendants have barred the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from access to effective legal counsel. Defendants also have prevented the Refugee Family Plaintiffs and legal counsel from associating and effectively communicating with the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo and the other locations. At the same time, however, defendants have granted access to numerous other individuals, including clergy, press groups, famous athletes and celebrities. Upon information and belief, several of these nonlawyer have also communicated with, and counseled, the Cuban refugees as to the import and effect of current U.S. Laws and upon their legal rights.

47. Before August 19, 1994, Cuba citizens who escaped to Guantanamo had been expeditiously brought to the United States by the United States Government and granted the status provided the Cuban Adjustment Act.

48. Despite its prior established practice and procedure of affording all Cuban refugees who reach the United States, including Guantanamo, the right to processing, the United States has refused to interview or process the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs for their asylum claims. Instead, defendants have fostered unacceptable living conditions in detention camps in an effort to coerce the refugees into returning to Cuba where they face political persecution, imprisonment and death. Defendants have repeatedly announced that the only alternative these Cuban refugees have is to return to Cuba and seek visas through the United States Interests Section in Havana.

49. On September 9, 1994, the United States, in furtherance of the practices enunciated above, entered into an unprecedented agreement with Cuba, which intentionally denied relief to the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs and the other Cuban refugees detained in Guantanamo and other purported "safe havens", the right to refugee processing, except in Cuba. Despite President Clinton's condemnation weeks earlier of the Castro regime's life-risking "cold-blooded attempt" to encourage "Cubans to take to the sea in unsafe vessels,." and contrary to prior policy, practice and law of the United States, the United States joined in a "Joint Communique on Migration" with Cuba which:

(a) provides that "[t]he United States and the Republic of Cuba recognize their common interest in preventing unsafe departures from Cuba which risk loss of human life;"

(b) confirms United States policy that Cuban refugees "rescued at sea attempting to enter the United States will not be permitted to enter the United States, but instead will be taken to safe haven facilities outside the United States [and that] the United States has discontinued its practice of granting parole to all Cuban migrants who reach U.S. territory in irregular ways;" (c) declares that the "Republic of Cuba will take effective measures in every way it possibly can to prevent unsafe departures using mainly persuasive methods;" and

(c) further concludes that "the voluntary return of Cuban nationals who arrived in the United States or in safe havens outside the United States on or after August 19, 1994 will continue to be arranged."

50. Pursuant to the Presidential announcement of August l9, 1994, and the joint Communique on Migration with Cuba, defendants reversed the United States government's prior policy toward Cuban refugees. Defendants discontinued their "practice of granting parole to all Cuban migrants who reach U.S. territory." Although defendants declared their intent to increase the number of Cubans granted visas to enter the United States, they confirmed that the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, currently detained on Guantanamo must henceforth return to Cuba to have their parole and persecution claims processed.

51. Recently, Ralph B. Thomas, Acting Director - Congressional Relations for the INS confirmed the United States policy "that those [Cubans] encountered at sea will not be allowed to enter the United States. They will be provided safe haven at the [Guantanamo] Naval Base, or other arranged third country location, or arrangements for their return to Cuba under the terms of our recently signed accord will be made."

52. Subsequently, defendants have repeatedly and consistently declared their intention to detain indefinitely the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Defendants have intentionally denied the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs any opportunity to present their persecution claims and seek refuge in the United States as all of the hundreds of thousands of earlier Cuban refugees have done.

53. On October 11, 1994, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote defendants in their official capacity. The October 11 letter requested access on behalf of the plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations to their clients, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs held as Guantanamo and other United States locations, for the purpose of communicating with them to provide them legal advice and representation. Plaintiffs' counsel requested such access, on such terms and conditions as might be reasonable, prior to 9 a.m. on October 19, 1994. Plaintiffs' counsel further requested that the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs be immediately paroled into the United States to seek asylum. As of the filing of this Complaint, defendants have declined to grant Plaintiffs' counsels' request for such access. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs' request, defendants have not permitted the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs access to counsel to discuss their persecution claims or concerns about coerced repatriation.

54. Since the August 19, 1994 announcement, defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of intimidating and coercing the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, of denying their rights to have their persecution claims processed, and of wilfully relying upon false information to effect coerced repatriations, and of wrongfully refusing to grant the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs parole from detention. These practices include, but are not limited to:

(a) Barring the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from presenting, and being represented by counsel regarding, their asylum claims.

(b) On information and belief, defendant officials have prepared inaccurate and misleading reports regarding the situation in Cuba, the reliability of the Cuban government, and the credibility of persons fleeing Cuba.

55. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress acted to limit executive discretion in granting asylum or refugee status, based upon foreign policy considerations and to prohibit the discriminatory and arbitrary administration of asylum processing by executive agencies. Subsequent regulations reaffirmed the obligation of executive agencies to apply the asylum laws without discrimination based on race or national origin.

56. Nonetheless, defendants have excluded the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from safe access, the congressionally-mandated asylum or refugee processing procedures without due process, and based solely on the basis of their national origin. Defendants have forced the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs into an intolerable choice between dangerous return to their place of persecution or indefinite detention behind barbed wire in unsanitary and coercive conditions.

Defendants' Coercion of Detained Refugee Plaintiffs

to Return Home

57. On information and belief, defendants have sought to discourage Plaintiffs from pursuing their persecution claims by (I) advising and encouraging Plaintiffs to return to Cuba to initiate and process their refugee claims; (ii) stating and implying that conditions in Cuba are now safe for their return: (iii) suggesting that Plaintiffs have no right to obtain entry into the United States as refugees and will remain confined at Guantanamo indefinitely unless they agree to return to Cuba; and (iv) otherwise circulating false and misleading information.

58. On information and belief, Christine Shelley, Acting Spokesperson for the United States Department of State, in announcing the measures taken by the United States so implement the migration agreement wish Cuba, confirmed that "the programs will be available so Cubans in Cuba proper. All Cubans in safe havens will be fully informed about the programs; [but] in order to participate in them, they must return home."

59. On information and belief, Ralph B. Thomas, Acting Director- Congressional Relations for the defendants, confirmed the United States government's intent and effort to encourage those persons currently in safe havens to consider voluntary return to Cuba . . . [because] [t]he Cuban government has promised no punitive actions against persons who return from safe havens."

60. Contrary to the United States government's assurance that the Castro regime will not take "punitive actions against persons who return from safe havens," Amnesty International has recently reported that "a substantial number of the approximately 32,000 Cuban [refugees] . . . at Guantanamo . . . could be at risk of human rights violations if required to return home.. In the past thirty years, the Castro regime has arrested thousands of Cubans for a crime known as "illegal exit from the country. and imposed sanctions ranging from three to fifteen years. Human rights groups believe that "illegal exit prisoners" constitute the largest category of political prisoners in Cuba today.

61. On a recent two-day visit to the camps, Amnesty International representatives "obtained lists of some 250 people from five camps alone who were said to have suffered for political reasons in Cube. They included people who had served prison sentences for offenses such as spreading 'enemy propaganda,' [and] showing disrespect . . .toward state authorities ..."

62. Cuban refugees at Guantanamo and other locations, for the most part vehemently oppose repatriation to Communist Cuba, voluntarily or otherwise.

63. Consistent with the United States government's prior repeated condemnation of Castro's regime, the Office of the Press Secretary for the White House declared on October 14, 1994, that the Clinton administration "share[d] the deep concern of the Cuban-American community for the well-being of all the Cubans in safe havens. The root cause of these problems is in Cuba." Nevertheless, the defendants are coercing the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to return to Cuba.

Defendants' Coerced Repatriation

64. On information and belief, on October 7, 1994, seventeen (17) Cubans were repatriated to Havana. On information and belief, on October 17, 1994, an additional 25 Cuban refugees gave up their hopes of fleeing persecution and repatriated to Havana. On October 20, 1994, the Miami Herald reported that "[t]here are 969 Cuban rafters who have told base officials they're fed up with living in detention camps at the U.S. naval base and want to go home."

65. Cuban refugees in Guantanamo and other locations lack the information necessary to repatriate on a truly voluntary basis. Informed consent is a precondition for voluntary repatriation.

(a) On information and belief, United States officials have not provided meaningful information to the Cuban refugees about the likelihood that they will face political persecution upon returning to Cuba Nor has any information been provided regarding the grave danger Cubans may face upon applying for refugee status and visas at the United States Interests Section in Cuba, as defendant officials are encouraging them to do.

(b) On information and belief, United States officials have not given Cuban refugees meaningful information as to their chances of receiving visas or refugee status, should they return to Cuba. Nor has any information been provided about the likelihood that Cubans who are not otherwise eligible will obtain a visa through the visa lottery, announced by the State Department on October 12, 1994. For each individual Cuban, the chances of winning a visa in the lottery are almost non-existent, less than .01%.

66. On information and belief, the distribution of information to Cuban refugees in the camps is seriously inadequate. Reports indicate that Cuban refugees do not have access to newspapers on a daily basis, town meetings, television, twenty-four hour radio programming, or adequate translation. Nor do Cuban refugees have access to effectively communicate with lawyers. The complexity of the new rules, regarding Cuban immigration to the United States, including the visa lottery announced on October 12, 1994 compound the need for the Cuban refugees to have adequate legal representation.

67. Cuban refugees in Guantanamo and other locations are subject to other forms of direct and indirect coercion to repatriate, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) On information and belief, squalid living conditions in Guantanamo, Panama and other locations, which constitute a form of pressure on Cubans to repatriate. On information and belief, running water is available at only 75 percent of Cuban camps; tents lack wooden floors, creating a constant dust problem; one latrine serves every thirty Cubans and is cleaned only every two days; prenatal and postnatal facilities are extremely inadequate; and phone service to the United States and Cuba is almost nonexistent (95 phone lines serve the entire population of 36,000 Cubans and Haitians detained on Guantanamo).

(b) The result of other United States policies, such as the lottery, also has been to pressure Cuban refugees to repatriate. The lottery plays on Cubans' hopes of entering the United States without offering a realistic possibility for them to obtain visas. Faced with the prospect of indefinite detention in deplorable living conditions, Cuban refugees are likely to seize upon the lottery without understanding that their odds of winning in the lottery are meager.

Conditions of Detention

68. Approximately 32,000 Cuban refugees currently are detained indefinitely in camps at Guantanamo and Panama The living conditions at Guantanamo are illegal and unacceptable. The camps are filthy and unsanitary. The refugees are segregated and crammed into tents surrounded by razor barbed wire. They live in overcrowded tents without any privacy and lack the basic necessities of life. Guantanamo already is also overburdened with a large number of Haitian refugees, who are housed separately from the Cubans.

69. Defendants have prevented and continue to prevent the Cuban refugees from moving freely within these camps. Defendants have segregated the Cuban refugees into four major population groups: families, single females, unaccompanied minors, and single males. At present, these groups are housed in tents separated by barbed wire. Defendants have erected a separate camp known as " administrative segregation" where Cuban refugees exhibiting behavior problems are being identified and segregated from the general population by the United States military. Those who disturb the peace and safety of the camps also are placed in administrative segregation. On information and belied, there are now approximately 300 individuals in administrative segregation. Due process rights have not been afforded to any of these individuals.

70. Defendants have implemented an identification system, pursuant to which U.S. troops pop-rivet a plastic bracelet embedded with a silicon chip around each refugee's wrist. The chip provides identification and other data via computer scanning.

71. Various attorneys from South Florida recently traveled to Guantanamo, but were prevented from speaking directly with the refugees. They were limited to speaking with various camp leaders and viewing the camps only on quick drives throughout the area.

72. In May 1992, during prior litigation, involving Haitian refugees, the defendants presented a sworn affidavit to the United States Supreme Court by Rear Admiral Lloyt E. Allen, Jr. which stated "Guantanamo lacks the infrastructure necessary to support additional migrants beyond the 12,500 [currently there]. Beyond the lack of shelter, the base is unable to dispose of the waste associated with a population in excess of the [12,500] limit established by the Joint Task Force Commander and USCINCLANT."

73. Living conditions at the camps have become so intolerable that as of September 25, 1994, "more than a dozen [refugees] ha[d] crossed the mine fields that ring the camp and returned to Cuban territory on their own. The Cuban Interior Ministry [has reported that] 59 [refugees] have returned to Cuba, some by swimming. Fifteen or 20 others have tried unsuccessfully to go over the fence.. Recently, the Cuban government reported that approximately 122 Guantanamo detainees have crossed dangerous mine fields in an effort to return to Cuban territory. Defendants are forcing those who risked their lives at sea once again to endanger their lives in an effort to escape the Guantanamo barbed-wire camps in a manner that will minimize contact with Cuban officials, whom the Cubans fear will exact retribution and punishment upon them.

Health & Safety

74. Medical treatment at Guantanamo is unreasonably deficient and unnecessarily threatening lives. On information and belief, U.S. military personnel, rather than doctors, interview those seeking treatment and make medical decisions regarding the refugees health care concerns. There are long lines at the medical clinics, which are severely understaffed.

75. At least one camp at Guantanamo lacks running water, and the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are prohibited from boiling water. Dust covers the tents, and there is no drainage. Conditions worsen severely with rain.

76. The portable toilet facilities installed at Guantanamo are filthy, filled with human excrement and worms. Rats run rampant around the camp. The stench emanating from some of the portable toilets is unbearable. Some mothers refuse to allow their children to utilize the portable toilets for fear of disease and infection. The Detained - Refugee Plaintiffs live in fear that normally preventable diseases will spread rapidly.

77. The portable shower facilities also serve as the refugees' water facilities. Since there is no running water, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are forced to collect water in buckets and to utilize the filthy portable toilets to bathe and clean themselves.

Children

78. Thousands of refugee children are indefinitely detained at Guantanamo. As reported in the Miami Herald on October 2, 1994, there are 3,086 children under the age of 18 at Guantanamo. The children range from newborn babies, such as a three day old baby sleeping in an ammunition box converted into a cradle, to teenagers. There are approximately 295 children under the age of two. Many children are unaccompanied by a parent or relative. On October 14, 1994, the White House announced the Attorney General's intention to parole into the United States unaccompanied young children along with "migrants" over 70 years of age. On information and belief, unaccompanied children and people over 70 years of age constitute a de minimis percentage of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs currently held in detention at Guantanamo, Panama and other locations.

79. Refugee physicians and psychologists have reported that the detained refugee children are frightened, racked by the uncertainty over their fate, and are suffering what may prove an enduring trauma.

80. Visitors to the camps at Guantanamo have reported "that a majority of the children weep at night . . . A number of them suffer acute weight loss brought on by anxieties, fear and sadness [and] [c]onditions at Guantanamo have worsened the conditions of many asthmatic children. Others suffer from skin rashes and intestinal disorders." Fever and diarrhea, which severely threatens the children, are rampant.

81. Defendants have not provided enough milk for older children, and newborn babies are fed inadequately, going long hours without milk.

82. Although defendants concede that children at Guantanamo are being detained indefinitely, they have not provided them with adequate education. Some camps have refugees serving as teachers on a limited basis. Parents have expressed the desire that their children learn English.

83. Refugee camp leaders stress that the children should be paroled. One of the Cuban camp leaders stated that "the children should not be victims and made to suffer."

Communication

84. No comprehensive system of inter-camp communication has been implemented, and that which exists has been limited and sporadic.

85. There is no postal system. Visitors to Guantanamo have been informed that because of logistical and legal problems, mail will be returned to the United States. Mail that was carried to the naval base by visitors has not been distributed to the recipients.

86. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have expressed extreme frustration with the limited and often contradictory news they receive. As many of the camp leaders have stated, rumors abound because of limited communications. This has resulted in increased tensions, anxiety, and confusion. One leader stated that this situation causes hopelessness.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

87. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) ant (b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated:

88. A class action may be brought under Rule 23(a) if the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to all, the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

89. In addition to the above prerequisites, an action such as this may be maintained as a class action based on the premise that defendants, as is set forth with specificity above, have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

90. The named Detained Refugee Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the following presently ascertainable classes and/or sub-classes:

(a) All Cuban citizens who have been or will be detained at Guantanamo or any other territory subject to United States jurisdiction or Coast Guard cutters as a result of the August 19, 1994, Presidential announcement. On information and belief, this group currently numbers approximately 32,000.

(b) All minor Cuban citizens who have been or will be detained at Guantanamo or any other territory subject to United States jurisdiction or Coast Guard cutters as a result of the August 19, 1994 Presidential announcement. On information and belief, this group currently numbers approximately 3,000. (c) All pregnant Cuban citizens who have been or will be detained at Guantanamo or any other territory subject to United States jurisdiction or Coast Guard cutters as a result of the August 19, 1994 presidential announcement. On information and belief, this group currently numbers approximately 250.

(d) All parents, children, spouses, siblings, and other close relatives or members of those detained in subparagraphs (a) through (c) above, who have been legally admired to the United States or who are United States citizens, who have been deprived of their rights to associate with their relatives because of defendants' actions as set forth herein. On information and belief, this group currently numbers over 1,000.

91. In accordance with the well pled allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs this action warrants class action treatment because (I) Plaintiffs are sufficiently numerous; (ii) defendants have acted or threatened to act on grounds generally applicable to each member of each class, thus making final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to each class as a whole appropriate; (iii) the named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of their sub-classes: and (iv) the claims of the named Plaintiffs are both common to and typical of the claims of members of each class.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Viewpoints-Based Denial of First Amendment Rights)

92. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 above as though fully set forth herein.

93. Plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations are legal and political advocacy groups formed for the organizational purpose, among other things, of providing or securing counseling, advocacy, and legal representation, without remuneration, to Cuba detainees, including the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs.

94. In furtherance of their organizational purposes, plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations seek to communicate with the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, including the individual named Plaintiffs who are held at Guantanamo and Panama, for the purpose of providing them legal counsel, advocacy, and representation. Upon information and belief, the Cubans detained at Guantanamo are being held on non-military portions of the base.

95. Plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations have been retained by the Retained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo and Panama, in connection with the detainees' attempts to resist involuntary repatriation to Cuba and to advise them with respect to their claims for political asylum. Other members of the plaintiff class have sought representation by the plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations, and regard themselves as clients of the plaintiff organizations.

96. Without compelling justification, defendants have denied and continue to deny the plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations reasonable access to their clients and class members on Guantanamo and Panama for purposes of representation, advocacy and association, thus injuring the plaintiff organizations' speech and associational rights under the First Amendment.

97. While preventing the plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations from associating with their clients and members, defendants have provided the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs with access to information from a variety of sources regarding the options available to them, including information about their legal rights which the plaintiff organizations believe to be wrong, incomplete and/or misleading. Plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations wish to answer or counter this misinformation by associating and communicating with their clients. By providing misinformation, defendants have wrongfully interfered with the attorney-client relationship between the plaintiff organizations and the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs.

98. Defendants have permitted a variety of others to have access to the Cuban camps at Guantanamo and Panama, but have discriminated against the plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations by denying them access because of the viewpoint they wish to express.

99. Defendants have taken advantage of the exclusion of plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations from the refugee camp at Guantanamo and Panama to propagate their own unopposed views, both in and outside the refugee camp, as to the legal status of the refugees confined there and the propriety of their confinement.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Denial of Constitutional Rights to Obtain and

Communicate with Counsel)

100. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 as though fully set forth herein.

1Ol. Defendants have denied and continue to deny the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo and Panama reasonable access to class counsel and to plaintiff Cuban Refugee Service Organizations. Defendants also have denied end continue to deny the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs any meaningful opportunity to retain and receive assistance or information from other counsel or advocates of their choice.

102. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are detained in the custody of the United States government, on territory subject to exclusive United States control and jurisdiction. The laws of the United States and of no other country apply on Guantanamo. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are persons within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. They are at Guantanamo Naval Base solely because defendants chose to take them there. Defendants may not deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have been detained indefinitely by defendants in violation of the their liberty interests in avoiding wrongful return to persecution and in effectively pursuing their claims to refugee status.

103. Without access to counsel or other independent advocates, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have been, and at any time may be, subjected to abuses and arbitrary deprivations of rights and liberty. These abuses include, but are not limited to: indefinite incarceration in a separate camp facility designed to punish those refugees whom the United States military unilaterally decided, without any process whatsoever, were "guilty" of some unspecified infraction, and misinformation about the Cuban Refugee Plaintiffs' legal status and legal prospects.

104. Defendants' denial of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' rights, and the rights of the class whom they represent, to communicate with counsel in pursuing their claims for refugee status or in avoiding wrongful repatriation and in connection with camp disciplinary proceedings violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of these Plaintiffs to obtain counsel and to associate with retained counsel.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Right to Refugee Processing)

105. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 above as though fully set forth herein.

106. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, as refugees, have the right under United States statutory law, federal regulations, international law and treaties to which the United States is a signatory, to refugee processing and in accordance with said process to petition for asylum.

107. Under 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Refugee Act of 1980, the provisions of 8 C.F.R., Article 33 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the "1951 Convention."), which is binding on the United States through its accession to United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article XXVII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and Article 22(7) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to seek refugee processing while being held on Guantanamo and other locations under United States jurisdiction and control. Because those locations are under the complete, exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, the laws of the United States apply and are binding at those locations.

108. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are refugees unable and unwilling to return to Cuba because they fear persecution due to their membership in a particular social group or political opinion. As refugees, they cannot safely return to Cuba to seek refugee processing there. Thus, under the applicable law, they are entitled to refugee processing at Guantanamo and other locations under United States jurisdiction and control without having first to repatriate to Cuba.

109. The policies, practices and procedures implemented by the defendants, including but not limited to the September 9, 1994, Joint Communique with Cuba on Migration, violate the above specified laws. Under the Joint Communique, the United States government has purportedly and improperly concluded, without following the provisions of applicable law, that the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are "migrants" rather than refugees, will not be allowed to be processed as refugees unless they return to conditions of persecution in Cuba and in the interim will be indefinitely detained at purported "safe haven facilities. outside the United States under conditions that effectively coerce their repatriation. The defendants have wrongfully denied Cubans it Guantanamo, Panama and other locations under United States control their statutory and due process rights, to refugee processing.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Minor Refugee Due Process Claims)

110. The Minor Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 as through fully set forth herein.

111. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 3,000 refugees under the age of 18 in the custody of defendants at Guantanamo and Panama all in the custody and control of defendants.

112. Upon information and belief, all but approximately 10 of the Minor Plaintiffs at Guantanamo are accompanies by one or both parents.

113. Defendants have intercepted and illegally detained these minor children and their respective care-givers.

114. Minor Plaintiffs have constitutionally protected liberty interests to be free from institutional confinement and restraint.

ll5. Defendants' decisions resulting in the confinement and restraint of Minor Plaintiffs do not comport with substantive and procedural due process and are not rationally related to a governmental interest in preserving ant promoting the welfare of born and unborn children.

116. Defendants' illegal and indefinite detention of Minor Plaintiffs in deplorable, psychologically and physically harmful conditions serves no valid governmental interest.

117. The protected liberty interests of the Minor Plaintiffs override any governmental interest that may be alleged in support of their illegal and indefinite detention.

118. The Minor Plaintiffs are juveniles within the definition set forth in 8 C.F.R. 242.24(a) and, thus, their release would be strictly in the public interest. They do not present a security risk nor are they likely to abscond, and, thus, are eligible for parole pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 212.5(a)(ii).

119. The Minor Plaintiffs, together with their respective care-givers, have requested that defendants parole them out of detention.

120. Defendants have failed to respond to or grant the compelling parole requests of Minor Plaintiffs although they have granted the requests of unaccompanied minors.

121. Defendants' arbitrary and capricious failure to parole and process the Minor Plaintiffs, and defendants' requirement that Detained Refugee Plaintiffs return to Cuba before defendants will consider such requests, violates the Minor Plaintiffs' due process rights, and contradicts the policy and objectives of the Immigration Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

122. Minor Plaintiffs are afforded inadequate educational services and no recreational activates. Defendants' failure to provide adequate educational and recreational opportunities to the detained Minor Plaintiffs violates their due process rights.

123. The defendants' policy and practice of incarcerating minors with unrelated adults violates the Minor Plaintiffs' due process rights, as well as the Minor Plaintiffs' right to privacy as guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and 8 U.S.C. 1252(a) & (c), INS Operations Instructions 242.6(c).

124. Defendants' continuing pattern of illegal and discriminatory conduct in incarcerating persons under 18 years of age is causing, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury for which Minor Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Pregnant Refugee Due Process Claims)

125. The Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs who are medically certified as Pregnant repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 as though fully set forth herein.

126. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 250 pregnant refugees at Guantanamo and Panama and at other locations, all in the custody and control of the defendants.

127. The Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs have constitutionally protected liberty interests to be free from institutional confinement and restraint.

128. Defendants' decisions to confine and detain Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs do not comport with substantive and procedural due process and are not rationally related to a governmental interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs or their unborn children.

129. Defendants' illegal and indefinite detention of Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs in deplorable, psychologically and physically harmful conditions serves no valid governmental interests.

130. The protected liberty interests of Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs override any governmental interest that may be alleged in support of their illegal and indefinite detention.

131. The Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs pose no security risk nor risk of absconding. Therefore, they also are eligible for parole pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 212.S(a)(I).

132. The Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs have requested that defendants parole them out of detention.

133. Defendants have failed to respond to or grant the parole requests of Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs, although they have granted the similar request of elderly refugees over the age of 70.

134. Defendants' arbitrary and capricious failure to parole and process Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs, and defendants' requirement that the Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs return to Cuba before defendants will consider such requests, violates the Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs due process rights, and contradicts the policy and objectives of the Immigration Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

135. Defendants' continuing pattern of illegal and discriminatory conduct in incarcerating pregnant refugees is causing, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process-Medical Care)

136. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 above as though fully set forth herein.

137. The conditions of confinement of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are inhumane, punitive and contrary to the minimal standards of constitutional due process.

138. Constitutional due process mandates the provision of both safe conditions and adequate medical care to persons in official custody.

139. As persons in coercive and indefinite detention, Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo, Panama, and elsewhere are constitutionally entitled to medically adequate conditions of confinement, and adequate food, shelter, and clothing.

140. As persons in coercive and indefinite detention, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo, Panama, and elsewhere have a right to "reasonable medical care" that comports with constitutional due process.

141. The Defendants have failed to provide reasonable medical care to the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs by denying them access to medical care, interfering with treatment once prescribed, or failing to respond to their serious medical needs.

142. Defendants' lack of reasonable medical care is also exhibited by governmental officials' rejection of recommendations or requests for medical treatment by the United States government's own medical doctors, which has exposed, and continues to expose, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to undue suffering and/or serious medical risk.

143. The detention camps at which the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs currently are being detained, under the exclusive control of the United States, are a breeding ground for disease. Moreover, the medial care being provided at said detention camps is well below the minimal standard required by constitutional due process.

144. Many of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs who are suffering from injury and for illness find their condition unnecessarily lingering and progressively worsening because of the inadequacy of reasonable medical care. The inadequacy of reasonable medical care at the detention camps woefully fails to comport with the minimal standards mandated by constitutional due process.

145. Many Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are currently suffering from lice, skin disease, skin rashes and eye problems, which remain untreated and which have been compounded, and will continue to be compounded, by virtue of the indefinite detention and lack of adequate medical care.

146. The Pregnant Plaintiffs, who are in need of special medical care, are being denied adequate medical attention. They suffer, and will continue to suffer, for the duration of indefinite detention, from poor dietary and unsanitary conditions. These conditions show not only a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs, but also a deliberate indifference to the special medical needs of the prenatal detainees and their right to reasonable medical care.

147. There is no legitimate non-punitive goal served by the denial or unreasonable delay in providing this medical treatment where the need for such treatment is so apparent.

148. At a minimum, reasonable care, as required by due process, forbids governmental conduct that is deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of non-convicted detainees.

149. The aforementioned actions by the defendants constitute deliberate indifference to the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, medical needs in violation of their due process rights.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process-Disciplinary Proceedings)

150. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 above as though fully set forth herein.

l5l. The military disciplinary procedures implemented by the defendants violate the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' due process rights.

152. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs as detained noncriminal aliens are entitled to due process protection against arbitrary discipline.

153. When changes in the conditions of confinement are imposed as punishment for a specific infraction, minimal due process requires a constitutionally adequate process.

154. In the course of the indefinite detention, the defendants have placed and continue to place Detained Refugee Plaintiffs exhibiting alleges behavioral problems into administrative segregation. When a Detained Refugee Plaintiff is segregated he is removed from the general refugee population and placed in an area of confinement.

l55. The defendants' confinement of certain Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to specific areas or their own quarters for prolonged periods is a sufficiently serious deprivation of a liberty interest to implicate due process.

156. This aforementioned administrative segregation is tantamount to punishment constituting a deprivation of liberty and raising procedural due process issues.

157. Before the imposition of such punishment, due process requires written notice of the allegations, a hearing, a written decision, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, access to counsel, and an impartial decision maker.

158. The defendants and their agents have employed minimal "informal" discretionary procedures, which fail to meet the minimum requirements of due process for addressing behavioral problems among the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs held in indefinite detention under the exclusive control of the United States government.

159. Defendants have failed to implement any procedure which included written notice, a hearing, an opportunity to call witnesses, access to counsel or guarantee of an impartial decision maker for Detained Refugee Plaintiffs punished or administratively segregated while in indefinite detention under the exclusive control of the United States government.

160. Defendants' failure to implement such a procedure is a violation of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process-Indefinite Detention)

161. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 above as though fully set forth herein.

162. As individuals held subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have a liberty interest in not being arbitrarily or indefinitely detained.

163. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are being indefinitely detained under an extra-statutory legal regime, unauthorized by Congress and inconsistent with past Congressional acts, without fixed or knowable procedures and without assistance of counsel to protect their interests against defendants' arbitrary decisions.

164. The continued, indefinite detention of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs is the result of the defendants' own actions, not the choices of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs bear no responsibility for defendants' failure to enact or implement any procedures to adjudicate or justify the indefinite detention of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs.

165. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are detained in deplorable conditions, behind barbed wire, at needless risk of medical deterioration and infectious diseases while being denied access to adequate medical care.

166. The movement of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs within their respective camps is restricted: they are denied the freedom to select their own companions, choose their meals, consult with counsel or associate with family members, including the Refugee Family Plaintiffs, they are subjected to arbitrary discipline and they are required to obey the directions of the military personnel who guard the facilities.

167. Defendants have refused to release the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from their detention to come to the United States effective August 19, 1994, without Congressional approval and in contravention of United States constitutional and statutory law, Congressional intent, the unambiguous policies and practices of the prior seven Presidential administrations dating back 35 years, and established principles of international and treaty law. Congress has neither directed defendants, nor conferred on them statutory authority to hold the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs in arbitrary indefinite offshore detention, when they pose no menace to society.

168. Nor may Detained Refugee Plaintiffs safely return to Cuba, for they have a well-founded fear in returning to the persecution of Castro's regime, a regime which the United States has condemned openly for approximately 35 years for its human rights violations and abuses and its oppressive nature.

169. Despite the well founded fears of persecution demonstrated by the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs if returned to Cuba, the United States has repeatedly and consistently declared its intention to detain indefinitely the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo, Panama, and other locations under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States.

170. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are neither criminals nor national security risks. They pose no danger to the community. Some are pregnant mothers, and others are children. Simply put, they are the unfortunate victims of an oppressive dictatorial regime. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' plight is a human tragedy of immense proportion, and their continued arbitrary and indefinite detention serves no legitimate purpose.

171. The arbitrary and indefinite detention of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs without process of any kind violates their substantive and procedural due process right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to be free from arbitrary punishment and indefinite detention.

172. The United States' perpetuation of the deplorable state of affairs at Guantanamo also violates the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' fundamental human right to be free from arbitrary detention under customary international law and treaties and other international instruments which the United States has signed, including, Article 9 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles I and XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Moreover, by imposing penalties on the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs and unnecessarily restricting their movements, defendants have violated Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Right to Resist Coerced Repatriation)

173. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 172 above as though fully set forth herein.

174. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, as refugees, have the right under United States statutory law, and international law treaties to which the United States is a signatory, not to be repatriated to conditions of persecution except by means of voluntary repatriation. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs may secure judicial enforcement by injunction and declaratory judgment through those executive directives, statutes, and international agreements that execute the United States' international obligations into domestic law.

175. Under Articles l(C)(I) and 33 of the l951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees ("1951 Convention"), as incorporated by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ("Protocol"), acceded to by the United States in 1968 and remaining in effect at all times relevant to this action, and under customary international law, the United States is required to ensure that any repatriation of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs is voluntary.

176. Articles 33 and 40 of the l951 Convention require that the United States make a refugee status determination prior to repatriating a person who is held on territory subject to exclusive United States jurisdictional control to his or her homeland. Article 33 provides, in pertinent part, that [n]o Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." Article 40 applies Article 33 to territories for whose international relations the United States is responsible, such as Guantanamo and the Panama Canal Zone.

177. Articles l(C)(l) and 33 of the l951 Convention apply and will continue to apply to the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs as they have not voluntarily re-availed themselves of any protection which Cuba, their country of nationality, will offer.

178. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs cannot knowingly grant informal consent to voluntary repatriation because the defendants have not provided them with essential information about the risks regarding the likelihood that they will face persecution in Cuba if they choose to return.

179. Moreover, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have been subjected, and will continue to be subjected, to forms of direct and indirect coercion, such as in adequate living conditions, ensuring that the indefinite detention is punitive and results in coercing the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs into resuming to Cuba, a place of persecution.

180. Defendants have also employed other tactics prohibited by the Convention which include, but are not limited to, prevailing upon mass psychology and other tactics which effectively impair the ability of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs to make rational and truly voluntary decisions regarding repatriation.

181. Defendants have acted intentionally to force the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs into an involuntary return to Cuba by denying them the right to seek refugee processing at Guantanamo, Panama and other locations and maintaining deplorable and inhumane conditions, in violation of Article 33 and other applicable United States and international law.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality)

182. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege end incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 and 105 through 109 above as though fully set forth herein.

183. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act(the "APA"), 5 U.S.C. 701, 706(2), this Court is authorized to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, including Attorney General decisions based on parole discretion, that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion in excess of statutory authority, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

184. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), defendant Attorney General is vested with discretion to parole the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs into the United States.

185. However, defendant Attorney General cannot exercise her parole discretion to discriminate invidiously against a particular race or group, to depart without rational explanation from established policies and/or regulations, or to give effect to considerations that Congress could not have intended to be relevant to parole decisions. Any such action constitutes an abuse of discretion under the APA and must be set aside.

186. As described more fully in the paragraphs above, it has been the consistent and unwavering policy of the United States for several decades routinely to parole into the United States Cubans fleeing the Castro regime and subsequently to adjust their status under the Cuban Adjustment Act Hundreds of thousands of Cuban refugees have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States and later adjusted to permanent residents pursuant to this policy. These admissions and paroles have been and continue to be in the United States' public interest.

187. As a direct and proximate result of the promises and/or representations of the United States government, upon which they reasonably relied to their detriment and prejudice, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs fled Cuba at great personal risk, seeking parole and asylum in the United States.

188. However, following the August 19, 1994, announcement and through the practices and policies more fully described above, defendants intercepted the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at sea in route to the United States and have been detaining them illegally and indefinitely in detention camps in Guantanamo, Panama and elsewhere. Defendant Attorney General has refused and continues to refuse to consider the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' parole applications, unless they first return to Cuba, where they face punishment and political persecution.

189. The continued illegal and indefinite detention of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs by defendants is not in the public interest of the United States.

190. Defendant Attorney General's abrupt refusal to release the Detained~net Refugee Plaintiffs end to consider their parole applications, unless the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs first return to Cuban jurisdiction, is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of her parole discretion in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the APA, including the notice and publication requirements of the APA:

(a) As described more fully in the paragraphs above, defendant Attorney General effectively has denied, and continues effectively to deny, the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' release from detention solely because of their Cuban nationality. By doing so, the defendant Attorney General has exercised her discretion to discriminate invidiously, abusing her discretion and acting in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

(b) As described more fully in the paragraphs above, defendants' refusal to release the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from detention and to consider their application for parole, right to be processed and to present refugee claims unless they first return to Cuban jurisdiction constitutes an unjustified deviation from established internal parole policy and/or regulations and, therefore, an abuse of defendant Attorney General's parole discretion. (c) As described more fully in the paragraphs above, defendants' refusal to release the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs and to consider their applications for parole, right to be processed and opportunity to present refugee claims unless they first return to Cuban jurisdiction, gives effect to considerations that Congress did not and/or could not have intended to make relevant, and bars the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from becoming eligible for the adjustment of status to which they would otherwise be entitled under the Cuban Adjustment Act. By making it impossible for any Cuban fleeing by sea to become eligible for adjustment status under the CAA, the Attorney General has frustrated the purpose of a longstanding Congressional statute enacted in an area which is committed by the Constitution to Congress and which Congress has already occupied by legislation. Therefore, this refusal constitutes an abuse of defendant Attorney General's parole discretion.

191. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable harm, unless the United States government is not estopped from illegally and indefinitely detaining them and compelling them to return to Cuba before receiving processing for asylum end parole into the United States.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process-Violations of Legitimate Expectations of Parole)

192. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate paragraphs 23 through 91 as though fully set forth herein.

193. As described more fully above in the paragraphs above, the United States government continually has pursued a consistent and unwavering policy of opposition to the Castro regime, a key component of which has been to induce the Cuban people to flee Cuba and seek refuge in the United States, implemented, in pan, through the continual and routine parole of Cubans into the United States prior to adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.

194. The United States Government, through public presidential pronouncements, executive branch statements and actions, statutory enactments and congressional resolutions, continually has promised and/or represented to the Cuban people that it will parole routinely those Cubans fleeing the Castro regime into the United States.

195. The United States government reasonably should have expected that its promises, representations, and invitations to the Cuban people, and its announced policy of opposing the Castro regime would induce action of a substantial character on the part of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs; namely, that, among other things, they would risk their lives in fleeing from Cuba to the United States, endure extreme physical and emotional duress, abandon their homes, family members, friends, their livelihood and their assets and personal possessions for the purpose of fleeing Cuba and seeking refuge, parole, and asylum in the United States.

196. The promises and/or representations of the government of the United States in fact have induced action of a substantial character on the part of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs, to their detriment and prejudice.

197. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs have relied reasonably upon the United States government's promises and/or representations to their detriment and prejudice. They have fled Cuba, enduring extreme physical and emotional duress, abandoning their homes, family members, friends, their livelihood and their assets and personal possessions, in justifiable reliance upon the United States government's promises and representations that they would be permitted to enter the United States upon escaping Cuba. These actions, taken in reliance on 35 years of United States policy towards Cuban refugees and based on reasonable expectations, that such policy would continue constitute protected liberty interests which defendants may not eradicate through the parole power without due process of law. The affirmative actions of the Executive Branch and Congress have established a reasonable expectation in the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs of not being wrongfully detained, repatriated, or denied processing as refugees.

198. The Detained Refugee Plaintiffs would not have fled Cuba and materially changed their positions, to their prejudice and detriment, were it not for the promises and/or representations of the United States prior to August 19, 1994, to parole them into the United States, upon which they reasonably relied to their detriment and prejudice.

199. The United States, through the policies and practices described above, has invaded the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' protected liberty interest without due process of law.

200. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable harm, unless the United States government is enjoined from the illegal actions described herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of the members of the classes they represent pray for declaratory and injunctive relief as follows:

(a) Certification of each class;

(b) A declaratory judgment that the defendants' practices alleged above violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 1252(a),(c), and 1253(h), the Refugee Act of 1980, the Administrative Procedure Act, the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, customary international law and other applicable provisions of domestic and international law; (c) A declaratory judgment that the actions taken or determinations made pursuant to defendants' recently instituted policies are null and void;

(d) The following preliminary and permanent injunctive relief:

(i) Granting immediate access to plaintiff Cuban Refugee Services Organization, their attorneys, employees, and members, to communicate and associate with the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs at Guantanamo, Panama, and other locations, in order to advise them of their rights and options in the asylum process, with respect to repatriation, refugee status, eligibility for parole and all matters related thereto, including the implementation of the September 9, 1994, "Migration Agreement" with Cuba;

(ii) Expeditiously instituting policies and procedures under 8 U.S.C. 207 and 208 and other applicable law necessary to permit orderly determinations of the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs' refugee claims and according the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs refugee processing rights and protections,'including but not limited to the right to counsel;

(iii) Ordering defendants to refrain from encouraging or coercing, directly or indirectly, the repatriation to Cuba of, and repatriating, any Detained Refugee Plaintiff currently being detained by the United States Government;

(iv) Ordering defendants to cease denying or delaying reasonable medical treatment to the Detained Refugee, Plaintiffs;

(v) Ordering defendants to refrain from instituting any disciplinary procedures, administrative segregation, or any other form of punishment without adequate due process protections, including written notice of the allegations against them, a hearing, a written decision, an opportunity to call witness and present evidence, access to counsel, and an impartial decision maker;

(vi) Ordering defendants to ensure that the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs are accorded their rights to communicate and associate with counsel about their legal options; and, to consult regarding the circumstances of their detention and medical care;

(vii) Ordering defendants to refrain from violating the rights of Refugee Family Plaintiffs to associate with and communicate with their detained relatives;

(viii) Ordering defendant Attorney General's exercise of her statutory parole power under INA 212(d)(s) to deny the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs parole out of detention enjoined, held unlawful, and set aside pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and ordering defendant Attorney General to cease denying and delaying the grant of parole from detention based on national origin and other illegal factors; to immediately release the Detained Refugee Plaintiffs from detention and to immediately parole into the United States all Minor Plaintiffs and Pregnant Refugee Plaintiffs.

(ix) Such other and further relief as the Court my deem just and proper, including reasonable attorney's fees and Costs, under all applicable statutory law.

Respectfully submitted,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Robert L. Boyer, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 255912

2100 Coral Way, Suite 600

Miami, FL 33145

Jose Garcia-Pedrosa, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 137115

Matias Dorta, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 770817

TEW & GARCIA PEDROSA

201 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2600

Miami, FL 33131



Marcos D. Jiminez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 441503

Carlos B. Castillo, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 907741

WHITE & CASE

200 S. Biscayne Blvd.

Suite 4900

Miami, FL 33131



Manuel Kadre, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 946842

MURAI, WALD, BIONDO & WHITE

25 S.E. 2nd Ave., Suite 900

200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131



Roberto Martinez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 305596

Oscar Levin, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 262994

GREENBERG TRAURIG

1221 Brickell Avenue

Miami, FL 33131



Leopoldo Ochoa, Esq.

Florida Bar no. 325643

1313 Ponce de Leon Blvd.

Coral Gables, FL 33134



Of Counsel:

Harold Hongju Koh,Esq.

Allard K. Lowenstein

International Human Rights

Law Clinic at Yale Law

School

127 Wall Street

New Haven, CT 06511

(203) 432-4932



On the Complaint:*

Laura Dickinson

Jonathan E. Levitsky

David Massey

Daniyal Mueenuddin

Amanda Questcr

Susan Torres

Amy Valley

Carlos Viana

Wendy Weiser



*J.D. Candidates

Yale Law School



Of Counsel:

Arturo Alvarez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 154398

ALVAREZ, ARMAS & BORRON, P.A.

2151 LeJeune Road

Coral Gables, FL 33134



GREENBERG TRAURIG

1221 Brickell Avenue

Miami. FL 33131



Francisco R. Angones Esq.

Florida Bar No. 217093

ANGONES, HUNGER, ET AL

66 West Flagler Street

Ninth Floor

Miami, FL 33145



Fernando S. Aran, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 349712

ARAN CORREA & GUARCH, P.A.

710 South Dixie Highway

Coral Gables, FL 33146



Orlando J. Cabrera, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0894151

BERMUDEZ & CABRERA, P.A.

2100 Coral Way

Suite 600

Miami, FL 33145



J. Raul Cosio, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 503630

HOLLAND & KNIGHT

701 Brickell Avenue

30th Floor

Miami, FL 33131



Victor M. Diaz, Jr.,Esq.

Florida Bar No. 503800

PODHURST, ORSECK, ET AL.

25 West Flagler Street

Suite 300

Miami, FL 33130



Jorge R. Gutierrez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 602418

MERSHON SAWYER JOHNSTON DONWODY & COLE

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 4500

Miami, FL 33131



Jorge L.Hernandez-Torano, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 339301

HOLLAND & KNIGHT

701 Brickell Avenue

30th Floor

Miami FL 33131



Lazaro Fernandez, Jr., Esq.

Florida Bar No. 716545

STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS

First Union Financial Center

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, FL 33131



Rene V. Murai, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 122154

MURAI, WALD, BIONDO & MORENO

25 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 900

Miami, FL 33131



Ramon E. Rasco, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 224707

RASCO & RENINGER, P.A.

5200 Blue Lagoon Drive

Suite 700

Miami, FL 33125



Raquel A. Rodriguez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 511439

GREENBERG TRAURIG

1221 Brickell Avenue

Miami, FL 33131



Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 613975

KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN

201 S. Biscayne Blvd.

24th Floor

Miami, FL 33131



Osvaldo N. Soto Esq.

Florida Bar No. 202614

OSVALDO N. SOTO, P.A.

2151 LeJeune Road

Miami, FL 33134



Xavier Suarez Esq.

Florida Bar No. 202797

SHUTTS & BOWEN

201 S. Biscayne Blvd.

Suite 1500

Miami, FL 33131



Manuel Vazquez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 132826

2655 LeJeune Road

Suite 600

Coral Gables, FL 33134


DIANA Homepage


127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.