View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN
SOUTHERNDIVISIONYASEENKADURA; )NAJIABDULJABER; )ABDUSSAMADTOOTLA; ) CaseNo.ALAASAADE;and, ) Hon.AHMEDSALEHABUSALEH; ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )v. ) )ERICH.HOLDER,JR.,AttorneyGeneral )oftheUnitedStates,inhisofficialcapacity; ) )JAMESB.COMEY,DirectoroftheFederal )BureauofInvestigation,inhisofficial )capacity; ) )TIMOTHYJ.HEALY,Directorofthe )TerroristScreeningCenter; inhisofficial )capacity; ) )MATTHEWG.OLSEN,Directorofthe )NationalCounterterrorismCenter,in )hisofficialcapacity; ) )JEHJOHNSON,Directorofthe )DepartmentofHomelandSecurity,in )hisofficialcapacity; ) )R.GILKERLIKOWSKE,Commissionerof )theUnitedStatesCustomsandBorder )Protection,inhisofficialcapacity; ) )JOHNS.PISTOLE,Administratorofthe )UnitedStatesTransportationSecurity )Administration,inhisofficialcapacity;and, ) )JOHNT.MORTON,DirectorofUnitedStates )ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement; )inhisofficialcapacity; ) ) Defendants. )
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 1 of 28 Pg ID 1
2
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,YASEENKADURA,NAJIABDULJABER,ABDUSSAMADTOOTLA,ALAA
SAADE, and AHMED SALEH ABUSALEH, through their undersigned counsel, state as
follows:
Introduction
1. This lawsuit is an expression of anger grounded in law. Our federal
governmentisimposinganinjusticeofhistoricproportionsupontheAmericanswhohave
filedthisaction,aswellasthousandsofothers.Throughextra‐judicialandsecretmeans,the
federalgovernmentisensnaringindividualsintoaninvisiblewebofconsequencesthatare
imposedindefinitelyandwithoutrecourseasaresultoftheshockinglylargefederalwatch
liststhatnowincludehundredsofthousandsofindividuals.
2. These consequences include the inability to fly on airplanes, to go through
securitywithouthavingallscreenersreceiveamessagefortheremainderofyourlifethat
you are a "known or suspected terrorist," to obtain licenses, to exercise your Second
Amendmentrighttoownafirearm,andtobefreefromtheunimaginableindignityandreal‐
life danger of having your own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of
federalagents,privatecontractors,stateandlocalpolice,thecaptainsofsea‐faringvessels,
andforeigngovernmentsallacrosstheworldthatyouareaviolentmenace.
3. Andunfortunately,thefederalgovernmenthasdesigneditsfederalwatchlist
to be accountability‐free. Persons placed on the federal watch list have no means of
removing themselves or challenging the basis for their inclusion. Indeed, people on the
federalwatch listsonly learnoftheirplacementwhentheyfeel thewebofconsequences
burdeningtheirlivesandaspirations,andtheyneverlearnwhy.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 2 of 28 Pg ID 2
3
4. Recentmediaaccountshavemadeclearthatthesecretfederalwatchlististhe
productofbigotryandmisguided,counterproductivezeal.Americansaredesignatedonto
thewatchlistwithoutbeingcharged,convicted,orinsomestomach‐churningcases,even
subjecttoanongoinginvestigation.
5. Instead, we now know—because of two recently leaked government
documentsandagovernmentalreport,whichincludetheMarch2013WatchlistingGuidance
(Exhibit1), theDirectorateofTerrorist Identities(DTI):StrategicAccomplishments2013
(Exhibit 2), and the Department of Justice'sMarch 2014 Audit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation'sManagement of TerroristWatchlist (Exhibit 3)—that the care the federal
governmenttakesincreatingitsfederalwatchlistwouldbelaughableifnotforthetragic,
life‐alteringconsequencesthatflowfromtheseillegalactions.
6. Wenowknow thatDearborn, a city of less than100,000 and a placeArab
AmericansandMuslimAmericanshavecalledhome forgenerations, contains thesecond
highestconcentrationofAmericansonthefederalgovernment'swatchlist.Weknowthat
therehavebeenmorethan1.5millionnominationstothefederalwatchlistsince2009and
that,in2013forexample,theTerroristScreeningCenterconverted98.96percentofthose
nominationsintowatchlistplacements.
7. Evidence shows that the federal government uses guilt‐by‐association
presumptionstoplacefamilymembersandfriendsoflistedpersonsonthewatchlist.
8. Moreover,traveltoMuslimmajoritycountries—travelthatAmericanMuslims
areverylikelytoengagein—isalsoabasisforwatchlistplacement.
9. In 2009, the federal governmentmade 227,932 nominations to its federal
watchlist.In2013,thatnumbermorethandoubledto468,749.IfthisCourtdoesnottemper
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 3 of 28 Pg ID 3
4
thefederalgovernment'swatchlistingobsession,by2018,Defendantsmaybenominating
morethanamillionindividualsayeartoitswatchlist.
Parties
10. Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura is a United States Citizen and aMuslim. Venue is
proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims
occurredwithinthisdistrict.
11. PlaintiffDr.NajiAbduljaberisaUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslimresidingin
WashtenawCounty,Michigan,andwithinthisdistrict.
12. Plaintiff Abdus Samad Tootla is a permanent legal resident and a Muslim
residingOaklandCounty,Michigan,andwithinthisdistrict.
13. PlaintiffAlaaSaadeisaUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslimresidinginWayne
County,Michigan,andwithinthisdistrict.
14. Plaintiff Ahmed Saleh Abusaleh is a United States Citizen and a Muslim
residinginWayneCounty,Michigan,andwithindistrict.
15. Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr. is Attorney General of the United States.
DefendantHolderisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
16. DefendantJamesB.ComeyisDirectoroftheFederalBureauofInvestigation
(“FBI”).DefendantComeyisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
17. Defendant Timothy J. Healy is Director of the Terrorist Screening Center
(“TSC”).DefendantHealyisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
18. Defendant Matthew G. Olsen is Director of the National Counterterrorism
Center(“NCTC”).DefendantOlsenisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 4 of 28 Pg ID 4
5
19. DefendantJehJohnsonisDirectorof theDepartmentofHomelandSecurity.
DefendantJohnsonisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
20. DefendantR.GilKerlikowskeisCommissioneroftheUnitedStatesCustoms
andBorderProtection(“CBP”).DefendantKerlikowskeisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,
only.
21. DefendantJohnS.PistoleisAdministratoroftheUnitedStatesTransportation
SecurityAdministration(“TSA”).DefendantPistoleisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
22. Defendant JohnT.Morton isDirectorof theUnitedStates Immigrationand
CustomsEnforcement(“ICE”).DefendantMortonisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
JurisdictionandVenue
23. Under U.S. Const. Art. III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights
soughttobeprotectedhereinaresecuredbytheUnitedStatesConstitution.Jurisdictionis
properpursuantto28U.S.C.§1331,Bivensv.SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFederalBureau
ofNarcotics, 403U.S.388 (1971),et seq., 5U.S.C. §702,5U.S.C. §706, theUnitedStates
Constitution,andfederalcommonlaw.
24. ThisactionseeksdeclaratoryreliefpursuanttotheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,
28U.S.C.§§2201‐02,Rules57and65oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,andpursuant
tothegeneral,legal,andequitablepowersofthisCourt.
25. Thisactionalsoseeksdamagespursuantto28U.S.C.§1343(a)(4)and28U.S.C.
§1357.
26. Asubstantialpartoftheunlawfulactsallegedhereinwerecommittedwithin
thejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofMichigan.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 5 of 28 Pg ID 5
6
27. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to all Defendants because
DefendantsareofficersoremployeesofagenciesoftheUnitedStatessuedintheirofficial
capacity and because this judicial district is where all Plaintiffs reside and where a
substantialpartoftheeventsoromissionsgivingrisetotheclaimsoccurred.
FactualBackground
TheFederalGovernment’sTerroristWatchList
28. InSeptember,2003,AttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroftestablishedtheTerrorist
ScreeningCentertoconsolidatethegovernment’sapproachtoterrorismscreening.TheTSC,
which is administered by the FBI, develops and maintains the federal government’s
consolidatedTerrorismScreeningDatabase(the“watchlist”).TSC’sconsolidatedwatchlist
is the federal government’s master repository for suspected international and domestic
terroristrecordsusedforwatchlistrelatedscreening.
29. Thewatchlisthastwoprimarycomponents:theSelecteeListandtheNo‐Fly
List. PersonsontheSelecteeListaresystematicallysubjecttoextrascreeningatairports
andlandbordercrossings,andoftenfind“SSSS”ontheirboardingpasseswhichismarked
to indicate a passenger’s watch list status to screeners. Persons on the No‐Fly List are
preventedfromboardingflightsthatflyinto,outof,oreventhroughUnitedStatesairspace.
30. TSCsendsrecordsfromitsterroristwatchlisttoothergovernmentagencies
thatinturnusethoserecordstoidentifysuspectedterrorists.Forexample,applicableTSC
recordsareprovidedtoTSAforusebyairlinesinpre‐screeningpassengersandtoCBPfor
use inscreeningtravelersenteringtheUnitedStates. Thus,while theTSCmaintainsand
controlsthedatabaseofsuspectedterrorists,itisthefront‐lineagenciesliketheTSAthat
carryoutthescreeningfunction.Inthecontextofairtravel,whenindividualsmakeairline
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 6 of 28 Pg ID 6
7
reservations and check in at airports, the front‐line screening agency, likeTSA andCBP,
conductsaname‐basedsearchoftheindividualtodeterminewhetherheorsheisonawatch
list.
31. Whileagenciesthroughoutthefederalgovernmentutilizesthefederalwatch
list to conduct screening, listed persons are subject to a comprehensive portfolio of
consequencesthatcoverlargeaspectsoftheirlives.
32. Indeed,thefederalgovernmentdisseminatesitsfederalwatchlisttostateand
localauthorities,foreigngovernments,corporations,privatecontractors,thecaptainsofsea‐
faringvessels,amongothersinordertoencouragetheseentitiestoimposeconsequenceson
thoseindividualsDefendantshavelisted.
33. Becausethefederalgovernmentdisseminatesitsfederalwatchlisttoforeign
governments,listedpersonsareoftennotallowedtoenterothernations.Thisisbecausethe
UnitedStatesistellingothernations,withoutanymodicumofdueprocess,thatthousands
ofitsowncitizensare“knownorsuspectedterrorists.”
34. Thefederalgovernmentdisseminatesitsfederalwatchlisttostateandlocal
policeofficers,whichallowsthoseofficerstoquerythenamesofpersons,ifforexample,the
listedindividualispulledoverforroutinetrafficviolations.
35. Disseminatingthefederalwatchlisttostateandlocalpoliceofficerscreatesa
dangeroussituationinsofarasthefederalwatchlisteffectivelydirectstateandlocalofficers
totreatthousandsofAmericanschargedorconvictedwithnocrimeyetlistedasa“known
orsuspectedterrorist”andasextremelydangerous.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 7 of 28 Pg ID 7
8
36. Withtheadventanddeploymentofautomaticlicenseplatereadersbypolice
departmentsacrossthecountry,beinglistedonthefederalwatchlistcanbethebasisofa
trafficstop.
37. Beingonthefederalwatchlistcanpreventlistedpersonsfrompurchasinga
gun.Forexample,NewJerseypassedalawin2013thatbannedpersonsonthefederalwatch
listfromowningguns.
38. Because the federal government conducts a security risk assessment that
includesqueryingthefederalwatchlistpriortoissuingalicensetocommercialdriversto
transporthazardousmaterials,beingonthe federalwatch listcanprevent listedpersons
fromobtainingorrenewingtheirHazmatlicense.
39. Being on the federal watch list can also prevent listed persons from
accompanying minors or passengers with disabilities to their gate, from working at an
airport,orworkingforanairlineinsofaraslistedpersonsarenotallowedtoenterso‐called
“sterileareas”ofairports.
40. AlthoughTSA,CBP,andotheragenciesmayusetherecordsprovidedbythe
TSC,itistheTSCthatmaintainsandcontrolsthedatabaseofsuspectedterrorists.
41. Two government entities are primarily responsible for “nominating”
individualsforinclusionintheterroristwatchlist—theNCTCandtheFBI.TheNCTC,which
ismanagedbytheOfficeoftheDirectorofNationalIntelligence,reliesoninformationfrom
otherfederaldepartmentsandagencieswhenincludingknownorsuspectedinternational
terrorists in itsTerrorist IdentitiesDatamartEnvironment (“TIDE”)database. TheNCTC
reviewsTIDEentriesandrecommendsspecificentriestotheTSCforinclusioninthewatch
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 8 of 28 Pg ID 8
9
list.TIDEisthemainsourceofallinternationalterroristinformationincludedinthewatch
list.
42. The FBI, in turn, nominates to the watch list individuals with what it
characterizes as suspected ties to domestic terrorism. TSCmakes the final decision on
whether anominated individualmeets theminimumrequirements for inclusion into the
watchlistasaknownorsuspectedterrorist.TSCalsodecideswhichscreeningsystemswill
receivetheinformationaboutthatindividual.
43. DefendantHealyhastestifiedthatinevaluatingwhetheranindividualmeets
the criteria for inclusionon the consolidatedwatch list, theTSCdetermineswhether the
nominated individual is “reasonably suspected” of having possible links to terrorism.
AccordingtotheTSC,“reasonablesuspicionrequiresarticulablefactswhich,takentogether
withrationalinferences,reasonablywarrantthedeterminationthatanindividualisknown
orsuspectedtobeorhasbeenengagedinconductconstituting,inpreparationfor,inandof
orrelatedtoterrorismandterroristactivities.”
44. Defendantshavenotstatedpubliclywhatstandardsorcriteriaareappliedto
determinewhetheranindividualontheconsolidatedwatchlistwillbeplacedontheNo‐Fly
List,SelecteeList(“SSSS”)orotherlistthatisdistributedtotheTSA,CBPorotherscreening
agencies.
45. The standards for watch list inclusion do not evince even internal logic.
Defendantsdefinea“suspectedterrorist”asan“individualwhoisreasonablysuspectedto
be,orhavebeen,engagedinconductconstituting,inpreparationfor,inaidof,orrelatedto
terrorismandterroristactivitiesbasedonarticulableandreasonablesuspicion.”Inother
words, Defendants place individuals on the federalwatch list based upon a “reasonable
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 9 of 28 Pg ID 9
10
suspicion” that they are “reasonably suspected” of nefarious activities. This “reasonable
suspicion”basedona“reasonablesuspicion”standarddoesnotevencontaininternallogic.
46. Thefederalgovernmentutilizesguilt‐by‐associationasabasisforwatchlist
inclusion.Forexample,theimmediaterelativeoflistedpersonscanbelistedwithoutany
derogatory information—other than the bonds of family. Nonetheless, such designation
suggeststhattheimmediaterelativeishimorherselfengagedinnefariousactivities.
47. Being a known associate—a friend, colleague, fellow community member,
etc.—ofalistedindividualcanalsoprovideabasisforwatchlistinclusion.
48. Even ifan individual isacquittedof terrorismchargesor thosechargesare
otherwisedismissed,thefederalgovernmentretainsforitselftheauthoritytocontinueto
includetheminthewatchlist.
49. Forreasonsunknown,Defendantsalsoplacewhattheycall“non‐investigatory
subjects”onthefederalwatchlist,peoplethattheyhavechosennottoinvestigate.
50. Under these practices and standards, the number of records in the
consolidatedwatchlisthasswelled.Over1.5millionnominationstothewatchlisthavebeen
submittedbyfederalagenciessincefiscal2009.
51. In2013,DefendantTSCaccepted98.96percentofallnominationsmade.
52. Becauseoftheseloosestandardsandpractices,thefederalwatchlist’srateof
growthhasincreased.Infiscal2009,therewere227,932nominationstothewatchlist.In
fiscal2013,therewere468,749nominations.
53. In 2001, therewere 16 peoplewho the federal government systematically
preventedfromflying.In2013,thatnumberincreasedto47,000.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 10 of 28 Pg ID 10
11
54. Onceanindividualhasbeenplacedonthewatchlist,theindividualremains
onthelistuntiltheagencythatsuppliedtheinitialinformationinsupportofthenomination
determinestheindividualshouldberemoved.
55. A2007GAOreportfoundthatTSCrejectsonlyapproximatelyonepercentof
allnominationstothewatchlist.1Assuch,thewatchlistisgrowingatarateofapproximately
20,000entriesperyear.
56. AtaMarch10,2010SenateHomelandSecurityCommitteehearing,RusselE.
Travers,DeputyDirectoroftheNationalCounterterrorismCenter,statedthat“[t]heentire
federalgovernmentisleaningveryfarforwardonputtingpeopleonlist,”andthatthewatch
listis“gettingbigger,anditwillgetevenbigger.”
57. ThefederalwatchlistalsodisproportionatelytargetsAmericanMuslims.
58. Defendantshaveutilizedthewatchlist,notasatooltoenhanceaviationand
bordersecurity,butasabludgeontocoerceAmericanMuslimsintobecominginformantsor
forgoingtheexerciseoftheirrights,suchastherighttohaveanattorneypresentduringlaw
enforcementquestioning.
59. Publicexamplesof thisphenomenonabound. SeeLatifv.Holder,2014U.S.
Dist.LEXIS85450,*19(D.Or.June24,2014)(anFBIagenttoldStevenWashburnthathe
“wouldhelpremoveWashburn'snamefromtheNo‐FlyListifheagreedtospeaktotheFBI”);
Id.at*21‐22(FBIagentstoldIbraheimMashalthat“hisnamewouldberemovedfromthe
No‐Fly List and he would receive compensation if he helped the FBI by serving as an
informant.”):Idat*22‐23(FBIagentsofferedAmirMeshal“theopportunitytoserveasa
1 See United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters entitled Terrorist Watch List Screening: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Management Oversight, Reduce Vulnerabilities in Agency Screening Processes, and Expand Use of the List, GAO‐08‐110, October 2007, at 22.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 11 of 28 Pg ID 11
12
government informant in exchange for assistance in removinghisname from theNo‐Fly
List.”). SeealsoFikrev.FBI,2014U.S.Dist. LEXIS73174 (D.Or.May29,2014) (Emirati
officialstoldYonasFikrethathe“couldnottraveltotheUnitedStatesbyairbecauseheison
theNo‐FlyList”andanFBIagenttoldFikrethat“theFBIcouldtakestepstoremove[him]
fromtheNo‐FlyListifheagreedtobeaninformant.”);Tanveerv.Holder,et.al.,No.13‐cv‐
6951,Dkt.15(April22,2014)(NaveedShinwari “declinedtoactasan informant for the
FederalBureauofInvestigationandtospyon[his]ownAmericanMuslimcommunitiesand
otherinnocentpeople.”).
60. AlmostallpubliclyknowninstancesofAmericansbeingplacedonthewatch
listregardMuslimsorpersonswhocouldbemistakenforMuslims.
61. Additionally,governmentrecordsshowthatDearborn,Michigan—whichis40
percentArab—isdisproportionatelyrepresentedonthefederalwatchlist.Infact,Dearborn
isamongthetopfivecitiesinthecountry,alongsideChicago,Houston,NewYork,andSan
Diego,representedonthefederalwatchlist.
62. Defendants’ 2013WatchlistingGuidancealso indicates that “[t]ravel forno
knownlawfulorlegitimatepurposetoalocusofterroristactivity”canbeabasisforbeing
listed.Whilea“locusofTerroristActivity”isnotdefinedbythedocument,uponinformation
andbelief,itlikelyincludesanyplacewheremanyMuslimsreside.
InadequacyoftheDHSTravelerRedressInquiryProgramProcess
63. The government entities and individuals involved in the creation,
maintenance, support, modification and enforcement of the federal watch list, including
Defendants,havenotprovidedtravelerswithafairandeffectivemechanismthroughwhich
theycanchallengetheTSC’sdecisiontoplacethemontheterroristwatchlist.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 12 of 28 Pg ID 12
13
64. Anindividualwhohasbeenpreventedorhinderedfromtravelbybeingplaced
on the federalwatch list has no clear avenue for redress, becauseno single government
entityisresponsibleforremovinganindividualfromthelist.TheTSC,whichisadministered
bytheFBI,doesnotacceptredressinquiriesfromthepublic,nordoesitdirectlyprovide
final disposition letters to individualswho have submitted redress inquiries. TheNCTC
whichmanagestheTIDElistdoesnotacceptredressinquiriesfromthegeneralpublic.
65. Individualswhoseekredressafterhavingbeenincludedintheterroristwatch
list must submit an inquiry through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“DHS
TRIP”).DHSTRIPprovidesindividualswitha“RedressControlNumber.”
66. DHSTRIPistheonlyredress“process”availabletoindividualsincludedonthe
terroristwatchlist.
67. DHSTRIPsubmitstravelercomplaintstotheTSC,whichdetermineswhether
anyactionshouldbetaken. TheTSChasnotprovidedanypubliclyavailableinformation
abouthowitmakesthatdecision. TheTSC is the finalarbiterofwhetheran individual’s
nameisretainedonorremovedfromthewatchlist.
68. TheTSCmakesadeterminationregardingaparticularindividual’sstatuson
thewatchlist,theDHSrespondstotheindividualwithastandardformletterthatneither
confirms nor denies the existence of any terrorist watch list records relating to the
individual.Thelettersdonotsetforthanybasisforinclusioninaterroristwatchlist,donot
statewhetherthegovernmenthasresolvedthecomplaintatissue.
69. The government does not provide the individual with any opportunity to
confront,ortorebut,thegroundsforhisorherpossibleinclusiononthewatchlist.Assuch,
DHSTRIPoffersnomeaningfulreviewofthewatchlistdesignationandineffectshieldsthe
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 13 of 28 Pg ID 13
14
TSC’s actionswith respect to the individual nominations or classes of nominations from
meaningfulreviewbyanyindependentauthority.
70. Moreover,thegovernment’sowninternalauditsofthesystempointtoserious
flaws.Forexample,aMarch2008DOJOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralreportentitledAudit
oftheU.S.DepartmentofJusticeTerrorismWatchlistNominationProcessesfoundsignificant
problemswiththenominationandremovalprocess.
71. Thus,theonly“process”availabletosuchindividualsistosubmittheirnames
andotheridentifyinginformationtoagovernmententitythathasnoauthoritytoprovide
redressandtohopethatanunspecifiedgovernmentagencycorrectsanerrororchangesits
mind.
72. Asallegedbelow,eachofthePlaintiffsaredesignatedonthewatchlistand
havemadeatleastoneredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.EachPlaintiffreceivedaletteras
describedinparagraph68above.
PlaintiffYaseenKadura
73. On September 22, 2012, Mr. Yaseen Kadura was referred to secondary
inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop in Port Huron, Michigan, when he
attemptedtore‐entertheUnitedStatesafterabrieftriptoCanada.
74. CBPofficersconfiscatedhisphoneand informedMr.Kadurathathisphone
wasbeingforwardedtoICEandwouldbereturnedtohimin24to48hours.
75. OnOctober22,2012,Mr.KaduraappearedatChicagoO’Hare International
Airport,inordertotraveltoLibya.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 14 of 28 Pg ID 14
15
76. Mr. Kadura had previously purchased a plane ticket for a Turkish Airlines
flight to Istanbul, andhewas to then fly toLibya from IstanbulonTurkishAirlines. Mr.
KadurapresentedhimselfattheTurkishAirlinesticketcounterhoursbeforehisflight.
77. TurkishAirlinespersonnelwereunabletocheckMr.Kadurainforhisflight
anddidnotissuehimaboardingpass.
78. ThepersonnelinformedMr.KadurathathewasontheNo‐FlyListandthathe
couldnotboardaplane.
79. BeforeMr.Kadurawasdenied theability toboardhis flightonOctober22,
2012,hedidnotreceiveanynotice,fromagovernmentagencyoranyoneelse,thathewould
beunabletoboardhisflightorthathisnamewasplacedontheNo‐FlyList.Mr.Kadurahad
beenablepreviouslytoboardflightsintheUnitedStateswithoutdifficulty.
80. OnoraboutNovember14,2012,SpecialAgentArkinFout,HomelandSecurity
Investigations (“HSI”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, directly contacted Mr.
Kaduraandharassedand intimidatedhim inanattempt tocoercehim intoarrangingan
“informalmeeting”atanundisclosedlocation.
81. Special Agent Fout proceeded to pressure Mr. Kadura into becoming an
informantinLibya,presumablybycommittingespionageinthatcountry.
82. SpecialAgentFoutindicatedthatifMr.Kadurawantedtoremovehisname
fromtheNo‐FlyList,itwouldbenearlyimpossibleforhimtodosounlessheagreedtowork
asaninformantinLibya.
83. OnNovember30,2012,Mr.KadurafiledacomplaintthroughDHSTRIPand
hewassubsequentlyassignedaRedressControlNumber.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 15 of 28 Pg ID 15
16
84. OnMay8,2013,Mr.Kadurareceiveda letterasdescribed inparagraph68
above.
85. Mr.KadurafiledatimelyDHSTRIPappealonJune5,2013.
86. Asofthisdate,Mr.Kadurahasnotreceivedaresponsetohisappeal,described
inparagraph85above.
87. Asofthisdate,Mr.KaduraremainsontheNo‐FlyList.
88. AtnotimewasMr.Kaduragivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
PlaintiffDr.NajiAbduljaber
89. On July 8, 2007, Dr. Naji Abduljaberwas referred to secondary inspection,
handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop in the Ambassador Bridge, Detroit,
Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnitedStatesafterabriefvacationinCanada.
90. CBPofficers confiscatedhisUnited Statespassport, and subjectedhim to a
prolongeddetentionandquestioningforapproximatelyfourhours.
91. OnDecember13,2010,Dr.AbduljaberappearedattheDetroitMetropolitan
Airport,inordertoboardacommercialflighttoAmman,Jordan.
92. Dr.Abduljaber’sboardingpasswasstampedwiththe“SSSS”designation.He
wasunabletoprinthisboardingpass.
93. He referred to secondary inspection by CBP, and once again subjected to
prolongedsearches,detentionandquestioning.
94. Dr. Abduljaber filed a redress request through DHS TRIP and was
subsequentlyassignedaRedressControlNumber
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 16 of 28 Pg ID 16
17
95. OnJanuary5,2012,Dr.Abduljaberreceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph
68above.
96. Asofthisdate,Dr.Abduljabercontinuestobesubjectedtoprolongedsearches,
detentionandquestioningwhenre‐enteringtheUnitedStatesattheUnitedStates‐Canada
border.
97. As of this date, Dr. Abduljaber continues to be designated as “SSSS,” and
subjectedtoprolongedsearches,detentionandquestioning,everytimehetravelsbyair.
98. At no time was Dr. Abduljaber given notice of the factual basis for his
placementonthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunity
tocontesthisdesignation.
PlaintiffAbdusSamadTootla
99. On March 18, 2008, Mr. Abdus Samad Tootla appeared at the Detroit
MetropolitanAirport,inordertoboardacommercialflighttoSouthAfrica.
100. Mr.Tootla’sboardingpasswasstampedwiththe“SSSS”designation.Hewas
unabletoprinthisboardingpassandreferredtosecondaryinspectionbyCBP.
101. Subsequent to thatdate,Mr.Tootlawas repeatedly subjected toprolonged
searches,detentionandquestioningeverytimehetraveledbyair.
102. Moreover, Mr. Tootla’s boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS”
designationeverytimehetraveledbyair.
103. Mr.Tootla filedaredressrequest throughDHSTRIPandwassubsequently
assignedaRedressControlNumber.
104. OnJanuary10,2013,Mr.Tootlareceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph68
above.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 17 of 28 Pg ID 17
18
105. OnNovember12,2013,Mr.TootlaboardedacommercialflighttotheUnited
StatesandarrivedattheMiamiInternationalAirport.
106. Althoughhisboardingpass,forthefirsttimesinceMarch18,2008,wasnot
stampedwiththe“SSSS”designation,hefacedsubstantiallysimilartreatment.
107. HewasdetainedbyCBPofficerswhoconfiscatedhisUnitedStatespassport
andheldhiminaroomforquestioning.
108. Mr.TootlaoverheardCBPofficersdescribehimas“anO3.”
109. Asofthisdate,Mr.Tootlacontinuestobesubjectedtosimilartreatmenttothe
treatmenthereceivedwhiledesignatedas“SSSS”everytimehetravelsbyair.
110. Upon information and belief,Mr. Tootla continues to be designated on the
federalwatchlist.
111. AtnotimewasMr.Tootlagivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacementon
thefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontesthis
designation.
PlaintiffAlaaSaade
112. On or about the summer of 2012, Mr. Alaa Saade appeared the Detroit
MetropolitanAirportinordertoboardacommercialflighttoAmman,Jordan.
113. HisboardingpasswasstampedwiththeSSSSdesignation.Hewasunableto
printhisboardingpassandwasreferred tosecondaryscreening forprolongedsearches,
detentionandquestioning.
114. Mr.SaadefiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIPandhewassubsequently
assignedaRedressControlNumber.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 18 of 28 Pg ID 18
19
115. OnOctober28,2013,Mr.Saadereceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph68
above.
116. OnJuly29,2013,Mr.SaadewasdetainedforapproximatelysixhoursbyCBP
attheAmbassadorBridgeinDetroit,Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnited
StatesafterabrieftriptoCanada.
117. Uponswipinghispassport,analarmwasactivatedandCBPreferredMr.Saade
tosecondaryscreeningforprolongedsearches,detentionandquestioning.
118. OnoraboutMay6,2013,Mr.SaadeboardedacommercialflighttotheUnited
StatesandarrivedattheDetroitMetropolitanAirport.ACBPofficerescortedMr.Saadefrom
the gate and took him to secondary inspection for prolonged searches, detention and
questioning.
119. ACBPofficerinformedMr.SaadethathewasorderedtoinvestigateMr.Saade.
120. Asof thisdate,Mr. Saadecontinues tobe subjected toprolongedsearches,
detentionandquestioningwhenre‐enteringtheUnitedStatesattheUnitedStates‐Canada
border.
121. Mr.Saadecontinuestobedesignatedas“SSSS,”andsubjectedtoprolonged
searches,detentionandquestioning,everytimehetravelsbyair.
122. Moreover,CBPofficersconfiscatehisphoneanddownloadthedatafromhis
phoneevery timehe re‐enters theUnitedStates at theUnitedStates‐Canadaborder and
everytimehetravelsbyair.
123. AtnotimewasMr.Saadegivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacementon
thefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontesthis
designation.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 19 of 28 Pg ID 19
20
PlaintiffAhmedSalehAbusaleh
124. On February 11, 2004,Mr. Abusaleh appeared at the DetroitMetropolitan
Airport,inordertoboardacommercialflighttoYemen.
125. Dr.Abusaleh’sboardingpasswasstampedwiththe“SSSS”designation. He
wasunabletoprinthisboardingpass.
126. HewasreferredtosecondaryinspectionbyCBPandsubjectedtoprolonged
searches,detentionandquestioning.
127. Subsequenttothatdate,Mr.Abusalehwasrepeatedlysubjectedtoprolonged
searches,detentionandquestioningeverytimehetraveledbyair.
128. Moreover, Mr. Abusaleh’s boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS”
designationeverytimehetraveledbyair.
129. Mr.AbusalehfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIPandwassubsequently
assignedaRedressControlNumber.
130. OnDecember3,2012,Mr.Abusalehreceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph
68above.
131. On November 23, 2013, Mr. Abusaleh boarded a commercial flight to the
UnitedStatesandarrivedattheAtlantaInternationalAirport,afterabriefvacationinYemen.
132. Althoughhisboardingpass,forthefirsttimesinceFebruary11,2004,wasnot
stampedwiththe“SSSS”designation,hefacedsubstantiallysimilartreatment.
133. Onthatday,Mr.AbusalehwasdetainedbyCBPofficerswhoconfiscatedhis
United States passport,marked itwith a red tag, and held him in a room for secondary
questioning.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 20 of 28 Pg ID 20
21
134. WhileMr.Abusalehwasheld forquestioning,aCBPofficeraskedhim ifhe
wouldagreetofurtherquestioning,presumablybyFBIagents,athishome.
135. Asofthisdate,Mr.Abusalehcontinuestobesubjectedtosimilartreatmentto
thetreatmenthereceivedwhiledesignatedas“SSSS”everytimehetravelsbyair.
136. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Abusalehcontinuestobedesignatedonthe
federalwatchlist.
137. AtnotimewasMr.Abusalehgivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
COUNTIFAILURETOPROVIDEPOST‐DEPRIVATIONNOTICEANDHEARINGINVIOLATIONOF
THEFIFTHAMENDMENTRIGHTTOPROCEDURALDUEPROCESS(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
138. EachofthePlaintiffslearnedthatheorshewasplacedonthefederalwatch
list subsequent to being added on the federal watch list and sought to challenge such
placement.
139. Defendants’actionsasdescribedaboveinrefusingtoprovidePlaintiffswith
anyreasonorbasisfortheirplacementonthefederalwatchlistandinrefusingtoprovide
Plaintiffswithameaningfulopportunitytochallengetheircontinuedinclusiononthefederal
watchlistdeprivePlaintiffsofconstitutionallyprotectedlibertyinterests.
140. Plaintiffshavealibertyinterestintravelingfreefromunreasonableburdens
within,to,andfromtheUnitedStates,throughlandbordercrossingsandoverU.S.airspace.
141. Plaintiffs have a right to be free from false government stigmatization as
individualswhoare“knownorsuspectedtobe”terrorists,orwhoareotherwiseassociated
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 21 of 28 Pg ID 21
22
withterroristactivity,whensuchharmarisesinconjunctionwiththedeprivationoftheir
righttotravelonthesametermsasothertravelersand/orthedeprivationoftheirliberty
interestundertheFifthAmendmentintravelfreefromunreasonableburdens.
142. Plaintiffshavealibertyinterestinnonattainder(ie:theinterestagainstbeing
singledoutforpunishmentwithouttrial).Defendants’actionshavesingledoutPlaintiffsfor
punishmentsthatinclude,butarenotlimitedto,inabilitytotravelbyairandunreasonable
burdensplacedupontravelingbyairtoandfromtheUnitedStates,overU.S.airspaceand
at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals suspected of
terrorism.
143. Plaintiffs,havingbeenburdenedorpreventedfromboardingoncommercial
flightsorenteringtheUnitedStatesatlandbordercrossings,andhavingsoughttochallenge
theirplacementonthe federalwatch list,areentitledtoaconstitutionallyadequate legal
mechanism thataffords themnoticeof the reasonsandbases for theirplacementon the
federalwatchlistandameaningfulopportunitytocontesttheircontinuedinclusiononthe
federalwatchlist.
144. By failing to provide Plaintiffs with such a constitutionally adequate legal
mechanism, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their protected liberty interests,
including but not limited to their liberty interests in traveling, freedom from false
stigmatization,andnonattainder,and thushavingviolatedPlaintiffs’ constitutional rights
without affording them due process of law andwill continue to do so into the future if
Plaintiffsarenotaffordedthereliefdemandedbelow.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 22 of 28 Pg ID 22
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTIIDEPRIVATIONOFPROTECTEDLIBERTIESINVIOLATIONOFFIFTHAMENDMENT
RIGHTTOSUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESS(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
145. Plaintiffsherebyreallegeandincorporatebyreferencetheforegoing
paragraphsofthisComplaintasiffullysetforthherein.
146. Because Plaintiffs do not present a security threat to commercial aviation,
Defendants’ actions as described above in including Plaintiffs on a watch list that
unreasonablyburdensorpreventsthemfromboardingcommercialflightsorenteringthe
UnitedStatesatlandbordercrossings,arearbitrary,lackevenarationalrelationshiptoany
legitimate government interest, and have unreasonably deprived Plaintiffs of
constitutionally protected rights, including their liberty interests in travel, freedom from
falsestigmatization,andnonattainder.
147. By placing Plaintiffs on the federal watch list, Defendants have placed an
undueburdenontheirfundamentalrightofmovement.
148. Defendants’watchlistlackacompellinginterestinsofarastheirtruepurpose
is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming
informants.
149. Defendants’watch list are alsonotnarrowly tailored insofar as the federal
watchlistareentirelyanddemonstrablyineffectualandobviousalternativesexist.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 23 of 28 Pg ID 23
24
150. Defendants have thus violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without
affordingthemdueprocessoflawandwillcontinuetodosointothefutureifPlaintiffsare
notaffordedthereliefdemandedbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTIIIUNLAWFULAGENCYACTIONINVIOLATIONOFTHEADMNIISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
ACT,5U.S.C.§§702,706(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
151. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing
paragraphsofthisComplaintasiffullysetforthherein.
152. Defendants’actionsdescribedhereinwereandarearbitrary, capricious,an
abuseofdiscretion,otherwisenot inaccordancewith law,andcontrary toconstitutional
rights,power,privilege,orimmunity,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.
§706.
153. Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs, who had been unreasonably
burdenedordeniedboardingoncommercialflightsorenteringtheUnitedStatesacrossthe
border and sought to challenge their placement on the federal watch list, with a
constitutionallyadequatemechanismthataffordsthemnoticeofthereasonsandbasesfor
their placement on the federalwatch list and ameaningful opportunity to contest their
continuedinclusiononthefederalwatchlistisarbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,
otherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw,andcontrarytoconstitutionalrights,power,privilege,
orimmunity,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 24 of 28 Pg ID 24
25
154. Because Plaintiffs do not present a security threat to commercial aviation,
Defendants’actionsasdescribedaboveinincludingPlaintiffsonthefederalwatchlistthat
unreasonablyburdensorpreventsthemfromboardingcommercialflightsorenteringthe
UnitedStatesacrosstheborder,arearbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,otherwise
not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or
immunity,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTIVVIOLATIONOFTHEFIFTHAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)(EqualProtection)
155. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing
paragraphsofthisComplaintasiffullysetforthherein.
156. Defendants’above‐describedactions,policies,courseofconduct,orpatternof
practice that mandate or permit the above‐described treatment of Plaintiffs are
discriminatory and constitute an action that targets religious conduct for distinctive
treatment.
157. Defendants’above‐describedactions,policies,courseofconduct,orpatternof
practicethatmandateorpermittheabove‐describedtreatmenthavehadadiscriminatory
effectuponandhavedisparatelyimpactedMuslimAmericantravelers,andnottravelersof
otherfaiths.
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 25 of 28 Pg ID 25
26
158. Defendants’above‐describedactions,policies,courseofconduct,orpatternof
practicethatmandateorpermittheabove‐describedtreatmentdoesnotserveacompelling
stateinterestoralegitimateorpublicpurpose,noraretheynarrowlytailoredtoachieveany
suchinterest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTVVIOLATIONOFTHEFIRSTAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)(Retaliation)
159. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing
paragraphsofthisComplaintasiffullysetforthherein.
160. Defendants’ above-described actions, policies, course of conduct, or pattern of
practice were substantially prompted by and taken in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
161. Defendants’ above-described actions have deprived and continue to deprive
Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from religious discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because Defendants have
failed to providePlaintiffs,whohadbeenunreasonablyburdenedordeniedboardingon
commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings and sought to
challenge their placement on the federal watch list, with a constitutionally adequate
mechanism thataffords themnoticeof the reasonsandbases for theirplacementon the
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 26 of 28 Pg ID 26
27
federalwatchlistandameaningfulopportunitytocontesttheircontinuedinclusiononthe
federalwatchlist.
162. Defendants’ above-described actions constitute a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’
rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Administrative
Procedure Act, an adverse action against Plaintiffs motivated by Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and
practices, and an action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment.
163. Plaintiffs’ inclusion on the federal watch list does not serve a legitimate, public or
valid law enforcement purpose or a compelling state interest.
164. Even assuming the Defendants’ actions does further a compelling government
interest, Plaintiffs’ inclusion on the federal watch list is not narrowly tailored to achieve any such
interest.
165. Defendants’ motive in including Plaintiffs on the federal watch list is both
discriminatory and retaliatory.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
PrayerforRelief
WHEREFORE,Plaintiffsrespectfullyrequest:
1. AdeclaratoryjudgmentthatDefendants’policies,practices,andcustomsviolate
theFifthAmendment to theUnited StatesConstitutionand theAdministrative
ProcedureAct;
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 27 of 28 Pg ID 27
28
2. Aninjunctionthat:
a. RequiresDefendantstoremedytheconstitutionalandstatutoryviolations
identifiedabove,includingtheremovalofPlaintiffsfromanywatchlistor
databasethatburdensorpreventsthemfromflyingorenteringtheUnited
Statesacrosstheborder;
b. requires Defendants to provide individuals designated on the federal
watchlistwithalegalmechanismthataffordsthemnoticeofthereasons
andbasesfortheirplacementonthefederalwatchlistandameaningful
opportunitytocontesttheircontinuedinclusiononthefederalwatchlist;
3. Anawardofattorneys’fees,costs,andexpensesofalllitigation,pursuantto28
U.S.C.§2412;and,
4. SuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper.
JURY DEMAND
NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand
trial by jury of the above-referenced causes of action.
Respectfullysubmitted,COUNCILONAMERICAN‐ISLAMICRELATIONS,MICHIGAN /s/LenaMasri__________________ LENAF.MASRI(P73461)
AttorneyforPlaintiffs21700NorthwesternHwy,Ste.815Southfield,MI48075Phone:(248)559‐2247
lmasri@cair.comDated:August14,2014
2:14-cv-13128-LVP-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 28 of 28 Pg ID 28
Recommended