1. Lopez-venegas v. johnson
Reuniting Families: Historic Agreement Allows Certain Deported Individuals to Return to U.S.
Lopez-venegas v. johnson

2. IMMIGRANTS HAVE RIGHTS
Immigrants in the United States have certain rights. One of the most fundamental of these rights is the right to see a judge before being deported from the country.
Immigrants in the United States have certain rights. One of the most fundamental of these rights is the right to see a judge before being deported from the country. This right applies to all immigrants who have lived in the United States for some period of time and have never been deported or ordered removed. (NB: this statement still isn’t quite true b/c immigrants who commit a felony can be deported w/o seeing an IJ)

3. What is Voluntary Return?
“Voluntary Return” is an informal process by which an individual who has been detained by Border Patrol or ICE agrees to be immediately expelled from the United States in lieu of formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
WHAT IS SALIDA VOLUNTARIA?
“Voluntary Return” is an informal process in which an individual who has been detained by Border Patrol or ICE agrees to be immediately expelled from the United States instead of formal deportation proceedings in front of an immigration judge.
What is Voluntary Return?

4. The Investigation, Pt. 1
The disastrous consequences of the voluntary return regime first came to the attention of the ACLU on May 20, 2009.
Three teenaged Mexican students were on their way to school when a Border Patrol agent demanded their papers and detained them at a Border Patrol station, where agents pressured the students to sign voluntary return forms.
The disastrous consequences of the voluntary return regime first came to the attention of the ACLU on May 20, Three teenaged Mexican students were on their way to school when a Border Patrol agent demanded their papers and detained them at a Border Patrol station. Immigration attorneys and family members of the students tried desperately to intervene, but were told that they could find the students in Tijuana in three hours – to Border Patrol, their expulsion from the country was a foregone conclusion. Indeed, when one of the students had the wherewithal to request to speak to an attorney, she was told, “No lawyer can set foot in here – there’s nothing they can do.” Border Patrol agents convinced the students that signing for voluntary return was their only option, and the students were expelled from the U.S. within hours. Fortunately, the ACLU was able to advocate administratively for the students and win their reentry to the United States. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident.

5. The Investigation, Pt. 2
The ACLU began investigating voluntary return and discovered that for years, countless families throughout Southern California have been torn apart by immigration enforcement agencies’ coercive and deceptive voluntary return practices.
As a matter of standard practice, ICE and Border Patrol have misinformed immigrants about the consequences of voluntary return and have withheld the fact that voluntary return can trigger a ten year bar against returning to the United States.
ACLU began investigating “voluntary return” and discovered that for years, countless families throughout Southern California have been torn apart by immigration enforcement agencies’ coercive and deceptive “voluntary return” practices. As a matter of standard practice, ICE and Border Patrol have misinformed immigrants about the consequences of “voluntary return,” including withholding the fact that “voluntary return” can trigger a ten year bar against returning to the United States. And in many cases, immigration officers used pressure and threats to force people to sign “voluntary return” orders. Faced with such pressure, threats, and misinformation, many immigrants have signed away their rights without understanding the consequences, and have been separated from their families and lives in the United States.

6. Each individual plaintiff :
Has significant family ties in the United States
Lacks any serious criminal history
Would have had a strong claim to stay in the United States lawfully had immigration officers not misinformed or pressured them to accept voluntary return.
(NB: We amended the complaint in October to include additional plaintiffs. Through the lawsuit, the individual plaintiffs sought to return to the United States and to receive a fair immigration hearing. The organizations sought systemic reforms to the “voluntary return” process throughout Southern California.)
The Lawsuit In June 2013, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit, Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, on behalf of two Southern California immigrants’ rights organizations as well as seven individuals who the government had expelled through unfair voluntary returns.

7. The Settlement Approved on February 25, 2015
UNFAIR VOLUNTARY RETURNS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
After more than a year of litigation, including intensive discovery and the depositions of key government officials, the government agreed to significant reforms of the “voluntary return” system in Southern California.

8. Systemic Reforms
Under a settlement agreed to by the parties involved in the lawsuit, government officials must:
Provide detailed information—in writing, orally, and through a hotline—regarding the consequences of taking “voluntary return” to non-citizens asked to choose between “voluntary return” and a hearing before a judge;
Cease “pre-checking” the box selecting “voluntary return” on the forms the agencies provide to non-citizens;
Permit non-citizens to use a working phone, provide them with a list of legal service providers, and allow them two hours to reach someone before deciding whether to accept “voluntary return”;
Provide lawyers meaningful access to clients detained by Border Patrol or ICE;
Cease pressuring or coercing individuals to accept “voluntary return”;
Allow ACLU attorneys to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement for three years.

9. Systemic Reforms
Immigration enforcement officers must not pressure, coerce or threaten an individual who does not wish to elect VR.
This includes refraining from providing legal advice regarding the availability of relief from removal, the potential length of detention or the likelihood that an individual will be allowed to return to the United States is she/he elects VR.
An individual may rescind a signed VR at any time prior to physical departure from the United States.
Border Patrol and ICE must cease “pre-checking” the box selecting “voluntary return” on the VR form (I-826), each individual must mark and put her/his initials by her/his selection, and officers must provide each individual with a copy of the completed I-826.

10. Systemic Reforms
Immigration enforcement officers must provide oral advisals regarding the following legal consequences:
The loss of opportunity to apply for certain forms of relief available only to people who are physically present in the United States (DACA, Cancellation of Removal, etc);
The triggering of unlawful presence bars (3-10 years);
The possibility of bond and/or release, in addition to the possibility of detention, if VR is declined; and
The option of rescinding a VR before departing the United States.
The I-826 will be modified to include the advisals mentioned above.
Notice of the advisals mention above will be posted in English and Spanish in any location where VRs are processed.

11. Systemic Reforms
Border Patrol and ICE must permit individuals to use a working phone, provide them with a list of free legal service providers, allow them to call the consulate, and allow them two hours to reach a legal representative, the consulate, or a family member before deciding whether to accept voluntary return.
Border Patrol and ICE must provide lawyers meaningful access to detained clients and must accommodate any incoming calls from attorneys or BIA accredited representatives.
Border Patrol and ICE must create and maintain a toll free advisal hotline and provide individuals access to the hotline before offering them VR.
Border Patrol and ICE have agreed to allow ACLU attorneys to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement for three years.

12. As a result of the settlement, all of our plaintiffs were allowed to return to the United States and their families in August They will finally have the opportunity present their case before an immigration judge.
Homecoming

13. Class settlement
The settlement also includes provisions that will allow some of the hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals who have been expelled from the United States pursuant to unlawful voluntary returns to reunite with their families here.
CLASS SETTLEMENT:
The settlement also includes provisions that, if approved by the court, would allow some of the hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals who have been expelled from the United States pursuant to unlawful “voluntary returns” to reunite with their families here.
[Alternative: What does it mean that this is a class action? It means that the lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to obtain relief for a group of individuals who are similar circumstances to the plaintiffs, that is, individuals who were removed from the United States pursuant to a “voluntary return” and remain in Mexico.]

14. Class Eligibility
In order to qualify for class membership, an individual must:
Have been returned to Mexico by means of “voluntary return” between June 1, 2009 and August 28, 2014;
Have been returned by Border Patrol San Diego Sector or ICE Los Angeles or San Diego Field Office;
Be in Mexico at the time of application for class membership ;
Have had a claim to remain in the United States at the time of the voluntary return.
CLASS ELIGIBILITY
In order to qualify for class membership, an individual must
Have been returned to Mexico by means of “voluntary return” between June 1, 2009 and August 28, 2014
Have been returned by Border Patrol San Diego Sector or ICE Los Angeles or San Diego Field Office
Be in Mexico at the time of application for class membership
Have had a claim to remain in the United States at the time of the voluntary return. (NB: we could elaborate more if appropriate)

15. Searching for Affected Family Members
Counties targeted:
San Diego
Imperial
Riverside
San Bernardino
Orange
Los Angeles
Ventura
Santa Barbara
San Luis Obispo
One of the most important qualifications to be a class member is to have had a claim to remain in the United States at the time of the voluntary return. Class members will not have been recent entries, they will have strong ties to the United States, usually strong family ties. Our outreach both through media and community organizations in California will focus on finding affected family members. We hope to accomplish this through a media campaign and partnerships with immigrant rights’ advocates throughout California, with a special focus on counties that are covered by the Los Angeles and San Diego Field Offices of ICE and those covered by the San Diego sector of Border Patrol.
Searching for Affected Family Members

16. Finding Class Members Focusing on sender communities in: Michoacán
Guanajuato
Jalisco
Chiapas
Oaxaca
Estado de México y D.F.
Guerrero
Sinaloa
Puebla
Veracruz
Although we will begin our outreach in Baja California, because of the time period covered by the settlement, it is likely that potential class members will have moved away from the border since Our outreach in Mexico will be expansive and ultimately focus on building relationships with migrant advocates in sender communities to cover all sectors of the migratory path.
Finding Class Members

17. Do you know a class member?
The application process:
First, contact the ACLU for a free consultation. You may reach us at (from the U.S.), (from Mexico), or at
The ACLU will return all calls and s and conduct an initial consultation. If an individual passes the initial screening, the ACLU may submit an application for class membership for the individual.
Approved class members will be permitted to return to the United States and may be placed in removal proceedings.
Do you know a class member?
Many people have been removed to Mexico, but only some will qualify for relief under Lopez- Venegas v. Johnson.
The application period ends on December 22, It’s important for potential class member to contact the ACLU as soon as possible.

18. Be Wary of Fraud
Only the ACLU and Approved Service Providers will be authorized to submit class membership applications.
The entire consultation and approval process will be free.
Know that qualifying as a class member is not the same as receiving lawful immigration status.

19. Questions? About monitoring the settlement’s systemic reforms:
For class membership application and information:
from the U.S., or from Mexico.