Nat Bach

@natbach.bsky.social

178 Followers 184 Following

Litigator @ Manatt media & entertainment law, copyright, tech, First Amendment, AI, music / pro bono impact litigation https://www.manatt.com/nathaniel-l-bach

“IKEA has better cabinets”
“Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski!”
Copyright and unfair competition lawsuit over headstone design
Princess bride meme: “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”
Defendant USCIS is ENJOINED from asserting, adopting, or relying in any proceedings on any statement or record made as of this date purporting to allege or establish that Mr. Ramirez is a gang member, gang affiliated, or a threat to public safety.
These conclusory findings have since been contradicted by experts and other evidence. For example, the arresting officer states that Mr. Ramirez was questioned about his “gang tattoo.” That tattoo consists of the words “La Paz – BCS” and a nautical star. However, as Mr. Ramirez has explained, “La Paz” is his birthplace, “BCS” stands for Baja California Sur (the region in which La Paz is located), and the nautical star is a popular symbol. Dkt. #35-1 at ¶ ¶ 23-25. Mr. Martin Flores, who has served as a gang expert in more than 700 cases, indicated that he has “never seen a gang member with a similar tattoo nor would [he] attribute this tattoo to have any gang-related meaning.” Dkt. #35-7 at ¶ ¶ 2 and 11. Defendants have produced no evidence to the contrary.
Most troubling to the Court, is the continued assertion that Mr. Ramirez is gang-affiliated, despite providing no evidence specific to Mr. Ramirez to the Immigration Court in connection with his administrative proceedings, and offering no evidence to this Court to support its assertions four months later. Dkts. #122-1, Ex. D and #129 at 20:20-21:7. Indeed, the Immigration Judge, after reviewing all evidence submitted by respondent, that Mr. Ramirez was credible, and that he was not in a gang or associated with one. Dkt. #124-1. For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ continued assertion that Plaintiff is a gang member or gang-affiliated is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the APA. See, e.g., Abdur-Rahman v. Napolitano, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1110 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (revocation of approved petition to support noncitizen’s permanent resident status was “arbitrary and capricious” where “agency failed to articulate a rational explanation for its decision”). Thus Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. As a result, the first factor in the preliminary injunction inquiry tips in Plaintiff's favor.