Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. _______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOC SOCIETY
`20 Jay Street, Suite 1008
`Brooklyn, NY 11201,
`
`INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY
`ASSOCIATION
`3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 980
`Los Angeles, CA 90010,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`MICHAEL R. POMPEO, in his official
`capacity as Secretary of State
`2201 C Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20520,
`
`CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as
`Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
`245 Murray Lane, SW, Mail Stop 0485
`Washington, D.C. 20528-0485,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit challenges U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) rules
`
`requiring nearly all individuals who apply for U.S. visas from abroad to register their social media
`
`identifiers with the U.S. government. These rules require an estimated 14.7 million visa applicants
`
`each year to disclose on their application forms all social media identifiers, including
`
`pseudonymous ones, they have used on any of twenty social media platforms during the preceding
`
`five years (the “Registration Requirement”). The Registration Requirement applies even to those
`
`with substantial connections to the United States, including to those already residing in the United
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`States who apply for new visas from abroad. The information collected through the Registration
`
`Requirement is retained in records systems of the State Department and U.S. Department of
`
`Homeland Security (“DHS”), shared within the U.S. government, and also disseminated, in some
`
`circumstances, to other governments. The Registration Requirement is the cornerstone of a far-
`
`reaching digital surveillance regime that enables the U.S. government to monitor visa applicants’
`
`constitutionally protected speech and associations not just at the time they apply for visas, but even
`
`after they enter the United States.
`
`2.
`
`The Registration Requirement violates the expressive and associational rights of
`
`visa applicants by compelling them to facilitate the government’s access to what is effectively a
`
`live database of their personal, creative, and political activities online. As the Supreme Court has
`
`observed, social media platforms are now among the “most important places . . . for the exchange
`
`of views.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Billions of people from
`
`around the world use social media to share information and opinions across borders, petition
`
`government officials, and advocate for social, religious, and political change. With access to visa
`
`applicants’ social media identifiers, the government can develop a detailed picture of their political
`
`and religious views; map their professional, political, and other networks; and closely track their
`
`speech and associations in real time.
`
`3.
`
`The Registration Requirement, along with related retention and dissemination
`
`policies, chills protected speech. Because of the requirement and related policies, some visa
`
`applicants who would otherwise use social media to speak to others, and to share their views about
`
`personal or political topics, refrain from doing so or publicly share less than they otherwise would.
`
`The implications of the Registration Requirement are especially significant for those who use
`
`pseudonymous identifiers. Many people use pseudonyms on social media so that they can speak
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`anonymously about sensitive or controversial issues, and so that they can shield themselves or
`
`their families or associates from possible reprisals by state or private actors. The Registration
`
`Requirement effectively conditions their eligibility for U.S. visas on their readiness to surrender
`
`their online anonymity.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs Doc Society and the International Documentary Association (“IDA”)
`
`bring this challenge because the Registration Requirement and related retention and dissemination
`
`policies violate their rights as well as the rights of their members and partners inside and outside
`
`the United States. Doc Society and IDA are U.S.-based documentary film organizations that
`
`regularly collaborate with non-U.S. filmmakers and other partners, including by inviting them to
`
`screen and discuss their work in the United States. For example, Doc Society hosts “Good Pitch”
`
`events throughout the year to facilitate filmmaking partnerships and launch social justice impact
`
`campaigns while raising funds to support these efforts. Similarly, IDA’s “Getting Real” conference
`
`brings hundreds of filmmakers from around the world together in Los Angeles to share their skills
`
`and their stories with each other.
`
`5.
`
`Many of Plaintiffs’ members and partners use social media to show their work;
`
`draw attention to human rights abuses; connect with other filmmakers, artists, and advocates; and
`
`engage with the same social and political issues that they address in their films. The Registration
`
`Requirement has a significant chilling effect on their use of social media, especially for political
`
`speech. Plaintiffs’ members and partners who anticipate applying for U.S. visas must consider the
`
`risk that a U.S. official will misinterpret their speech on social media, impute others’ speech to
`
`them, or subject them to additional scrutiny or delayed processing because of the views they or
`
`their contacts have expressed. Those who use pseudonymous identifiers must take into account
`
`that they will have to relinquish their online anonymity to U.S. officials when they submit their
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`visa applications, and they must also consider the risk that U.S. officials will disclose their social
`
`media identifiers to foreign governments, reveal the identifiers inadvertently, or fail to protect the
`
`identifiers from third parties who might access them unlawfully. In recent months, authoritarian
`
`and other rights-abusing regimes, including some U.S. allies, have used information gleaned from
`
`social media to identify, locate, and detain human rights advocates, journalists, and political
`
`dissidents—and even, in some instances, to have them killed.
`
`6.
`
`Because of the Registration Requirement, some of Plaintiffs’ members and partners
`
`now use social media more cautiously, use it less, or no longer use it at all for speech that could
`
`be construed as controversial or political. In addition, some of Plaintiffs’ members and partners
`
`who had considered applying for visas to visit or work in the United States have decided against
`
`doing so to avoid having to surrender their social media identifiers to the U.S. government and
`
`submit to indefinite surveillance of their speech and associations. The Registration Requirement
`
`impairs their professional activities, including their ability to collaborate with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’
`
`members and partners cannot challenge the Registration Requirement themselves, however,
`
`because doing so would require them to give up the very anonymity or obscurity that they seek to
`
`protect.
`
`7.
`
`The Registration Requirement, along with related retention and dissemination
`
`policies, also directly infringes Plaintiffs’ expressive and associational rights, as well as those of
`
`their members, partners, and audiences here in the United States. The requirement burdens
`
`Plaintiffs’ ability to discover and spotlight the work of non-U.S. members and partners and to learn
`
`about issues confronting their filmmaking communities. It also deprives Plaintiffs’ U.S. members
`
`and partners of the opportunity to hear the speech that non-U.S. members and partners otherwise
`
`would have shared on social media. Additionally, because some will no longer apply for visas to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`come to the United States, the requirement limits which non-U.S. members and partners the
`
`Plaintiff organizations can include in their flagship events, thereby compromising their ability to
`
`promote those events and their organizations, and depriving their U.S. members, partners, and
`
`audiences of the opportunity to engage with those foreign filmmakers and other partners in person
`
`in the United States.
`
`8.
`
`While the implications of the Registration Requirement for individual rights are
`
`profound, the requirement is not necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interests in
`
`adjudicating visa applications, enforcing the immigration laws, or protecting national security. In
`
`adopting the Registration Requirement, the State Department cited no evidence that it is likely to
`
`be an effective, let alone necessary, means of serving those interests. Indeed, the State Department
`
`disregarded contrary evidence in the administrative record, including public comments explaining
`
`the difficulties of interpreting social media information across different languages, customs, and
`
`cultural norms, and public comments highlighting DHS’s documented failures in establishing the
`
`usefulness of screening social media
`
`information
`
`in connection with visa eligibility
`
`determinations.
`
`9.
`
`As described further below,
`
`the Registration Requirement violates
`
`the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because it exceeds the Secretary of
`
`State’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.,
`
`because it is contrary to constitutional right, and because it is arbitrary and capricious. The
`
`Registration Requirement, as well as related retention and dissemination policies, also violates the
`
`First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare the
`
`Registration Requirement and related retention and dissemination policies to be unlawful, and
`
`enjoin the government from enforcing or relying on them. While Plaintiffs acknowledge that there
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`may be circumstances in which the government could lawfully investigate specific visa applicants’
`
`use of social media on the basis of individualized concerns of fraud or other wrongdoing, a
`
`mandate that requires nearly all visa applicants to register their social media identifiers, including
`
`pseudonymous ones, and that enables continuing surveillance of their speech and associations,
`
`even after they enter the country, cannot be reconciled with Defendants’ statutory authority or the
`
`Constitution.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal statutory
`
`claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has authority to issue declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 5
`
`U.S.C. § 706, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`and the Court’s inherent equitable powers. The Court has authority to award costs and attorneys’
`
`fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (e)(1).
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Doc Society is a non-profit organization committed to supporting
`
`documentary filmmakers and connecting them with global audiences. Doc Society is based in New
`
`York, New York, and London, England.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff International Documentary Association (“IDA”)
`
`is a non-profit,
`
`membership-based association of documentary filmmakers. IDA is based in Los Angeles,
`
`California.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Michael R. Pompeo is the Secretary of State. The State Department is
`
`an agency of the federal government of the United States located in Washington, D.C. Defendant
`
`Pompeo has authority over all State Department policies and practices, including those challenged
`
`here. Plaintiffs sue him in his official capacity.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Chad F. Wolf is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. DHS is an
`
`agency of the federal government of the United States located in Washington, D.C. Defendant
`
`Wolf has authority over all DHS policies and practices, including those challenged here. Plaintiffs
`
`sue him in his official capacity.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`U.S. Visa Applications
`
`17.
`
`The INA requires applicants for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to submit
`
`certain information in order to establish their identities and their eligibility for the visas they seek.
`
`The INA provides that an applicant for an immigrant visa must submit:
`
`his full and true name, and any other name which he has used or by
`which he has been known; age and sex; the date and place of his
`birth; and such additional information necessary to the identification
`of the applicant and the enforcement of the immigration and
`nationality laws as may be by regulations prescribed.
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1202(a). The INA provides that an applicant for a nonimmigrant visa must submit:
`
`his full and true name, the date and place of birth, his nationality,
`the purpose and length of his intended stay in the United States; his
`marital status; and such additional information necessary to the
`identification of the applicant, the determination of his eligibility for
`a nonimmigrant visa, and the enforcement of the immigration and
`nationality laws as may be by regulations prescribed.
`
`Id. § 1202(c).
`
`18.
`
`State Department regulations elaborate on the INA’s visa application requirements,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`specifying the forms that visa applicants must submit and authorizing consular officers to require
`
`applicants to answer questions or provide additional information as necessary to determine their
`
`visa eligibility.
`
`19. With respect to immigrant visas, State Department regulations require applicants to
`
`submit Form DS-260, the Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration. 22
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(a)(1). Form DS-260 poses a series of specific questions that directly relate to the
`
`applicant’s identity and eligibility for a visa, including questions regarding the applicant’s family,
`
`health, travel, work history, and criminal history, as well as questions related to national security.
`
`20.
`
`The State Department’s regulations provide that immigrant visa applicants may be
`
`required to provide additional information if necessary to verify their identities or to determine
`
`their visa eligibility. Specifically, the regulations provide that consular officers “may require the
`
`submission of additional information or question the [applicant] on any relevant matter whenever
`
`the officer believes that the information provided in . . . Form DS-260 is inadequate to determine
`
`the [applicant’s] eligibility to receive an immigrant visa.” Id. § 42.63(c).
`
`21. With respect to nonimmigrant visas, State Department regulations require
`
`applicants to submit Form DS-160, the Online Application for Nonimmigrant Visa. Id.
`
`§ 41.103(a)(1). Like Form DS-260, Form DS-160 poses a series of questions directly relating to
`
`the applicant’s identity and eligibility for a visa, including questions regarding the applicant’s
`
`family, health, travel, work history, and criminal history, as well as questions related to national
`
`security.
`
`22.
`
`The State Department’s regulations provide that nonimmigrant visa applicants may
`
`be required to provide additional information if necessary to verify their identities or to determine
`
`their visa eligibility. Most applicants are required to appear for a personal interview, at which they
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`must “provide a biometric, which will serve to authenticate identity and additionally verify the
`
`accuracy and truthfulness of the statements in the application at the time of interview.” Id.
`
`§ 41.103(b)(2). The regulations further provide that a consular officer “may require the submission
`
`of additional necessary information or question an [applicant] on any relevant matter whenever the
`
`consular officer believes that the information provided in the application is inadequate to permit a
`
`determination of the [applicant’s] eligibility to receive a nonimmigrant visa.” Id.
`
`23.
`
`Regardless of nationality and with only narrow exceptions, all individuals applying
`
`from abroad for immigrant visas must complete Form DS-260, and all individuals applying from
`
`abroad for nonimmigrant visas must complete Form DS-160. For a variety of reasons, it is common
`
`for non-citizens who live in the United States to apply for new visas, or to renew their existing
`
`visas, from abroad. To the extent they do this, they, too, are required to submit Form DS-260 or
`
`Form DS-160, as applicable.
`
`The Registration Requirement
`
`24.
`
`In recent years, federal agencies have experimented with the use of social media
`
`surveillance for visa-related purposes. In December 2015, for example, DHS established a task
`
`force to test the effectiveness of social media screening in assessing the eligibility of certain visa
`
`applicants and nonimmigrant visa holders through pilot programs conducted by U.S. Citizen and
`
`Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and Customs
`
`and Border Protection (“CBP”). In February 2017, however, the DHS Inspector General reported
`
`that these pilot programs had failed to establish that social media screening was an effective tool
`
`for screening visa applicants or identifying national security threats and thus were an inadequate
`
`basis on which to build broader initiatives.
`
`25.
`
`Notwithstanding the lack of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of social
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`media screening for visa-related purposes, the State Department subsequently introduced the
`
`Registration Requirement as part of a broader effort to implement President Trump’s so-called
`
`“extreme vetting” program. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order and
`
`signed a memorandum directing the Secretary of State and other Cabinet officials to implement
`
`procedures for the “enhanced” vetting of applications for visas and other immigration benefits. See
`
`Executive Order 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209, 13,215 (Mar. 9, 2017) (signed Mar. 6, 2017);
`
`Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland
`
`Security, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,279, 16,279 (Apr. 3, 2017) (signed Mar. 6, 2017). Citing President
`
`Trump’s March 6, 2017 executive order and memorandum, the State Department proposed the
`
`Registration Requirement in two notices issued on March 30, 2018. 60-Day Notice of Proposed
`
`Information Collection: Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`13,806 (Mar. 30, 2018); 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for
`
`Nonimmigrant Visa, 83 Fed. Reg. 13,807 (Mar. 30, 2018).
`
`26.
`
`The March 2018 notices received over ten thousand public comments, the vast
`
`majority of which opposed the Registration Requirement. Over six thousand comments raised
`
`concerns that the new requirement would undermine the freedoms of speech, expression, and
`
`association, invade individuals’ privacy, or deter travel to the United States. Additionally,
`
`hundreds of comments highlighted evidence showing that social media communications are
`
`difficult, if not impossible, to interpret accurately—especially in the context of foreign languages
`
`and cultures. Relying on the government’s own reports, many comments observed that social
`
`media screening is an ineffective and unreliable means of verifying individuals’ identities,
`
`confirming their eligibility for visas, and assessing any threat they might pose to national security.
`
`Only eighty-seven comments expressed support for the Registration Requirement.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`27.
`
`The State Department nonetheless updated Form DS-260 and Form DS-160 to
`
`include the Registration Requirement on May 31, 2019. In its final supporting statements, the State
`
`Department wrote that the Registration Requirement would enable consular officers, in
`
`coordination with State Department officials and other federal agencies, to confirm applicants’
`
`identities and determine their visa eligibility under U.S. law. Despite a conclusory statement that
`
`visa applicants’ social media information “is necessary to make these determinations,” however,
`
`the State Department cited no evidence indicating that social media screening of the kind made
`
`possible by the Registration Requirement is a reliable means of identifying visa applicants or
`
`determining their visa eligibility. Nor did the State Department explain the necessity of imposing
`
`the Registration Requirement on millions of visa applicants each year whose identification and
`
`eligibility determinations pose no difficulties for consular officers. Nor did the State Department
`
`explain why the retention of visa applicants’ social media information beyond their visa eligibility
`
`determinations is necessary for those purposes.
`
`28.
`
`Since the Registration Requirement took effect, nearly all individuals applying for
`
`U.S. visas from abroad have been compelled to disclose on Form DS-260 or Form DS-160, as
`
`applicable, all social media identifiers they have used on the following social media platforms in
`
`the five years preceding their applications: Facebook, Flickr, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn,
`
`Myspace, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Vine, and YouTube; the Chinese sites Douban, QQ,
`
`Sina Weibo, Tencent Weibo, and Youku; the Russian social network VK; the Belgian site Twoo;
`
`and the Latvian site Ask.fm. Applicants are also asked to provide identifiers they have used on
`
`other, non-listed platforms if they “wish” to do so.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 12 of 35
`
`29.
`
`The Registration Requirement appears on Form DS-260 as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 13 of 35
`
`30.
`
`The Registration Requirement appears on Form DS-160 as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`The Registration Requirement is mandatory and makes no exception for applicants
`
`who use pseudonymous social media identifiers. The State Department has made clear that visa
`
`applicants who have used any of the social media platforms listed on Form DS-260 or Form DS-
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`160 in the preceding five years are required to provide the associated social media identifiers on
`
`the application form, and that failure to provide complete and truthful responses to visa application
`
`questions may result in denial of a visa.
`
`32.
`
`The Registration Requirement applies nearly universally, with only a few narrow
`
`exceptions for, e.g., diplomatic and official travelers. It applies even in contexts in which consular
`
`officers do not need any additional information, including social media information, to confirm
`
`applicants’ identities or determine their visa eligibility. The State Department has estimated that
`
`the Registration Requirement applies to more than 14 million applicants each year.
`
`33.
`
`The Registration Requirement makes no exception for applicants who have
`
`established significant voluntary connections to the United States. The requirement applies to those
`
`who reside in the United States but renew their visas or apply for new ones from abroad; those
`
`who have pursued undergraduate or graduate degrees in the United States; those who have worked
`
`for years in the United States and who hope to continue their careers in the United States; and
`
`those with extensive familial connections to the United States.
`
`Retention and Dissemination of Visa Applicants’ Social Media Information
`
`34.
`
`State Department and DHS policies contemplate that information collected through
`
`the Registration Requirement will be retained indefinitely, disseminated widely within the U.S.
`
`government, and, in some circumstances, disclosed to foreign governments. For example:
`
`35.
`
`The State Department stores information collected through the Registration
`
`Requirement in its Consular Consolidated Database (“CCD”), which contains the agency’s visa
`
`records system. In addition to the State Department, agencies that can access the visa records
`
`system for a wide range of purposes include DHS, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S.
`
`Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The State Department also makes
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`
`information from the visa records system available in certain circumstances to Congress; to state,
`
`local, and tribal government officials; and to foreign governments.
`
`36.
`
`DHS maintains copies of the State Department’s nonimmigrant and immigrant visa
`
`data stored in the CCD in its own Automated Targeting System (“ATS”), a system of records that
`
`“allows users to search data across many different databases and systems to provide a consolidated
`
`view of data about a person or entity.” U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, DHS/CBP/PIA-006(e),
`
`Privacy Impact Assessment Update for the Automated Targeting System 1 (Jan. 13, 2017). DHS
`
`sometimes discloses information in ATS to other agencies, as well as to foreign governments. At
`
`least seventy-eight foreign governments may obtain information from ATS pursuant to Customs
`
`Mutual Assistance Agreements.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, DHS retains social media information collected through
`
`the Registration Requirement in the Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of
`
`Records. This system of records houses individuals’ “official immigration record[s],” called “A-
`
`Files,” for 100 years after their dates of birth, at which point the records are archived. DHS uses
`
`the data stored in A-Files to facilitate the administration of immigration benefits and determination
`
`of employment eligibility, among other purposes. In September 2017, DHS issued a System of
`
`Records Notice in the Federal Register indicating that A-Files include “social media handles,
`
`aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results.” U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security
`
`System of Records Notice, 82 Fed. Reg. 43,556, 43,557 (Sept. 18, 2017). DHS policy permits the
`
`dissemination of A-File information not only to other DHS components with a “need to know” the
`
`information, but also to “appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international
`
`government agencies,” and to current and prospective employers, among other third parties. Id. at
`
`43,558, 43,562.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 16 of 35
`
`
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants and their components rely on information
`
`collected through the Registration Requirement to monitor visa applicants’ social media activities
`
`even after they enter the United States. For example, ICE recently launched a program to monitor
`
`the social media activities of visa holders and applicants for immigration benefits. In May 2018,
`
`ICE announced that it would seek to hire about 180 people to monitor the social media activity of
`
`10,000 people per year.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs are U.S.-based documentary film organizations that carry out their
`
`missions by producing conferences, screenings, filmmaking labs, and film projects in close
`
`collaboration with filmmakers and other partners from around the world. Plaintiffs bring this suit
`
`on behalf of (i) themselves; (ii) their non-U.S. members and partners who have applied for U.S.
`
`visas since the Registration Requirement went into effect; who intend to apply for U.S. visas in
`
`the near future; or who will no longer apply for U.S. visas because of the Registration Requirement;
`
`and (iii) their U.S. members, partners, and audiences who wish to engage with their non-U.S.
`
`members and partners online or in person.
`
`Plaintiffs and their Members and Partners
`
`40.
`
`Founded in 2005, Doc Society seeks to enable the creation of documentary films
`
`that drive social change and to connect those films to global audiences. Doc Society accomplishes
`
`its mission by partnering with filmmakers, activists, foundations, philanthropists, and
`
`policymakers around the world. Doc Society provides its partners with funding for film projects,
`
`educational and promotional resources, and cross-sector networking opportunities at forums
`
`hosted all over the world. For example, Doc Society hosts “Good Pitch” events throughout the
`
`year to connect filmmakers with potential funders and supporters in order to forge coalitions and
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 17 of 35
`
`
`
`campaigns that will drive change. To date, Good Pitch events have featured over 130 film projects
`
`from sixty different countries. Over 5,137 organizations have participated in these events, leading
`
`to more than 1,700 partnerships and 119 social justice impact campaigns. All told, Good Pitch
`
`events have raised $30 million over the past ten years. Doc Society also recognizes documentary
`
`films that have had significant and measurable social impact with its “Doc Impact Hi5” awards
`
`program. Through the Doc Impact Hi5 awards, Doc Society seeks to engage new fans with the
`
`selected films; to attract new partners for the films’ social impact campaigns; and to share best
`
`practices for social impact campaigns with Doc Society’s community.
`
`41.
`
`Founded in 1982, IDA is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support a
`
`global community of documentary filmmakers in order to foster a more informed, compassionate,
`
`and connected world. Its community of filmmakers includes over 2,700 dues-paying members
`
`across fifty-three countries. In service of its mission, IDA funds films and filmmakers and hosts
`
`dozens of screenings, conferences, workshops, and other events throughout the United States each
`
`year. In the past year alone, IDA organized over thirty events in Los Angeles, New York City, and
`
`Austin. These events included workshops on grant writing, new technologies, and legal issues; a
`
`conversation series with renowned documentary filmmakers; awards events; and film screenings.
`
`Every two years, IDA partners with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to host the
`
`“Getting Real” conference, where peers throughout the documentary field share skills and
`
`information and build networks to help accelerate their careers and amplify their stories. Each year,
`
`IDA holds the IDA Documentary Awards ceremony in Los Angeles to recognize outstanding
`
`documentary films. Building international bridges across the documentary community through in-
`
`person interactions at these events and online interactions beyond these events is central to IDA’s
`
`mission.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-03632 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 Page 18 of 35
`
`
`
`42. Many of Plaintiffs’ non-U.S. members and partners had plans to come to the United
`
`States, or have plans to come to the United States in the near future, to take advantage of
`
`professional or educational opportunities, including collaborating with Plaintiffs or participating
`
`in Plaintiffs’ events. These members and partners are nationals of, among other countries,
`
`Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, England, Finland, India, Kenya, Palestine, Mexico, Spain, and
`
`Turkey. A number of these members and partners intend or intended to apply for O-1 visas as
`
`artists of extraordinary ability or for I visas as representatives of the foreign media. Some of them
`
`have recently applied or are currently applying for U.S. visas.
`
`43. Many of Plaintiffs’ non-U.S. members and partners have substantial connections to
`
`the United States. Some already live in the United States but must renew their visas to continue
`
`their lives and their work here. Some have family members in the United States. Some have spent
`
`several years pursuing arts, journalism, or other degrees at U.S. universities. Others have
`
`significant work experience in the United States, shooting films on social or human rights issues
`
`or participat