Additional Counsel Listed Next Page Attorneys For Plaintiffs

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 1 of 130 Page ID #:2122
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232) Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754) 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309) Facsimile: (213) 386-9484 pschey@centerforhumanrights.org crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org Additional counsel listed next page Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) COMBINED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND CLASS CERTIFICATION.
15 MARTIN R. ARANAS, 16 IRMA RODRIGUEZ, AND JANE DELEON, 17 18 19 20 -vs21 JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the 22 Department of Homeland Security; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 23 SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, 24 Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and 25 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 26 27 28 Defendants. __________________________________ Plaintiffs,
Hearing: November 20, 2012 Time: 10:00 am Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibits In Support Preliminary Injunction, etc. -2Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas: PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714) Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112) 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249) Facsimile: (714) 541-5157 jgreenwald@publiclawcenter.org mashiku@publiclawcenter.org ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064) 184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-9710 Facsimile: (408) 287-0864 Email: bpangilinan@asianlawalliance.org Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon: LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469) Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931) 10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: 714-963-8951 Facsimile: 714-968-4948 gmanulkin@mgblaw.com reynatanner@yahoo.com ///
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 14 12 11 6 7 8 9 10 5 4 3
No. Description
INDEX TO EXHIBITS Page
1 2
[Denial of plaintiff DeLeons] Motion to Reopen or Reconsider, November 9, 2011 ............................................ 1 In re Handi Lui, No A097-369-452 (BIA January 20, 2011) ................................................................................... 4 Declaration of Kevin Cathcart, November 23, 2012 ........................................................................................................ 8 Gates, Gary J., Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey (October 2006) ..................................................................................... 14 Gates, Gary J., How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? (April 2011) ..................................... 40 Declaration of Todd Fernandez, November 2, 2012 ...................................................................................................... 49 Decision [denying plaintiff DeLeon adjustment of status], September 1, 2011 ............................................................... 54 Notice of Deposition, September 10, 2012 .......................................... 59 Letter from J. Carlson to P. Schey, September 24 2012 ................................................................................................. 66 Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, etc., September 24 2012............................................................................... 70 Declaration of Gloria Curiel, November 5, 2012 ...................................................................................................... 95 Declaration of Elissa Barrett, November 5, 2012 .................................................................................................... 100 Notice of Decision re: Application of Martha Reyes, September 26, 2011 ................................................................ 105 In re Torres-Barragan (BIA October 23, 2009) ................................ 108
-3Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693
Exhibits In Support Preliminary Injunction, etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
15
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Annual Flow Report, April 2012 .......................................................................................... 111 Declaration of Gary Manulkin, November 5, 2012 .................................................................................................... 118 Decision [denying Holga Martinez adjustment of status], September 1, 2011 ............................................................. 122 CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey Carlos R. Holgun PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald Marzouk Monica Ashiku ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin Reyna M. Tanner /s/ Peter A. Schey ________________ /s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________ Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16 17
Dated: November 6, 2012.
///
-4-
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693
Exhibit 1
-1-
-2-
-3-
Exhibit 2
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
Exhibit 3
-8-
-9-
- 10 -
- 11 -
- 12 -
- 13 -
Exhibit 4
- 14 -
Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey
October 2006
Gary J. Gates, PhD Senior Research Fellow, The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law
- 15 -
INTRODUCTION
The news that same-sex couples lived in nearly every county of the United States marked one of most reported on statistics from the release of Census 2000 data. Since then, policy debates focusing on marriage and partnership rights for same-sex couples have led academics and policy-makers alike to use these data in hopes of gaining a more complete and accurate understanding of this population (e.g., Gates and Ost 2004; Congressional Budget Office 2004; Badgett and Sears 2005). The release of new data from the American Community Survey (ACS) this month offers the first opportunity to update what we have learned and to assess possible changes in the geographic and demographic characteristics of same-sex couples. Analyses of the ACS 2005 data reveal that: The number of same-sex couples in the U.S. grew by more than 30 percent from 2000 to 2005, from nearly 600,000 couples in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005. Such an increase is five times the six percent rate of growth in the U.S. population. Most likely as stigma associated with same-sex partnering and homosexuality in general decreases, more same-sex couples are willing to identify themselves as such on government surveys like the ACS. At the state level, the largest percentage increase in the number of same-sex couples occurred throughout the Midwest, an area that had relatively low rates of these couples in Census 2000. The ten states with the largest percentage increase include Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. In addition, Colorado and New Hampshire also ranked in the top ten in terms of percentage growth. Six of the eight states with a 2006 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage-Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin-experienced increases in the number of same-sex couples in excess of the national rate of 30 percent. There are an estimated 8.8 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) persons in the U.S. Among the states, California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Illinois have the largest GLB populations along with the District of Columbia. New York, Los
October 2006
WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY
- 16 -
Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston have the largest GLB populations among metropolitan areas. Ranking states by the percentage of the adult population who are GLB, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Washington, Massachusetts and Maine come out on top. Among large metropolitan areas, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Portland (OR), and Tampa rank in the top five in this statistic. Same-sex couples are found in all Congressional districts in the U.S. The release of the 2005 ACS marks the first time that data regarding same-sex couples are available for current Congressional districts. Congressional districts with the highest number and percentage of GLB individuals in the population tend to be more urban with California's 8th district (San Francisco) ranking first in both categories.
INCREASED BY
THE NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES UNITED STATES FROM 2000-2005
30%
IN THE
Census 2000 officially counted 594,391 same-sex couples in the United States. As of 2005, that figure has grown to an estimated 776,943 couples, an increase of more than 30 percent. In contrast, the national population grew by only 6% from 2000 to 2005. The increase was larger for male couples (37 percent) than for female couples (24 percent). Of the same-sex couples, 413,095 (53 percent) are male and 363,848 (47 percent) are female.
October 2006
Note that Census 2000 counts come from an actual count of the full U.S. population, while data from the American Community Survey are estimates drawn from a 1.4 million household sample of the U.S. population. The ACS is designed to replace the long-form in the 2010 census.
MORE SAME-SEX MIDWEST

COUPLES ARE IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES IN THE
The pattern of the increases in same-sex couples is not uniform across the country. As shown in the map below and in Table 1, the largest increases are observed in New Hampshire, many states across the Midwest, and Washington. Smaller increases are observed in more populous states like California and Texas.
22
- 17 -
October 2006
Notably, six of the eight states with measures to ban same-sex marriage on the 2006 ballot evidenced increases in the number of same-sex couples exceeding 30 percent. Table 1. Top ten states (and DC) ranked by the percent increase in same-sex couples from 2000 to 2005.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % Increase in Same-sex couples, 2000 to 2005 New Hampshire 106% Wisconsin 81% Minnesota 76% Nebraska 71% Kansas 68% Ohio 62% Colorado 58% Iowa 58% Missouri 56% Indiana 54%
33
- 18 -
Increases and decreases in population are often understood as indicators of mobility patterns in the population. This is likely not the case for same-sex couples as the changes observed differ from broader mobility patterns in the United States, namely population movements to the South and West. Increases in the number of same-sex couples are more likely a result of at least two important factors, both related to increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships within the U.S. population: 1. Larger portions of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals may be choosing to couple with partners of the same sex. 2. Larger numbers of same-sex couples may be willing to report the nature of their relationship to the Census Bureau. While both of these trends might be occurring, it seems likely that coupling rates of GLB individuals would not change on the order of the magnitude observed in these data over such a short period of time. Increased visibility represents the most likely scenario to explain such a rapid increase.
ACS
USEFUL IN ESTIMATING THE SIZE OF THE
GLB
POPULATION
October 2006
Census and ACS are the only sources of data available that count the number of same-sex couples at state and local levels. These data can by useful in generating estimates of the size of the entire gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) population for states, metropolitan areas, and within Congressional districts. Analyses from the National Survey of Family Growth find that 4.1 percent of men and women aged 18-45 identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. If 4.1 percent of all adults identify as such, then an estimated 8.8 million adults are gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the United States. Assuming that the proportion of all same-sex couples who live in a given state or locality is the same as the proportion of all GLB individuals living in that area, then ACS data can be used to estimate the size of this population within states, metropolitan areas, and Congressional districts. The size of the GLB population in any area can be estimated by multiplying the estimate of 8.8 million GLB adults by the percentage of all same-sex couples residing in a given state, metropolitan area, or Congressional district. For example, since nearly 15 percent of same-sex couples live in California, the estimated size of the GLB population in California is approximately 1.3 million (15 percent of 8.8 million GLB people in the U.S.)
44
- 19 -
DC
HAS THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION AND ADULTS
CALIFORNIA
GLB
INDIVIDUALS IN THE
HAS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF
GLB
Table 2 ranks states by the estimated percentage of the adult population that is GLB. This measure provides a sense of how common it is to find a GLB person in a state, regardless of the state's size. The District of Columbia ranks first in the percentage of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in the population. This is perhaps not surprising given its urban character. Previous studies have shown that lesbians and gay men are somewhat more likely to live in cities than the general population (Gates and Ost 2004). Other states with the largest percentages of GLB individuals cluster primarily in the Northeast (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont) and West (Washington, California, Colorado, and New Mexico). Minnesota is the only state in this top ten from the Midwest. Table 2. Top ten states (and DC) ranked by the estimated percent of adults who are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Estimated % of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the adult population District of Columbia 8.1% New Hampshire 6.6% Washington 5.7% Massachusetts 5.7% Maine 5.2% California 5.2% Colorado 5.1% Vermont 5.1% New Mexico 4.9% Minnesota 4.7%
October 2006
55
Table 3 shows the ten states with the largest GLB populations. States with relatively large populations generally rank among those with the largest GLB population, though Massachusetts and Washington both rank higher in this category than their population size would predict. Nine of the ten states in this list were in the top ten in Census 2000, with Washington as the new entrant likely due to its 50 percent increase in same-sex couples between 2000 and 2005.
- 20 -
Table 3. Top ten states (and DC) ranked by the estimated size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Estimated size the of gay, lesbian, and bisexual population California Florida New York Texas Illinois Ohio Pennsylvania Georgia Massachusetts Washington 1,338,164 609,219 592,337 579,968 345,395 335,110 323,454 278,943 269,074 266,983
SAN FRANCISCO
RANKS FIRST IN THE PERCENTAGE OF
INDIVIDUALS IN THE POPULATION AND LARGEST NUMBER OF
GLB
GLB NEW YORK CITY HAS THE
ADULTS
October 2006
The 2005 ACS makes possible new rankings of metropolitan areas by the proportion of GLB population and by the actual size of the GLB population (metropolitan areas are multi-county areas that often include more than one city). However, since geographic definitions of metropolitan areas have changed since Census 2000, estimates of the change in the number of same-sex couples for these areas are not possible. Table 4 ranks metropolitan areas by the proportion of GLB adults. While it may not be surprising that metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Seattle, and Boston are home to relatively large proportions of GLB residents, some may find it curious that cities like Tampa, Orlando, and Hartford also make the top ten in this ranking. Moreover, with the exception of Austin, the proportion of GLB residents tends to be higher in the actual cities contained within the metropolitan areas shown. The proportion nearly doubles in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Minneapolis.
- 21 -
Table 4. Top ten metropolitan areas (among the fifty largest in the U.S.) ranked by the estimated percent of adults who are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Estimated % of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the adult population Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Austin-Round Rock Denver-Aurora Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington Orlando-Kissimmee Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford Metro Area 8.2% 6.5% 6.2% 6.1% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% Largest City 15.4% 12.9% 12.3% 8.8% 6.1% 4.8% 8.2% 12.5% 7.7% 6.8%
October 2006
Similiar to state rankings, Table 5 shows that rankings by size of the GLB population generally follow broader population patterns, with some notable exceptions. Neither Boston nor San Francisco rank among the ten most populous metropolitan areas. Table 5. Top ten metropolitan areas (among the fifty largest in the U.S.) ranked by the estimated size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Estimated size of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual population New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Chicago-Naperville-Joliet San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington 568,903 442,211 288,748 256,313 201,344 191,959 183,718 183,346 180,168 179,459
- 22 -
ACS MARKS DISTRICTS
FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY
CONGRESSIONAL
The 2005 ACS marks the first time that estimates of the number of same-sex couples and the size of the GLB population can be made for current Congressional districts (109th Congress). Notably, all districts have same-sex couples present. The ranking of Congressional districts by both the percentage of GLB adults in Table 6 and the size of the GLB population in Table 7 show the same districts in slightly different order. This is not surprising given that all Congressional districts have relatively similar population sizes. Since urban areas tend to include higher fractions of registered Democrats, it is no surprise that most of the top ten districts, which are relatively urban, are currently represented by Democrats. Table 6. Top ten Congressional districts (109th Congress) ranked by the estimated percent of adults who are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Rank 1 2 3 4
October 2006
Estimated % of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the adult population District 8, California (San Francisco) District 7, Washington (Seattle) District 9, California (Oakland) District 8, Massachusetts (Somerville) District 45, California (Palm Springs) District 5, Georgia (Atlanta) District 8, New York (NY City) District 53, California (San Diego) District 5, Minnesota (Minneapolis) District 9, Illinois (Evanston) 16.6% 13.2% 12.4% 11.3% 10.8% 10.8% 10.6% 10.5% 9.5% 9.3%
5 6 7 8 9 10
- 23 -
Table 7. Top ten Congressional districts (109th Congress) ranked by the estimated size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Estimated size of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual population District 8, California District 7, Washington District 45, California District 8, New York District 9, California District 5, Georgia District 8, Massachusetts District 53, California District 9, Illinois District 5, Minnesota 83,229 67,652 59,533 58,871 57,228 51,456 50,837 46,791 42,861 42,124
Full rankings of states, metropolitan areas, and Congressional Districts are included in the Appendices of this report.
CONCLUSION
This first analysis of 2005 American Community Survey data contains some new insights. The number of same-sex couples increased by 30 percent from counts made in Census 2000. Growth in the number of same-sex couples throughout the Midwest suggests that as acceptance of lesbian and gay couples reaches into America's Heartland, more couples are willing to identify themselves. The ACS data also reveal some consistent geographic patterns among same-sex couples. Geographic distribution patterns across metropolitan areas show that same-sex couples, and presumably the broader GLB population, still tend to cluster in higher concentrations in the Northeast and the West. However, GLB populations are on the rise in other urban areas. Notably two cities in Florida not historically thought of as having large GLB populations, Tampa and Orlando, now rank in the top ten in estimates of the percentage of GLB residents in the population. New estimates of the size of the GLB population by Congressional district also demonstrate that gay men and lesbians live in every district in the country.
October 2006
- 24 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Jason Ost for production of the map. Thanks also to Brad Sears, Lee Badgett, Deborah Ho and Darcy Pottle for editorial assistance.
REFERENCES
Badgett, MVL, and B Sears. (2005). Putting a price on equality? The impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on California's budget. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 16(1), 197-232. Congressional Budget Office. (2004). The potential budgetary impact of recognizing same-sex marriages. Retrieved October 8, 2006 from http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5559&sequence=0. Gates, GJ and J Ost. (2004). The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, Washington, Urban Institute Press.
10
October 2006
- 25 -
Appendix 1. Estimates for the number of same-sex couples, increases since 2000 and number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in states.
Est. percent of population that is gay, lesbian, or bisexual 2.8% 4.1% 4.5% 3.2% 5.2% 5.1% 4.5% 3.9% 8.1% 4.6% 4.3% 4.4% 2.3% 3.8% 3.8% 2.8% 3.6% 3.4% 3.1% 5.2% 4.4% 5.7% 3.4% 4.7% 2.3% 3.8% 2.6% 3.4% 3.9% 6.6% 3.9% 4.9% 4.2% 3.4% 2.3% 4.0% 3.5% 4.5% Est. number of gay, lesbian, bisexual adults 94,639 18,768 191,663 64,424 1,338,164 173,674 115,511 24,001 32,599 609,219 278,943 41,785 23,615 345,395 169,700 62,494 72,557 106,094 102,315 52,801 178,266 269,074 251,682 175,611 48,711 160,912 18,703 42,934 68,565 63,787 245,628 68,411 592,337 212,104 11,003 335,110 89,561 121,645
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon
Same-sex couples (2005) 8,602 1,644 16,931 5,890 107,772 15,915 10,174 2,087 3,420 54,929 24,424 3,262 2,096 30,013 15,714 5,833 6,663 9,710 9,006 4,847 15,607 23,744 22,701 16,081 4,330 14,722 1,662 3,986 6,017 5,578 20,677 6,063 50,854 19,648 1,070 30,669 8,159 10,899
Same-sex couples (2000) 8,109 1,180 12,332 4,423 92,138 10,045 7,386 1,868 3,678 41,048 19,288 2,389 1,873 22,887 10,219 3,698 3,973 7,114 8,808 3,394 11,243 17,099 15,368 9,147 4,774 9,428 1,218 2,332 4,973 2,703 16,604 4,496 46,490 16,198 703 18,937 5,763 8,932
Percent increase in couplesA 37% 17% 58% 34% 27% 31% 54% 58% 68% 36% 43% 39% 39% 48% 76% 56% 71% 106% 25% 21% 62% 42% 22%
Same-sex male couples (2005) 3,681 685 9,472 2,810 59,963 7,302 5,274 917 2,319 30,538 13,830 1,575 1,164 16,365 9,493 3,169 3,146 4,429 4,992 2,062 7,992 11,356 12,466 8,515 2,370 8,427 806 2,376 2,724 1,953 12,125 3,399 27,267 10,459 607 15,720 3,754 5,339
Same-sex female couples (2005) 4,921 959 7,459 3,080 47,809 8,613 4,900 1,170 1,101 24,391 10,594 1,687 932 13,648 6,221 2,664 3,517 5,281 4,014 2,785 7,615 12,388 10,235 7,566 1,960 6,295 856 1,610 3,293 3,625 8,552 2,664 23,587 9,189 463 14,949 4,405 5,560
- 26 -
Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
a
29,213 2,376 10,563 998 13,570 49,423 4,307 2,157 19,673 23,903 3,423 14,894 1,044
21,166 2,471 7,609 826 10,189 42,912 3,370 1,933 13,802 15,900 2,916 8,232 807
38% 39% 33% 15% 43% 50% 81% -
14,794 1,014 4,764 569 7,669 28,135 2,309 1,124 10,789 11,762 1,749 6,909 667
14,419 1,362 5,799 429 5,901 21,288 1,998 1,033 8,884 12,141 1,674 7,985 377
3.5% 3.4% 3.8% 1.9% 3.4% 3.6% 3.2% 5.1% 4.0% 5.7% 2.7% 3.9% 3.0%
323,454 27,040 117,033 10,554 148,868 579,968 53,832 23,871 220,309 266,983 37,692 160,698 11,419
indicates that any increase/decrease is not considered statistically significant.
- 27 -
Appendix 2. Estimates for the number of same-sex couples and number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals within the fifty largest metropolitan areas in the United States and the largest city in each metropolitan area, 2005.
SS Couples 15,493 5,453 8,862 2,191 17,705 2,655 3,350 24,375 5,207 6,183 6,301 15,554 9,177 8,794 4,365 12,762 5,030 3,361 6,537 4,244 34,152 3,268 2,757 15,767 3,786 11,855 3,623 SS Male Couples 9,228 2,935 4,274 1,307 8,560 1,581 1,911 14,350 2,568 3,323 2,939 8,513 4,403 5,503 2,166 8,088 2,777 1,643 4,112 1,940 18,641 1,564 1,295 10,002 1,651 6,395 1,936 SS Female Couples 6,265 2,518 4,588 884 9,145 1,074 1,439 10,025 2,639 2,860 3,362 7,041 4,774 3,291 2,199 4,674 2,253 1,718 2,425 2,304 15,511 1,704 1,462 5,765 2,135 5,460 1,687 Est. % GLB 5.1% 5.9% 5.2% 3.0% 6.2% 3.3% 3.3% 4.3% 3.8% 4.3% 5.5% 4.5% 5.8% 3.0% 5.6% 4.1% 4.5% 4.0% 5.1% 3.9% 4.8% 3.9% 3.4% 4.5% 3.7% 5.7% 3.8% Est. GLB 180,168 61,732 100,031 24,276 201,344 28,193 36,464 288,748 57,027 66,943 68,300 183,718 99,626 98,402 49,000 152,288 52,963 36,422 72,080 48,532 442,211 35,149 30,531 183,346 40,407 130,472 39,263 SS Couples 3,812 2,362 2,842 895 4,876 599 1,660 10,001 992 1,067 3,444 5,283 3,387 791 507 5,511 2,680 2,194 2,151 1,591 12,372 1,649 1,546 1,353 1,804 3,356 2,033 SS Male Couples 2,905 894 1,601 810 2,755 297 1,014 6,218 400 786 1,452 3,550 1,488 691 410 3,926 1,793 1,022 1,451 757 7,313 803 773 697 654 2,608 1,274 SS Female Couples 907 1,468 1,241 85 2,121 302 646 3,783 592 281 1,992 1,733 1,899 100 97 1,585 887 1,172 700 834 5,059 846 773 656 1,150 748 759 Est. % GLB 12.8% 4.8% 6.9% 5.6% 12.3% 3.0% 3.9% 5.7% 4.2% 3.5% 6.7% 7.0% 8.2% 1.5% 6.8% 4.4% 4.8% 4.1% 6.7% 4.6% 5.6% 4.2% 3.5% 5.5% 4.6% 12.5% 5.1% Est. GLB 39,085 24,615 30,778 9,263 50,540 5,668 17,170 114,449 9,129 10,524 34,952 58,473 33,698 8,591 5,292 61,976 26,712 22,840 22,360 17,925 154,270 17,102 16,141 15,277 18,243 34,259 20,313
Metropolitan Area Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Austin-Round Rock, TX Baltimore-Towson, MD Birmingham-Hoover, AL Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Columbus, OH Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Denver-Aurora, CO Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Indianapolis, IN Jacksonville, FL Kansas City, MO-KS Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Louisville, KY-IN Memphis, TN-MS-AR Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN
City Atlanta Austin Baltimore Birmingham Boston Buffalo Charlotte Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Denver Detroit Hartford Houston Indianapolis Jacksonville Kansas City Las Vegas Los Angeles Louisville/Jefferson County Memphis Miami Milwaukee Minneapolis Nashville-Davidson
- 28 -
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Oklahoma City, OK Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Richmond, VA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Rochester, NY Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Salt Lake City, UT San Antonio, TX San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA St. Louis, MO-IL Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
2,990 47,292 2,619 7,238 15,696 11,658 4,766 8,299 3,810 2,630 10,177 3,313 7,052 2,171 3,831 8,759 21,862 5,081 14,099 7,562 11,194 4,058 16,730
1,796 26,884 1,284 3,476 6,827 6,462 3,035 4,372 1,506 1,597 5,688 1,953 3,360 1,101 2,038 5,526 13,163 3,172 7,358 4,069 6,446 2,145 9,705
1,194 20,408 1,335 3,762 8,869 5,196 1,731 3,927 2,304 1,033 4,489 1,360 3,692 1,070 1,793 3,233 8,699 1,909 6,741 3,493 4,748 1,913 7,025
3.7% 4.1% 3.3% 5.7% 4.2% 4.8% 2.8% 6.1% 3.6% 3.4% 4.9% 4.8% 5.5% 3.7% 3.5% 4.9% 8.2% 5.0% 6.5% 4.1% 5.9% 3.9% 5.0%
35,230 568,903 28,288 81,272 179,459 132,960 50,994 94,027 43,417 28,750 131,555 36,310 81,759 26,761 46,188 102,016 256,313 63,941 154,835 83,769 119,044 44,689 191,959
New Orleans New York Oklahoma City Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland Providence Richmond Riverside Rochester Sacramento Salt Lake City San Antonio San Diego San Francisco San Jose Seattle St. Louis Tampa Virginia Beach Washington
1,427 23,321 1,420 1,243 4,033 5,535 805 3,438 488 482 404 961 2,824 968 2,757 5,437 8,490 2,829 5,762 1,642 1,402 1,220 3,420
949 13,655 882 533 1,575 3,243 602 1,716 159 316 252 534 1,514 414 1,651 3,700 6,233 1,740 3,324 1,353 916 851 2,319
478 9,666 538 710 2,458 2,292 203 1,722 329 166 152 427 1,310 554 1,106 1,737 2,257 1,089 2,438 289 486 369 1,101
5.1% 4.5% 3.8% 7.7% 4.2% 6.4% 3.5% 8.8% 4.8% 3.4% 2.5% 6.8% 9.8% 7.6% 3.8% 6.8% 15.4% 5.8% 12.9% 6.8% 6.1% 4.4% 8.1%
16,554 272,493 14,877 12,508 43,320 63,222 7,935 35,413 5,564 4,705 5,379 9,371 32,108 10,726 32,631 61,945 94,234 37,260 57,993 16,868 14,119 13,913 32,599
- 29 -
Appendix 3. Estimates for the number of same-sex couples and number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals within all Congressional Districts (109th Congress), 2005.
Congressional District District 1, Alabama District 2, Alabama District 3, Alabama District 4, Alabama District 5, Alabama District 6, Alabama District 7, Alabama District (at Large), Alaska District 1, Arizona District 2, Arizona District 3, Arizona District 4, Arizona District 5, Arizona District 6, Arizona District 7, Arizona District 8, Arizona District 1, Arkansas District 2, Arkansas District 3, Arkansas District 4, Arkansas District 1, California District 2, California District 3, California District 4, California District 5, California District 6, California District 7, California District 8, California District 9, California District 10, California District 11, California District 12, California District 13, California District 14, California District 15, California District 16, California District 17, California District 18, California District 19, California District 20, California District 21, California SS Couples 1,156 946 1,409 1,223 1,252 1,231 1,385 1,644 1,348 1,379 2,652 3,347 1,804 1,991 1,998 2,412 1,655 1,440 1,508 1,287 2,592 2,493 2,033 1,669 3,380 3,194 1,356 7,645 5,135 1,991 2,186 2,498 1,352 1,818 1,854 1,879 1,547 865 1,637 1,180 1,599 SS Male Couples 297 436 291 807 429 614 807 685 670 581 1,382 2,198 1,130 984 1,197 1,330 821 891 790 308 1,237 1,233 864 907 1,607 2,064 604 5,579 2,543 1,057 1,394 1,369 597 1,233 934 1,238 507 245 858 924 1,068 SS Female Couples 859 510 1,118 416 823 617 578 959 678 798 1,270 1,149 674 1,007 801 1,082 834 549 718 979 1,355 1,260 1,169 762 1,773 1,130 752 2,066 2,592 934 792 1,129 755 585 920 641 1,040 620 779 256 531 Est. % GLB 2.7% 2.2% 3.3% 2.9% 2.8% 2.6% 3.4% 4.1% 3.1% 2.5% 5.9% 9.0% 3.8% 3.7% 4.6% 4.8% 3.7% 3.0% 3.1% 2.9% 5.9% 5.6% 4.4% 3.6% 7.9% 7.5% 3.6% 16.6% 12.4% 4.7% 5.1% 6.2% 3.7% 4.4% 4.8% 5.7% 4.4% 2.4% 3.9% 3.8% 4.3% Est. GLB 12,888 10,372 15,308 13,880 13,671 13,616 14,813 18,768 15,470 15,934 28,985 40,529 19,747 22,864 23,297 25,540 18,154 15,397 16,864 14,030 29,504 29,090 23,431 19,573 38,201 35,435 16,805 83,229 57,228 23,692 26,864 30,018 17,400 21,256 22,979 25,601 19,307 11,369 20,138 15,690 20,867
- 30 -
District 22, California District 23, California District 24, California District 25, California District 26, California District 27, California District 28, California District 29, California District 30, California District 31, California District 32, California District 33, California District 34, California District 35, California District 36, California District 37, California District 38, California District 39, California District 40, California District 41, California District 42, California District 43, California District 44, California District 45, California District 46, California District 47, California District 48, California District 49, California District 50, California District 51, California District 52, California District 53, California District 1, Colorado District 2, Colorado District 3, Colorado District 4, Colorado District 5, Colorado District 6, Colorado District 7, Colorado District 1, Connecticut District 2, Connecticut District 3, Connecticut District 4, Connecticut District 5, Connecticut District (at Large), Delaware Delegate District (at Large), District of Columbia District 1, Florida District 2, Florida
1,389 1,778 1,559 1,047 1,733 2,498 2,606 1,773 3,524 2,297 1,010 1,741 808 1,209 1,697 2,268 2,447 1,485 1,023 1,710 1,176 867 1,403 4,929 1,828 945 1,601 1,142 1,291 1,052 1,569 4,464 3,437 1,933 1,068 3,010 1,703 2,230 2,534 2,742 2,525 1,364 2,259 1,284 2,087 3,420 1,943 1,156
581 674 739 225 623 1,127 1,422 1,151 2,465 1,543 258 1,198 501 627 952 1,086 1,175 945 699 467 576 408 687 3,511 1,134 432 806 616 936 452 807 3,078 1,488 824 638 1,085 842 1,145 1,280 1,424 1,327 946 1,100 477 917 2,319 1,222 454
808 1,104 820 822 1,110 1,371 1,184 622 1,059 754 752 543 307 582 745 1,182 1,272 540 324 1,243 600 459 716 1,418 694 513 795 526 355 600 762 1,386 1,949 1,109 430 1,925 861 1,085 1,254 1,318 1,198 418 1,159 807 1,170 1,101 721 702
3.3% 4.7% 4.1% 2.7% 4.5% 6.6% 7.3% 4.5% 7.4% 6.9% 3.3% 4.1% 2.6% 3.4% 3.9% 6.5% 8.4% 4.9% 2.8% 3.9% 3.3% 2.6% 3.4% 10.8% 4.5% 3.5% 3.6% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.8% 10.5% 7.5% 4.4% 2.4% 6.9% 3.9% 4.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.6% 3.0% 5.3% 2.8% 3.9% 8.1% 4.3% 2.5%
16,234 22,217 19,538 13,456 22,514 32,284 35,047 21,852 37,564 30,655 15,220 19,781 11,232 15,742 19,377 30,173 37,152 22,253 13,750 20,396 15,779 12,186 18,967 59,533 22,451 14,907 18,458 14,162 15,374 13,566 18,168 46,791 34,119 21,880 11,544 33,772 18,413 25,825 27,224 30,645 28,471 15,200 26,635 14,659 24,001 32,599 20,957 12,274
- 31 -
District 3, Florida District 4, Florida District 5, Florida District 6, Florida District 7, Florida District 8, Florida District 9, Florida District 10, Florida District 11, Florida District 12, Florida District 13, Florida District 14, Florida District 15, Florida District 16, Florida District 17, Florida District 18, Florida District 19, Florida District 20, Florida District 21, Florida District 22, Florida District 23, Florida District 24, Florida District 25, Florida District 1, Georgia District 2, Georgia District 3, Georgia District 4, Georgia District 5, Georgia District 6, Georgia District 7, Georgia District 8, Georgia District 9, Georgia District 10, Georgia District 11, Georgia District 12, Georgia District 13, Georgia District 1, Hawaii District 2, Hawaii District 1, Idaho District 2, Idaho District 1, Illinois District 2, Illinois District 3, Illinois District 4, Illinois District 5, Illinois District 6, Illinois District 7, Illinois District 8, Illinois District 9, Illinois
1,785 1,826 3,039 2,291 2,035 2,992 2,735 3,743 2,148 1,716 2,337 2,051 2,451 1,806 1,251 3,263 1,485 3,380 1,176 2,611 1,643 2,640 1,426 1,423 939 1,703 2,987 4,916 1,875 1,535 1,623 1,228 2,229 1,766 1,106 1,094 1,316 1,946 922 1,174 1,141 894 1,294 2,132 2,466 1,806 1,619 1,391 3,979
679 802 1,709 1,142 1,015 1,493 1,629 1,865 1,340 788 1,417 775 1,303 881 664 2,365 819 2,176 543 1,774 1,125 1,739 819 572 456 916 1,636 3,653 1,058 1,023 856 551 1,282 807 390 630 792 783 548 616 578 401 758 957 1,769 720 1,081 564 2,926
1,106 1,024 1,330 1,149 1,020 1,499 1,106 1,878 808 928 920 1,276 1,148 925 587 898 666 1,204 633 837 518 901 607 851 483 787 1,351 1,263 817 512 767 677 947 959 716 464 524 1,163 374 558 563 493 536 1,175 697 1,086 538 827 1,053
4.2% 4.0% 5.4% 4.6% 3.9% 6.0% 5.5% 7.4% 4.6% 3.5% 4.3% 3.6% 4.7% 3.6% 3.2% 7.2% 2.9% 7.0% 3.0% 5.3% 4.0% 5.3% 3.5% 3.4% 2.4% 4.3% 7.0% 10.8% 4.2% 3.3% 3.5% 2.7% 4.9% 4.2% 2.7% 2.5% 3.4% 5.5% 2.0% 2.7% 2.9% 2.2% 3.3% 6.6% 5.8% 4.6% 3.8% 3.2% 9.3%
18,667 19,670 34,120 25,425 22,554 32,874 29,689 37,960 21,981 18,942 24,870 22,074 27,110 20,568 15,034 36,239 16,136 36,760 15,466 28,313 18,990 30,200 18,960 15,748 10,244 19,085 32,727 51,456 22,501 18,633 19,301 14,117 26,721 19,901 12,030 13,118 16,638 25,279 10,579 12,965 13,247 10,473 15,415 29,348 28,176 22,169 16,882 16,829 42,861
- 32 -
District 10, Illinois District 11, Illinois District 12, Illinois District 13, Illinois District 14, Illinois District 15, Illinois District 16, Illinois District 17, Illinois District 18, Illinois District 19, Illinois District 1, Indiana District 2, Indiana District 3, Indiana District 4, Indiana District 5, Indiana District 6, Indiana District 7, Indiana District 8, Indiana District 9, Indiana District 1, Iowa District 2, Iowa District 3, Iowa District 4, Iowa District 5, Iowa District 1, Kansas District 2, Kansas District 3, Kansas District 4, Kansas District 1, Kentucky District 2, Kentucky District 3, Kentucky District 4, Kentucky District 5, Kentucky District 6, Kentucky District 1, Louisiana District 2, Louisiana District 3, Louisiana District 4, Louisiana District 5, Louisiana District 6, Louisiana District 7, Louisiana District 1, Maine District 2, Maine District 1, Maryland District 2, Maryland District 3, Maryland District 4, Maryland District 5, Maryland District 6, Maryland
1,175 2,133 1,533 1,470 919 1,388 950 1,102 1,269 1,352 2,064 1,539 1,649 1,444 2,303 1,501 2,092 1,494 1,628 1,053 1,683 1,090 856 1,151 1,249 1,427 2,349 1,638 1,151 1,887 1,854 1,770 807 2,241 1,308 1,728 686 1,045 951 1,265 2,023 3,413 1,434 1,913 1,717 2,749 1,447 1,098 1,995
920 716 465 860 488 452 651 457 785 817 1,470 895 1,493 595 1,094 944 1,349 798 855 539 758 790 361 721 840 711 842 753 420 547 946 823 404 1,289 780 1,164 358 673 415 598 1,004 1,360 702 1,136 676 1,163 517 703 757
255 1,417 1,068 610 431 936 299 645 484 535 594 644 156 849 1,209 557 743 696 773 514 925 300 495 430 409 716 1,507 885 731 1,340 908 947 403 952 528 564 328 372 536 667 1,019 2,053 732 777 1,041 1,586 930 395 1,238
3.0% 4.9% 3.5% 3.3% 2.1% 3.1% 2.1% 2.5% 2.8% 3.0% 4.6% 3.5% 3.6% 3.0% 4.6% 3.3% 4.5% 3.3% 3.5% 2.6% 4.0% 2.6% 2.1% 2.9% 2.8% 3.1% 5.0% 3.6% 2.5% 4.0% 3.8% 3.8% 1.8% 4.6% 3.0% 4.7% 1.7% 2.5% 2.4% 3.0% 4.8% 7.3% 3.1% 4.1% 3.7% 6.0% 3.4% 2.5% 4.4%
13,859 25,357 16,458 17,873 11,492 14,869 11,096 11,614 13,537 14,561 23,416 16,740 17,887 15,869 25,312 16,288 20,289 16,037 17,701 11,396 17,791 11,507 9,302 12,396 13,285 15,412 26,333 17,842 12,502 20,917 19,266 19,830 9,226 23,847 15,056 20,340 8,263 11,400 10,502 14,164 22,508 37,298 15,571 21,713 18,991 30,106 17,018 13,124 22,986
- 33 -
District 7, Maryland District 8, Maryland District 1, Massachusetts District 2, Massachusetts District 3, Massachusetts District 4, Massachusetts District 5, Massachusetts District 6, Massachusetts District 7, Massachusetts District 8, Massachusetts District 9, Massachusetts District 10, Massachusetts District 1, Michigan District 2, Michigan District 3, Michigan District 4, Michigan District 5, Michigan District 6, Michigan District 7, Michigan District 8, Michigan District 9, Michigan District 10, Michigan District 11, Michigan District 12, Michigan District 13, Michigan District 14, Michigan District 15, Michigan District 1, Minnesota District 2, Minnesota District 3, Minnesota District 4, Minnesota District 5, Minnesota District 6, Minnesota District 7, Minnesota District 8, Minnesota District 1, Mississippi District 2, Mississippi District 3, Mississippi District 4, Mississippi District 1, Missouri District 2, Missouri District 3, Missouri District 4, Missouri District 5, Missouri District 6, Missouri District 7, Missouri District 8, Missouri District 9, Missouri District (at Large), Montana
2,263 2,425 1,725 2,411 1,997 1,678 1,621 2,968 1,932 4,809 2,210 2,393 1,482 2,350 1,503 1,813 1,486 1,441 1,277 1,517 2,359 1,508 1,157 1,323 834 829 1,822 1,014 1,920 2,376 2,303 4,133 1,822 1,183 1,330 1,420 589 853 1,468 864 2,589 1,967 1,030 2,629 1,960 785 1,344 1,554 1,662
1,689 1,351 478 1,033 1,259 796 776 1,765 570 2,595 1,054 1,030 788 1,238 765 792 699 744 485 832 1,341 778 952 791 551 558 1,152 464 1,017 1,187 773 2,927 967 512 668 491 406 558 915 478 1,378 1,414 705 2,039 802 335 584 692 806
574 1,074 1,247 1,378 738 882 845 1,203 1,362 2,214 1,156 1,363 694 1,112 738 1,021 787 697 792 685 1,018 730 205 532 283 271 670 550 903 1,189 1,530 1,206 855 671 662 929 183 295 553 386 1,211 553 325 590 1,158 450 760 862 856
5.5% 5.4% 4.1% 5.7% 4.8% 4.0% 4.1% 7.2% 4.6% 11.3% 5.5% 5.3% 3.2% 5.3% 3.4% 4.0% 3.4% 3.2% 2.9% 3.4% 5.1% 3.3% 2.6% 2.9% 2.2% 2.1% 4.1% 2.4% 4.4% 5.5% 5.6% 9.5% 4.2% 2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 1.4% 1.8% 3.1% 2.1% 6.0% 4.5% 2.4% 6.0% 4.5% 1.7% 3.1% 3.6% 2.6%
25,339 28,171 19,363 27,706 23,134 18,712 19,069 34,189 21,812 50,837 25,540 26,879 15,942 26,436 16,678 20,135 16,086 15,691 14,183 17,296 25,696 17,353 13,248 14,077 9,197 9,248 20,439 10,966 22,323 25,993 24,223 42,124 21,516 12,722 14,241 16,307 6,506 9,576 16,474 9,149 30,236 21,474 11,453 27,639 21,555 8,528 14,567 16,863 18,703
- 34 -
District 1, Nebraska District 2, Nebraska District 3, Nebraska District 1, Nevada District 2, Nevada District 3, Nevada District 1, New Hampshire District 2, New Hampshire District 1, New Jersey District 2, New Jersey District 3, New Jersey District 4, New Jersey District 5, New Jersey District 6, New Jersey District 7, New Jersey District 8, New Jersey District 9, New Jersey District 10, New Jersey District 11, New Jersey District 12, New Jersey District 13, New Jersey District 1, New Mexico District 2, New Mexico District 3, New Mexico District 1, New York District 2, New York District 3, New York District 4, New York District 5, New York District 6, New York District 7, New York District 8, New York District 9, New York District 10, New York District 11, New York District 12, New York District 13, New York District 14, New York District 15, New York District 16, New York District 17, New York District 18, New York District 19, New York District 20, New York District 21, New York District 22, New York District 23, New York District 24, New York District 25, New York
1,215 1,632 1,139 2,048 1,773 2,196 2,667 2,911 1,674 1,480 1,672 1,513 678 2,220 1,519 2,007 780 2,038 1,752 2,036 1,308 2,451 2,085 1,527 1,687 1,500 1,159 1,582 999 589 1,349 5,556 1,383 1,403 2,159 1,454 1,467 3,375 1,694 1,306 1,428 1,857 1,112 2,077 1,619 1,746 1,488 1,909 2,091
699 1,117 560 851 784 1,089 982 971 1,036 855 1,013 807 383 1,268 777 1,206 704 1,240 756 1,104 976 1,167 1,451 781 700 886 295 814 485 305 783 4,398 481 458 970 835 670 2,313 807 934 471 1,117 534 881 962 849 812 861 777
516 515 579 1,197 989 1,107 1,685 1,940 638 625 659 706 295 952 742 801 76 798 996 932 332 1,284 634 746 987 614 864 768 514 284 566 1,158 902 945 1,189 619 797 1,062 887 372 957 740 578 1,196 657 897 676 1,048 1,314
3.0% 4.1% 2.9% 4.3% 3.6% 3.8% 6.2% 7.0% 4.0% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5% 1.7% 5.5% 3.8% 5.2% 1.8% 5.2% 4.3% 5.0% 3.2% 5.4% 5.3% 3.9% 4.2% 4.1% 3.1% 4.4% 2.6% 1.7% 3.3% 10.6% 3.3% 3.5% 5.3% 3.7% 3.5% 6.1% 3.9% 3.4% 3.6% 4.7% 2.8% 4.7% 3.5% 4.0% 3.5% 4.4% 4.7%
13,147 17,719 12,111 23,419 20,178 24,978 30,396 33,406 19,369 16,918 19,396 17,541 8,178 26,446 18,764 24,736 9,320 24,121 21,234 24,662 15,281 26,079 23,604 18,311 21,359 20,174 15,058 21,646 13,222 8,054 16,617 58,871 16,484 16,447 25,266 17,567 18,141 33,509 18,706 14,529 17,285 22,622 13,703 23,621 17,422 19,527 16,418 20,893 22,763
- 35 -
District 26, New York District 27, New York District 28, New York District 29, New York District 1, North Carolina District 2, North Carolina District 3, North Carolina District 4, North Carolina District 5, North Carolina District 6, North Carolina District 7, North Carolina District 8, North Carolina District 9, North Carolina District 10, North Carolina District 11, North Carolina District 12, North Carolina District 13, North Carolina District (at Large), North Dakota District 1, Ohio District 2, Ohio District 3, Ohio District 4, Ohio District 5, Ohio District 6, Ohio District 7, Ohio District 8, Ohio District 9, Ohio District 10, Ohio District 11, Ohio District 12, Ohio District 13, Ohio District 14, Ohio District 15, Ohio District 16, Ohio District 17, Ohio District 18, Ohio District 1, Oklahoma District 2, Oklahoma District 3, Oklahoma District 4, Oklahoma District 5, Oklahoma District 1, Oregon District 2, Oregon District 3, Oregon District 4, Oregon District 5, Oregon District 1, Pennsylvania District 2, Pennsylvania District 3, Pennsylvania
1,394 1,413 2,230 1,828 612 1,757 1,271 2,107 1,265 1,200 1,272 1,040 1,670 1,362 2,275 1,591 2,226 1,070 1,134 2,156 1,526 1,633 1,320 1,382 1,110 1,062 2,180 2,140 1,374 2,989 1,739 1,556 2,568 1,364 1,928 1,508 2,133 922 1,483 1,719 1,902 2,583 1,457 3,333 1,181 2,345 2,069 1,740 1,143
1,034 540 1,475 820 427 1,007 712 884 729 1,010 361 552 937 628 897 1,092 1,223 607 410 1,158 754 707 878 1,019 789 622 884 1,586 570 1,395 586 930 1,146 683 1,153 450 1,186 378 607 587 996 1,318 788 1,825 585 823 961 629 722
360 873 755 1,008 185 750 559 1,223 536 190 911 488 733 734 1,378 499 1,003 463 724 998 772 926 442 363 321 440 1,296 554 804 1,594 1,153 626 1,422 681 775 1,058 947 544 876 1,132 906 1,265 669 1,508 596 1,522 1,108 1,111 421
3.3% 3.1% 5.1% 4.2% 1.5% 4.2% 2.9% 4.4% 2.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.4% 3.4% 3.1% 4.8% 3.6% 4.8% 2.3% 2.7% 4.9% 3.5% 3.9% 3.2% 3.3% 2.6% 2.5% 5.2% 5.0% 3.3% 6.5% 4.0% 3.6% 5.8% 3.3% 4.6% 3.6% 4.4% 2.0% 3.3% 3.6% 3.8% 5.3% 2.9% 6.9% 2.4% 5.0% 5.2% 4.2% 2.7%
15,692 14,987 22,716 20,091 6,642 19,582 13,305 22,469 13,829 13,386 13,642 11,216 18,161 15,045 23,997 16,584 23,927 11,003 11,647 23,697 16,488 17,736 14,762 15,415 12,460 11,896 23,530 22,798 13,711 32,131 19,324 17,880 27,138 15,432 21,134 17,211 23,007 10,452 16,761 19,053 19,850 29,117 16,072 36,541 13,058 26,961 22,805 18,074 12,513
- 36 -
District 4, Pennsylvania District 5, Pennsylvania District 6, Pennsylvania District 7, Pennsylvania District 8, Pennsylvania District 9, Pennsylvania District 10, Pennsylvania District 11, Pennsylvania District 12, Pennsylvania District 13, Pennsylvania District 14, Pennsylvania District 15, Pennsylvania District 16, Pennsylvania District 17, Pennsylvania District 18, Pennsylvania District 19, Pennsylvania District 1, Rhode Island District 2, Rhode Island District 1, South Carolina District 2, South Carolina District 3, South Carolina District 4, South Carolina District 5, South Carolina District 6, South Carolina District (at Large), South Dakota District 1, Tennessee District 2, Tennessee District 3, Tennessee District 4, Tennessee District 5, Tennessee District 6, Tennessee District 7, Tennessee District 8, Tennessee District 9, Tennessee District 1, Texas District 2, Texas District 3, Texas District 4, Texas District 5, Texas District 6, Texas District 7, Texas District 8, Texas District 9, Texas District 10, Texas District 11, Texas District 12, Texas District 13, Texas District 14, Texas District 15, Texas
1,168 1,419 1,616 2,206 1,468 1,187 1,354 1,152 833 1,792 1,444 1,774 1,831 1,883 1,346 1,788 1,191 1,185 3,152 1,965 1,187 1,861 1,475 923 998 978 2,227 1,488 1,455 2,216 1,605 1,370 1,022 1,209 752 1,669 1,999 1,357 806 1,630 2,229 1,644 1,728 1,551 866 1,995 663 922 999
790 566 780 1,130 637 626 691 571 468 601 964 780 934 1,223 884 837 502 512 1,232 931 530 776 668 627 569 701 1,434 810 802 1,355 634 796 716 421 310 1,022 968 830 537 633 1,845 1,174 1,058 664 635 831 447 276 606
378 853 836 1,076 831 561 663 581 365 1,191 480 994 897 660 462 951 689 673 1,920 1,034 657 1,085 807 296 429 277 793 678 653 861 971 574 306 788 442 647 1,031 527 269 997 384 470 670 887 231 1,164 216 646 393
2.7% 3.3% 3.6% 5.2% 3.5% 2.7% 3.1% 2.5% 1.9% 4.3% 3.2% 4.0% 4.3% 4.2% 3.0% 3.9% 3.5% 3.4% 6.1% 4.1% 2.6% 4.0% 3.3% 2.2% 1.9% 2.1% 4.7% 3.3% 3.3% 4.9% 3.4% 3.1% 2.4% 2.9% 1.8% 3.9% 4.1% 3.1% 1.9% 3.7% 4.4% 3.7% 4.4% 3.1% 2.0% 4.4% 1.6% 2.1% 2.5%
13,001 15,697 18,486 25,308 17,607 13,216 14,763 12,754 9,020 20,374 14,266 20,220 20,775 20,501 14,809 19,989 13,492 13,547 34,374 21,525 13,160 20,627 16,817 10,228 10,554 10,708 24,430 16,248 16,519 22,711 18,017 15,991 11,226 12,561 8,604 19,108 23,327 16,003 9,476 19,213 23,601 19,435 20,542 17,959 9,560 23,632 7,178 10,780 12,403
- 37 -
District 16, Texas District 17, Texas District 18, Texas District 19, Texas District 20, Texas District 21, Texas District 22, Texas District 23, Texas District 24, Texas District 25, Texas District 26, Texas District 27, Texas District 28, Texas District 29, Texas District 30, Texas District 31, Texas District 32, Texas District 1, Utah District 2, Utah District 3, Utah District (at Large), Vermont District 1, Virginia District 2, Virginia District 3, Virginia District 4, Virginia District 5, Virginia District 6, Virginia District 7, Virginia District 8, Virginia District 9, Virginia District 10, Virginia District 11, Virginia District 1, Washington District 2, Washington District 3, Washington District 4, Washington District 5, Washington District 6, Washington District 7, Washington District 8, Washington District 9, Washington District 1, West Virginia District 2, West Virginia District 3, West Virginia District 1, Wisconsin District 2, Wisconsin District 3, Wisconsin District 4, Wisconsin District 5, Wisconsin
1,210 1,092 1,481 1,167 1,199 2,781 1,901 1,653 1,393 1,419 2,297 1,282 1,029 1,031 1,904 2,408 3,366 1,365 1,777 1,165 2,157 1,448 2,126 1,654 1,348 1,390 1,910 1,545 3,489 1,033 1,349 2,381 1,767 1,661 3,249 1,839 2,071 2,323 6,628 2,873 1,492 1,318 1,066 1,039 1,726 2,850 1,478 1,857 1,428
706 733 747 653 721 829 1,009 1,198 672 870 1,127 674 514 808 1,311 1,421 2,306 818 879 612 1,124 577 1,351 841 755 663 975 729 1,977 616 765 1,540 840 660 1,571 800 1,020 1,241 3,682 1,237 711 1,025 442 282 956 1,216 663 707 691
504 359 734 514 478 1,952 892 455 721 549 1,170 608 515 223 593 987 1,060 547 898 553 1,033 871 775 813 593 727 935 816 1,512 417 584 841 927 1,001 1,678 1,039 1,051 1,082 2,946 1,636 781 293 624 757 770 1,634 815 1,150 737
3.2% 2.6% 3.8% 2.8% 3.2% 5.5% 4.3% 3.9% 3.0% 3.6% 5.2% 3.4% 2.7% 3.1% 4.9% 5.5% 8.2% 3.0% 3.7% 2.8% 5.1% 3.1% 5.3% 3.8% 3.1% 3.0% 4.2% 3.3% 7.4% 2.3% 2.9% 5.6% 3.7% 3.6% 6.9% 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 13.2% 6.3% 3.4% 3.1% 2.5% 2.5% 3.7% 5.7% 3.1% 4.2% 3.0%
15,005 12,852 16,863 12,564 14,209 31,076 24,382 20,361 16,100 17,235 27,582 15,694 12,935 13,599 21,901 27,820 38,842 16,760 21,129 15,656 23,871 16,731 23,736 16,893 15,472 15,167 20,410 17,341 37,479 11,357 16,230 29,052 19,770 18,649 38,002 21,926 22,389 25,130 67,652 33,167 16,813 14,328 11,756 11,572 19,321 30,679 16,079 18,827 15,828
- 38 -
District 6, Wisconsin District 7, Wisconsin District 8, Wisconsin District (at Large), Wyoming
1,161 2,291 2,103 1,044
437 1,205 1,034 667
724 1,086 1,069 377
2.5% 4.7% 4.4% 3.0%
12,471 24,480 22,710 11,419
- 39 -
Exhibit 5
- 40 -
How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender?

by Gary J. Gates, Williams Distinguished Scholar Executive Summary
Increasing numbers of population-based surveys in the United States and across the world include questions that allow for an estimate of the size of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population. This research brief discusses challenges associated with collecting better information about the LGBT community and reviews eleven recent US and international surveys that ask sexual orientation or gender identity questions. The brief concludes with estimates of the size of the LGBT population in the United States. Key findings from the research brief are as follows: An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender. This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans, a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey. Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay). Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered in the brief. Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys. Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as LGB. An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction. Understanding the size of the LGBT population is a critical first step to informing a host of public policy and research topics. The surveys highlighted in this report demonstrate the viability of sexual orientation and gender identity questions on large national population-based surveys. Adding these questions to more national, state, and local data sources is critical to developing research that enables a better understanding of the understudied LGBT community.
April 2011
- 41 -
Introduction
Increasing numbers of population-based surveys in the United States and across the world include questions designed to measure sexual orientation and gender identity. Understanding the size of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population is a critical first step to informing a host of public policy and research topics. Examples include assessing health and economic disparities in the LGBT community, understanding the prevalence of anti-LGBT discrimination, and considering the economic impact of marriage equality or the provision of domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples. This research brief discusses challenges associated with collecting better information about the LGBT community and reviews findings from eleven recent US and international surveys that ask sexual orientation or gender identity questions. The brief concludes with estimates of the size of the LGBT population in the United States.
Challenges in measuring the LGBT community

Estimates of the size of the LGBT community vary for a variety of reasons. These include differences in the definitions of who is included in the LGBT population, differences in survey methods, and a lack of consistent questions asked in a particular survey over time. In measuring sexual orientation, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may be identified strictly based on their self-identity or it may be possible to consider same-sex sexual behavior or sexual attraction. Some surveys (not considered in this brief) also assess household relationships and provide a mechanism of identifying those who are in same-sex relationships. Identity, behavior, attraction, and relationships all capture related dimensions of sexual orientation but none of these measures completely addresses the concept. Defining the transgender population can also be challenging. Definitions of who may be considered part of the transgender community include aspects of both gender identities and varying forms of gender expression or nonconformity. Similar to sexual orientation, one way to measure the transgender community is to simply consider self-identity. Measures of identity could include consideration of terms like transgender, queer, or genderqueer. The latter two identities are used by some to capture aspects of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
2
Similar to using sexual behaviors and attraction to capture elements of sexual orientation, questions may also be devised that consider gender expression and non-conformity regardless of the terms individuals may use to describe themselves. An example of these types of questions would be consideration of the relationship between the sex that individuals are assigned at birth and the degree to which that assignment conforms with how they express their gender. Like the counterpart of measuring sexual orientation through identity, behavior, and attraction measures, these varying approaches capture related dimensions of who might be classified as transgender but may not individually address all aspects of assessing gender identity and expression. Another factor that can create variation among estimates of the LGBT community is survey methodology. Survey methods can affect the willingness of respondents to report stigmatizing identities and behaviors. Feelings of confidentiality and anonymity increase the likelihood that respondents will be more accurate in reporting sensitive information. Survey methods that include face-to-face interviews may underestimate the size of the LGBT community while those that include methods that allow respondents to complete questions on a computer or via the internet may increase the likelihood of LGBT respondents identifying themselves. Varied sample sizes of surveys can also increase variation. Population-based surveys with a
- 42 -
larger sample can produce more precise estimates (see SMART, 2010 for more information about survey methodology). A final challenge in making population-based estimates of the LGBT community is the lack of questions asked over time on a single large survey. One way of assessing the reliability of estimates is to repeat questions over time using a consistent method and sampling strategy. Adding questions to more large-scale surveys that are repeated over time would substantially improve our ability to make better estimates of the size of the LGBT population.
Kingdom, Australia, and Norway. All are population-based surveys of adults, though some have age restrictions as noted. The lowest overall percentage comes from the Norwegian Living Conditions Survey at 1.2%, with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, conducted in the United States, producing the highest estimate at 5.6%. In general, the non-US surveys, which vary from 1.2% to 2.1%, estimate lower percentages of LGB-identified individuals than the US surveys, which range from 1.7% to 5.6%. While the surveys show a fairly wide variation in the overall percentage of adults who identify as LGB, the proportion who identify as lesbian/gay versus bisexual is somewhat more consistent (see Figure 2). In six of the surveys, lesbian- and gay-identified individuals outnumbered bisexuals. In most cases, these surveys were roughly 60% lesbian/gay versus 40% bisexual. The UK Integrated Household Survey found the proportion to be two-thirds lesbian/gay versus one-third bisexual.
How many adults are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

Findings shown in Figure 1 consider estimates of the percentage of adults who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual across nine surveys conducted within the past seven years. Five of those surveys were fielded in the United States and the others are from Canada, the United
- 43 -
The National Survey of Family Growth found results that were essentially the opposite of the UK survey with only 38% identifying as lesbian or gay compared to 62% identifying as bisexual. The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior and the Australian Longitudinal Study
of Health and Relationships both found a majority of respondents (55% and 59%, respectively) identifying as bisexual. The surveys show even greater consistency in differences between men and women
- 44 -
associated with lesbian/gay versus bisexual identity. Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered (see Figure 3). Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys. Four of the surveys analyzed also asked questions about either sexual behavior or attraction. Within these surveys, a larger fraction of adults report same-sex attractions and behaviors than self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (see Figure 4). With the exception of the Norwegian survey, these differences are substantial. The two US surveys and the Australian survey all suggest that adults are two to three times more likely to say that they are attracted to individuals of the same-sex or have had same-sex sexual experiences than they are to self-identify as LGB. estimates are true, it implies that approximately 0.1% of adults in California are transgender. Several studies have reviewed multiple sources to construct estimates of a variety of dimensions of gender identity. Conway (2002) suggests that between 0.5% and 2% of the population have strong feelings of being transgender and between 0.1% and 0.5% actually take steps to transition from one gender to another. Olyslager and Conway (2007) refine Conways original estimates and posit that at least 0.5% of the population has taken some steps toward transition. Researchers in the United Kingdom (Reed, et al., 2009) suggest that perhaps 0.1% of adults are transgender (defined again as those who have transitioned in some capacity). Notably, the estimates of those who have transitioned are consistent with the surveybased estimates from California and Massachusetts. Those surveys both used questions that implied a transition or at least discordance between sex at birth and current gender presentation.
How many adults are transgender?

Population-based data sources that estimate the percentage of adults who are transgender are very rare. The Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey represents one of the few population-based surveys that include a question designed to identify the transgender population. Analyses of the 2007 and 2009 surveys suggest that 0.5% of adults aged 18-64 identified as transgender (Conron 2011). The 2003 California LGBT Tobacco Survey found that 3.2% of LGBT individuals identified as transgender. Recall that the 2009 California Health Interview Survey estimates that 3.2% of adults in the state are LGB. If both of these
5
- 45 -
How many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are there in the United States?
Federal data sources designed to provide population estimates in the United States (e.g., the Decennial Census or the American Community Survey) do not include direct questions regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. The findings shown in Figure 1 suggest that no single survey offers a definitive estimate for the size of the LGBT community in the United States. However, combining information from the population-based surveys considered in this brief offers a mechanism to produce credible estimates for the size of the LGBT community. Specifically, estimates for sexual orientation identity will be derived by averaging results from the five US surveys identified in Figure 1. Separate averages are calculated for lesbian and bisexual women along with gay and
bisexual men. An estimate for the transgender population is derived by averaging the findings from the Massachusetts and California surveys cited earlier. It should be noted that some transgender individuals may identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. So it is not possible to make a precise combined LGBT estimate. Instead, Figure 5 presents separate estimates for the number of LGB adults and the number of transgender adults. The analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are LGB, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. This is split nearly evenly between lesbian/gay and bisexual identified individuals, 1.7% and 1.8%, respectively. There are also nearly 700,000 transgender individuals in the US. Given these findings, it seems reasonable to assert that approximately 9 million Americans identify as LGBT.
- 46 -
Averaging measures of same-sex sexual behavior yields an estimate of nearly 19 million Americans (8.2%) who have engaged in samesex sexual behavior.1 The National Survey of Family Growth is the only source of US data on attraction and suggests that 11% or nearly 25.6 million Americans acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.2 By way of comparison, these analyses suggest that the size of the LGBT community is roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey. The number of adults who have had same-sex sexual experiences is approximately equal to the population of Florida while those who have some same-sex attraction comprise more individuals than the population of Texas. The surveys highlighted in this report demonstrate the viability of sexual orientation and gender identity questions on large-scale national population-based surveys. States and municipal governments are often testing grounds for the implementation of new LGBTrelated public policies or can be directly affected by national-level policies. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity questions to national data sources that can provide local-level estimates and to state and municipal surveys is critical to assessing the potential efficacy and impact of such policies.
This estimate uses data from the National Survey of Family Growth and the General Social Survey. 2 Since the NSFG data only survey 18-44 year olds, this estimate assumes that patterns in this group are the same for those aged 45 and older. It may be that older adults are less likely to report same-sex attraction. If so, this estimate may somewhat overstate same-sex attraction among all adults.
- 47 -
References
Australian Longitudinal Study of Health and Relationships. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Wave 1 Summary, 2005. California Health Interview Survey, 2009. Author analyses of data using AskCHIS, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. California LGBT Tobacco Survey, 2004. Author analyses using machine-readable data file. California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section. Chandra, A, Mosher, WD, Copen, C. Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Report, Number 36, March 2011. Note: This report includes estimates cited from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol Related Conditions and the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Conron, KJ, Scott, G, Stowell, GS, Landers, S. Transgender Health in Massachusetts: Results from a Household Probability Sample of Adults, American Journal of Public Health, forthcoming. Conway, L. How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur?, December 2002. Joloza, T, Evans, J, OBrien, R. Measuring Sexual Identity: An Evaluation Report, UK Office of National Statistics, September 2010. Olyslager, F, Conway, L. On the Calculation of the Prevalence of Transsexualism. Paper presented at the WPATH 20th International Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, September 2007. Reed, B, Rhodes, S, Schofield, P, Wylie, K. Gender Variance in the UK: Prevalence, Incidence, Growth, and Geographic Distribution. Gender Identity Research and Education Society, June 2009. SMART (Sexual Minority Assessment Research Team). Best Practices for Asking Sexual Orientation on Surveys. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, November 2009. Smith, TW, Marsden, P, Hout, M, Kim, J. Author analyses of 2008 General Social Survey using machinereadable data file. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, 2009. Tjepkema, M. Health care use among gay, lesbian and bisexual Canadians. Statistics Canada, Health Reports, 19:1, March 2008.
About the Author

Gary J. Gates, PhD is the Williams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. He studies the demographic and economic characteristics of the LGBT population.
About the Institute

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law advances law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates its work through a variety of education programs and media to judges, legislators, lawyers, other policymakers and the public. These studies can be accessed at the Williams Institute website.
For more information

The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law Box 951476 Los Angeles, CA 900951476 (310)2674382 williamsinstitute@law.ucla.edu www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute
8
- 48 -
Exhibit 6
- 49 -
- 50 -
- 51 -
- 52 -
- 53 -
Exhibit 7
- 54 -
- 55 -
- 56 -
- 57 -
- 58 -
Exhibit 8
- 59 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) NOTICE OF FED. R. CIV. P. 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
15 MARTIN R. ARANAS, 16 IRMA RODRIGUEZ, AND JANE DELEON, 17 18 19 20 -vs21 JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the 22 Department of Homeland Security; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 23 SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, 24 Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and 25 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 26 27 28 Defendants. __________________________________ Plaintiffs,
Hearing: None
- 60 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 61 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
///
TO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD AND THEIR ATTORNEYS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 30(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses identified below will be taken upon oral examination at the time and place stated before an officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), you are requested to designate officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on your behalf, who are most knowledgeable with respect to each of the topics identified in Exhibit A to testify about such matters. TO BE EXAMINED: BEFORE WHOM APPEARANCE TO BE MADE: 30(b)(6) Representative(s) of the Department of Homeland Security Notary Public/Court Reporter
DATE AND TIME OF DHS DEPOSITION: Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. DATE AND TIME OF CIS DEPOSITION: Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. PLACE OF DEPOSITION: Law Office of Jim Tom Haynes
1555 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036

These depositions shall be recorded by stenographic means. The oral examinations will continue from day-to-day thereafter on successive business days until completed.
- 62 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4
EXHIBIT A TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION 1. The Rule 30(b)(6) designees relationship with defendants, including his or her employment history, current position, and responsibilities. 2. The allegations in paragraphs 14-68 of Plaintiffs Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed July 12, 2012. 3. The manner in which defendants have tracked the cases regarding petitions or applications for benefits under the INA involving same sex married couples. 4. The standards, procedures, guidelines and/or instructions issued or followed by defendants regarding the processing of applications or petitions under the INA involving same sex married couples or their children. 5. The standards, procedures, guidelines and/or instructions issued or followed by defendants regarding granting immigrants temporary work permits and/or deferred action status in cases involving petitions or applications under the INA filed by persons in same sex marriages pending a definitive court verdict on the constitutionality of DOMA. 6. The standards, procedures, guidelines and/or instructions issued or followed by defendants regarding notifying immigrants seeking benefits under the INA in same sex ///
- 63 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
marriages about seeking or obtaining temporary work permits and/or deferred action status pending a definitive court verdict on the constitutionality of DOMA.
Dated: September 10, 2012.
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey Carlos R. Holgun PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald Marzouk Monica Ashiku ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin Reyna M. Tanner
Peter A. Schey Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) I hereby certify that on this 10th day of September, 2012, I served the foregoing on defendants counsel via email and overnight delivery as follows: Carlson, Jesi J. (CIV) <Jesi.J.Carlson@usdoj.gov> David (CIV) Kline <David.Kline@usdoj.gov> Belsan, Timothy M. (CIV) <Timothy.M.Belsan@usdoj.gov> Bill Orrick <Bill.Orrick@usdoj.gov> Jesi J. Carlson David Kline Timothy Belsan,
5
- 64 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Bill Orrick Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice Liberty Square Building 450 5th Street, N.W., Room LL111B (mail intake room) Washington, DC 20001
Dated: September 10, 2012 ///
Peter Schey
- 65 -
Exhibit 9
- 66 -
- 67 -
- 68 -
- 69 -
Exhibit 10
- 70 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) -vs) ) JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the ) Department of Homeland Security; et ) ) al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSIONS, AND
15 MARTIN R. ARANAS, et al., 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.
Requests for Admissions 1-21; Requests for Documents 1-15; Interrogatories 1-21.
- 71 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 - 72 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3 - 73 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiffs request that defendants USCIS and DHS, by authorized officers or agents thereof, within 30 days or such other time as may be fixed by the Court, respond to the following requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories in accordance with Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1. When asked to produce a document, provide an admission or answer an interrogatory, the request pertains to information in the possession of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its subordinate agencies, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), past or present officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors of the same. 2. If you object to the production of a portion of a document, but not the entire document, produce that portion of the document to which no objection is made and indicate your objection on the document or an accompanying document (referring to the portion produced by page number[s]). 3. If you object to providing a response to any portion of an interrogatory, but not the entire interrogatory, please respond to that portion of the interrogatory to which no objection is made and indicate in your response that you object to the remaining portion of the interrogatory. 4. Please set forth fully the factual and legal basis for each objection you make. If your objection relates to a document, please state (unless you
4 - 74 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
believe this information is also privileged or objectionable) the date of the document, name of the author, if known, the agency or entity which generated the document, the recipient(s) of the document, the number of pages, the general subject matter of the document, any reference numbers on the document, and the identity of the present custodian of the document. If you believe the limited information sought in this paragraph is also privileged or objectionable, please explain fully the basis for your position. 5. If you object to any discovery request herein on the ground that it is too broad or burdensome, please respond to the request the extent you deem it not overly broad or burdensome. Please note your objection and provide a description of the quantity of the balance of the information not produced or responded to and explain why you believe that production of these documents or a response would be unduly burdensome. 6. These requests are continuing in nature and any documents or other information which you discover subsequent to the service of your responses should be brought to the attention of plaintiffs through supplemental responses. 7. In responding to requests, please ensure that each response may be linked to the request to which it responds. Please number the pages of all documents that you produce sequentially. In response to each request please separately state which documents respond to the request with reference to the document and its page number(s). Please do not answer a request for
5 - 75 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
production of documents by simply stating the documents sought are provided in response to another request. Instead, specifically state the title(s) of the particular document(s) and page numbers as they appear in your responses. Plaintiffs will seek an order compelling appropriate management of your responses unless you make a good faith effort to comply with this instruction. As used herein 1. The words you or your include the DHS, its subordinate agencies, including CIS, and the past and present officers, employees and agents of the DHS and/or CIS. 2. The term document means any written, recorded, taped or graphic matter, as well as information in electronic form, including all nonidentical copies and drafts thereof. Document specifically includes electronically stored information as that term is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any and all computer disks or other computer readable media, and any information from any e-mail system. 3. When used with respect to a place or office, the term identify means to provide the name of the place or office, its street and mailing addresses, its telephone number, and the identity of its officer-in-charge. When used with respect to a person, the term identify means to provide the persons full name, job description or title (other than for immigrants), and last known U.S. mailing and street addresses and telephone number(s).
6 - 76 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiffs counsel will not make public any personnel information about third persons, including their names or addresses, and will enter into an appropriate stipulation protecting such information from unauthorized disclosure. If you nevertheless refuse to provide third parties names, please assign them each a number and provide that number in your response in place of their names. When used with respect to a document, the term identify means to (1) identify the custodian of the document, and (2) state the page number(s) of the document if produced by you for inspection and copying, or, if not produced, identify the author(s) of the document, and state the date of the document, number of pages, and its subject. When used with respect to a filing system, the term identify means (1) provide the name of the filing system, (2) identify the custodian of the filing system, (3) identify the location of the filing system, and (4) state whether, and if so where, an index to the filing system exists. 11. The term present (e.g., from January 2006 to the present) means the date on which you respond to these discovery requests. 12. The term bi-national same-sex couple (BNSSC) refers to two persons of the same sex, one of whom is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident alien, and the other of whom is a foreign national, who are lawfully married pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which their marriage was celebrated.
7 - 77 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
13. The term immigration benefit[s] refers to any authorization, status, permission, waiver, or exercise of discretion pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq. (INA). II REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 1. Admit that CIS has advised BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits it has denied pursuant to 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), that the authorization of the alien spouse to accept employment is terminated pursuant to 8CFR274a.14(a)(1). 2. Admit that has advised BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits it has denied pursuant to DOMA 3 that the foreign national spouses parole into the United States is terminated. 3. Admit that CIS has advised BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits it has denied pursuant to DOMA 3 that the foreign national spouse is thereafter accruing unlawful presence and that any alien over 18 years old who is illegally in the United States after April 1, 1997, and who accrues six months or more unlawful presence will be prohibited from being admitted to the United States should that person depart this country and seek readmission within three years, and that any such foreign national spouse who is illegally in the United States for over one year after April 1, 1997, departs the United States, and seeks readmission within ten years, that person will be prohibited entry.
8 - 78 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4. Admit that you are aware of no records showing that when advising a member of a BNSSC whose application or petition for immigration benefits you have denied in writing pursuant to DOMA 3, you have advised the member of the BNSSC that you or the Administration believe DOMA is unconstitutional or that the foreign born spouse may be granted any temporary authorized status and employment authorization pending a definitive ruling by the courts on the constitutionality of DOMA. 5. Admit that you are aware of no records showing that when advising a member of a BNSSC whose application or petition for immigration benefits you have denied in writing pursuant to DOMA 3 you have advised the member of the BNSSC of any procedures that person may follow to retain or obtain temporary employment authorization and temporary authorized presence pending a definitive ruling by the courts on the constitutionality of DOMA. 6. Admit that you have not issued any written instructions or directives to USCIS or USICE officers directing them to advise members of BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits may not be approved or have been denied pursuant to DOMA 3 about any procedures such persons may follow to retain or obtain temporary employment authorization and temporary authorized presence pending a definitive ruling by the courts on the constitutionality of DOMA.
9 - 79 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7. Admit that you have not issued any written instructions or directives to USCIS or USICE officers instructing them to advise members of BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits may not be approved or have been denied pursuant to DOMA 3 about any procedures such persons may follow to retain or obtain temporary employment authorization and temporary authorized presence pending a definitive ruling by the courts on the constitutionality of DOMA. 8. Admit that you have not issued any written instructions or directives to USCIS or USICE officers instructing them to grant members of BNSSCs, whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits may not be approved or have been denied pursuant to DOMA 3, temporary employment authorization and temporary authorized presence pending a definitive ruling by the courts on the constitutionality of DOMA. 9. Aside from the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, admit that you have not made available to the public on your web site, in the Code of Federal Regulations, or in any other way readily available to members of BNSSCs or their counsel, the procedures and standards to be applied when you decide whether to grant or deny a member of a BNSSC temporary authorized status and employment authorization. 10. Admit that you are not aware of any BNSSCs or their counsel being notified about procedures available under the Memoranda from John
10 - 80 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, when members of BNSSCs or their counsel have been advised by you in writing that an application or petition for an immigration benefit cannot be approved or must be denied because of DOMA 3. 11. Admit that plaintiff Jane DeLeon may be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility were it not for DOMA 3. 12. Admit that plaintiff Jane DeLeon is prima facie eligible for lawful permanent residence were she granted a waiver of inadmissibility. 13. Admit that plaintiff Martin Aranas is prima facie eligible for lawful permanent residence as a derivative beneficiary of plaintiff Jane DeLeon were plaintiff DeLeons application for adjustment of status granted. 14. Admit that CIS does not know how many applications and petitions for immigration benefits filed by members of BNSSCs it has denied pursuant to DOMA 3. 15. Admit that you have not kept track of the number of foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 who have departed the United States after receiving denial letters from you telling them their employment authorization and lawful status is terminated and they are acquiring unlawful presence towards the three and ten-year bars. 16. Admit that you have not kept track of the number of cases in which you have terminated employment authorizations of foreign nationals when
11 - 81 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
you denied their applications or petitions for immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 17. Admit that you do not know in how many cases you have terminated employment authorizations of foreign nationals when you denied their applications or petitions for immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 18. Admit that you have issued no instructions or directives requiring your officers to inform members of BNSSCs denied temporary authorized presence or work authorization because their application or petition for an immigration benefit was denied pursuant to DOMA 3 how to seek administrative review of the termination of any previously approved parole status or temporary authorized status and employment authorization. 19. Admit that you are not aware of the number of foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 who qualify or do not qualify for an immigration benefit independently of their marriages. 20. Admit that foreign nationals working without authorization are more likely to be exploited on the job and to suffer violations of labor and health and safety laws. 21. Admit that the number of members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 is in the hundreds.
12 - 82 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
III
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing
or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for adjudicating applications or petitions for immigration benefits filed by members of BNSSCs. 2. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for exercising prosecutorial discretion towards foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 3. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing how your officers should advise members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 or their counsel about CISs policy, practice, or procedures for exercising prosecutorial discretion towards foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 4. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying employment authorization to
13 - 83 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 5. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing how your officers should advise members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 or their counsel about CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying employment authorization to foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 6. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying temporary authorized status of any sort for national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 7. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing how your officers should advise members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 or their counsel about CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying temporary authorized status of any sort
14 - 84 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
for national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3.5. Please produce for inspection and copying all statistical reports reflecting adjudications of applications or petitions for immigration benefits filed by members of BNSSCs. 8. Please produce for inspection and copying all reports, including statistical reports, reflecting the exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011 in cases of foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 9. Please produce for inspection and copying all reports, including statistical reports, reflecting the granting or denial of employment authorization to foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 10. Please produce for inspection and copying all reports, including statistical reports, reflecting the granting or denial of temporary authorized status of any sort in cases of foreign national members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3. 11. Please produce for inspection and copying all press releases, public statements, and other documents advising members of BNSSCs denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 of their options to remain lawfully in the United States.
15 - 85 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
12. Please produce for inspection and copying the most recent documents you possess describing the categories of aliens granted deferred action status (e.g. U visa applicants, VAWA applicants, etc.) and the numbers granted deferred action status. 13. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying employment authorization to foreign national beneficiaries of visa petitions filed by their U.S. citizen spouses and who have pending applications for adjustment of status. 14. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying deferred action status to foreign national beneficiaries of visa petitions filed by their U.S. citizen spouses and who have pending applications for adjustment of status. 15. Other than the Memoranda from John Morton, Director, ICE, to ICE employees dated Mar. 2, 2011 and June 17, 2011, please produce for inspection and copying all documents discussing or referencing CISs policy, practice, or procedures for granting or denying temporary authorized status (other than deferred action status) for foreign national beneficiaries of visa
16 - 86 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
petitions filed by their U.S. citizen spouses and who have pending applications for adjustment of status. IV INTERROGATORIES 1. To the extent that you deny any of the foregoing requests for admissions, please explain the factual basis for your denial. 2. Please state why when informing members of BNSSCs that their applications or benefits under the INA have been denied because of DOMA 3 you do not also advise such persons that the Administration believes DOMA is unconstitutional and that the foreign national member of the BNSSC may be granted temporary authorized status and employment authorization pending a definitive court ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA. 3. If DOMA is declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, explain on what basis you may retroactively grant employment authorization to foreign nationals in BNSSCs who worked for longer than six months without authorization after you terminated their employment authorization or refused to grant them work authorization when you denied a petition or application based upon DOMA 3, and who are therefore now ineligible for adjustment of status. 4. If DOMA is declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, explain on what basis you or a court may retroactively grant authorized
17 - 87 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
presence so as to avoid application of the three and ten-year bars for foreign nationals not eligible for adjustment of status. 5. If DOMA is declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, explain on what basis the Department of State may approve visas despite the applicant having had more than six or twelve months of unauthorized presence because they were not granted temporary authorized status by you after their application or petition for immigration benefits was denied under DOMA 3. 6. Identify any non-profit legal services organizations you have communicated with to determine the availability of free or low-cost immigration services to low-income members of BNSSCs seeking immigration benefits under the INA. 7. Identify the non-profit legal services organizations you have communicated with to inform them about the procedures available to BNSSC foreign nationals denied benefits based on DOMA 3 to apply for temporary authorized status and temporary employment, and explain what such groups were informed by you. 8. Identify any lawyers or legal professional associations you have communicated with to inform them about the procedures available to BNSSC foreign nationals denied benefits based on DOMA 3 to apply for temporary authorized status and temporary employment, and explain what such lawyers or professional associations were informed by you.
18 - 88 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
9. Explain whether you have estimated or determined the staff hours required to implement your current policy and practice with respect to granting or denying some form of temporary authorized presence to BNSSC foreign nationals denied benefits based on DOMA 3. 10. Explain whether you have estimated or determined the agency costs associated with your current policy and practice with respect to granting or denying some form of temporary authorized presence to BNSSC foreign nationals denied benefits based on DOMA 3. 11. Explain whether you have made any effort, and if so describe those efforts, to determine the number of BNSSC foreign nationals denied benefits based on DOMA 3 who are able to afford to retain private counsel or who are in fact represented by private counsel versus those who are not represented by private counsel. 12. Explain whether you have estimated or determined the staff hours required and agency costs associated with your current policy and practice with respect to granting or denying some form of temporary authorized presence to BNSSC foreign nationals denied benefits based on DOMA 3. 13. Explain in detail (or produce) any instructions or directives issued to USCIS or USICE officers directing them to advise members of BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits may not be approved or have been denied pursuant to DOMA 3 about any procedures such persons may follow to retain or obtain temporary employment
19 - 89 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
authorization and temporary authorized presence pending a definitive ruling by the courts on the constitutionality of DOMA. 14. Explain in detail (or produce) any instructions or directives issued to USCIS or USICE officers directing them on how to adjudicate requests for any sort of temporary authorized status and employment authorization made by members of BNSSCs whose applications or petitions for immigration benefits may not be approved or have been denied pursuant to DOMA 3. 15. Please identify each foreign national member of a BNSSC denied immigration benefits pursuant to DOMA 3 upon whom CIS has conferred any form of lawful immigration status and employment authorization. 16. Describe in detail how and why your implementation of a preliminary injunction in the form proposed by plaintiffs in this case would require any greater or less dedication of agency resources than required following your present policy and practice with regards granting temporary authorized presence and employment authorization to persons denied immigration benefits under DOMA 3. 17. Describe in detail how and why your implementation of a preliminary injunction in the form proposed by plaintiffs in this case would require any greater costs to the CIS or ICE than required following your present policy and practice with regards granting temporary authorized
20 - 90 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
presence and employment authorization to persons denied immigration benefits under DOMA 3. 18. State how many applications and petitions for immigration benefits filed by members of BNSSCs you have denied pursuant to DOMA 3. 19. Of the number identified in response to Interrogatory No. 18, state how many such persons have been granted or extended on temporary authorized presence and/or employment authorization since the time of the denial you issued under DOMA 3. 20. Explain any information that you have made available to the public on your web site, in the Code of Federal Regulations, or in any other way readily available to members of BNSSCs or their counsel regarding the procedures and standards to be applied when you decide whether to grant or deny a member of a BNSSC temporary authorized status and employment authorization. 21. Describe any training sessions or programs you have made available to your officers regarding the procedures and standards to be applied when they decide whether to grant or deny a member of a BNSSC denied a benefit under DOMA 3 temporary authorized status and employment authorization. Dated: September 25, 2012. CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey Carlos R. Holgun
21 - 91 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ///
PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald Marzouk Monica Ashiku ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin Reyna M. Tanner
Peter A. Schey Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22 - 92 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) I hereby certify that on this 25th day of September, 2012, I caused the foregoing to be served via email to the following counsel: David Kline (CIV) David.Kline@usdoj.gov Jesi J. Carlson, (CIV) Jesi.J.Carlson@usdoj.gov Timothy Belsan, timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.gov Paul D. Clement pclement@bancroftpllc.com H. Christopher Bartolomucci cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson nnelson@bancroftpllc.com Michael H. McGinley mmcginley@bancroftpllc.com Kerry W. Kircher, Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov William Pittard, William.Pittard@mail.house.gov Christine Davenport, Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Todd B. Tatelman, Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov Mary Beth Walker, MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov And via overnight delivery on the following counsel: JESI J. CARLSON Senior Litigation Counsel TIMOTHY M. BELSAN (KS 24112) Trial Attorney Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Paul D. Clement H. Christopher Bartolomucci BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel William Pittard, Deputy General CounselMary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel
23 - 93 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Dated: September 24,, 2012 Peter Schey ///
24 - 94 -
Exhibit 11
- 95 -
- 96 -
- 97 -
- 98 -
- 99 -
Exhibit 12
- 100 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF ELISSA BARRETT I, Elissa Barrett, declare and say as follows: 1. I execute this declaration in support of plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the case entitled Aranas v. Napolitano, No. SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx). 2. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the state of California. I am Vice-President and General Counsel at Bet Tzedek Legal Services (Bet Tzedek), where my responsibilities include management of the organizations legal projects, such as the Employment Rights Project (ERP) and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trangender, Queer Access to Justice Project (LGBTQ A2J). 3. Bet Tzedek is a non-profit corporation based in Los Angeles, California. Bet Tzedek was founded in 1974 by a group of lawyers, rabbis and activists who sought to act upon a central tenet of Jewish law and tradition: Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof Justice, justice you shall pursue. This doctrine establishes an obligation to advocate the just causes of the poor and the helpless. Consistent with this mandate, Bet Tzedek provides free legal services to eligible residents throughout Los Angeles County, regardless of race, religion, ethnic background, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Because Bet Tzedek does not receive Legal Services Corporation federal funding, our services are available to persons who are not citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States.
- 101 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4. The Bet Tzedek ERP protects the legal rights of low-wage workers. Studies suggest that up to 700,000 people work in Los Angeles underground and informal economies. Bet Tzedeks experience is that these underground employers often routinely violate labor, wage and safety laws engaging in wage theft, unlawful retaliation and other, more extreme abuses, such as human trafficking and physical violence. These practices are particularly damaging against populations who routinely experience discrimination based on their race, gender, national origin, immigration status or other identifying characteristics and who generally fear contact with authorities. Moreover, they harm other workers who lose job opportunities because underground employers use undocumented persons they can bully and exploit in violation of state and federal law. Bet Tzedek assists these workers by providing direct representation, appellate advocacy, and know your rights education and outreach. 5. The Bet Tzedek LGBTQ A2J conducts educational outreach and provides legal assistance through partnerships with agencies that have extensive experience serving the LGBTQ community, such as the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center (founded in 1971), the Jeff Griffiths Youth Center and Triangle Square Hollywood, the first LGBTQ seniors housing facility in the nation. Bet Tzedek assists LGBTQ people who face an already challenging set of legal issues such housing, employment, health, aging, disabilities, public benefits, immigration status and access to justice that are compounded and complicated by the unequal treatment,
2 - 102 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
harassment and discrimination they experience due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. 6. The numerous challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals are exacerbated if they do not have lawful immigration status. Many LGBTQ people are already lowincome and trans-people struggle the most with poverty. If they cannot work or are forced to give up work because of their immigration status, they cannot afford the basic necessities of life including food, rent, and medicine. Moreover, if they decide to risk employment in the underground economy, they may be subject to the same exploitation as other immigrants, whose employers routinely violate labor, wage and safety laws. The situation may cause increased stress and stigmatization, which in turn, places additional pressure on family relationships, tests the bonds of marriage and can lead to negative health consequences. These harms can be severe, irreparable and not easily addressed by monetary damages. 7. This declaration is submitted in support of the Aranas plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction extending to immigrants in same sex marriages the same temporary benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) available to heterosexual married couples. ///
3 - 103 -
'l ,l
3l 4l 6l
']
8
I declare under penalty of perjury that ttre foregoing is tnre and correct and
that
if called to testiff with respect thereto I could do so

Executed this 4th day
ofNovembe\}0l2,
'l
Elissa Banett
9
101
11
n
B
t4
15
t6
t7
18
19
n
2T
2,
a
?A
x
n a
- 104 -
Exhibit 13
- 105 -
- 106 -
- 107 -
Exhibit 14
- 108 -
- 109 -
- 110 -
Exhibit 15
- 111 -
U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2011

RANDALL MONGER AND JAMES YANKAY
A legal permanent resident (LPR) or green card recipient is defined by immigration law as a person who has been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States. Permanent resident status confers certain rights and responsibilities. For example, LPRs may live and work permanently anywhere in the United States, own property, and attend public schools, colleges, and universities. They may also join certain branches of the Armed Force and apply to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain eligibility requirements. This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report presents information obtained from applications for LPR status on the number and characteristics of persons who became LPRs in the United States during 2011.1
In 2011, a total of 1,062,040 persons became LPRs of the United States (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The majority of new LPRs (55 percent) already lived in the United States when they were granted lawful permanent residence. Nearly 65 percent of new LPRs were granted permanent resident status based on a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. The leading countries of birth of new LPRs were Mexico (14 percent), China (8.2 percent), and India (6.5 percent). THE LEGAL IMMIGRATION PROCESS Admission Priorities The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and its amendments are the basis for most immigration laws in effect today. U.S. law gives priority for immigration status to foreign nationals who have a close family relationship with a U.S. citizen or LPR, needed job skills, refugee or asylee status, or who are from countries with relatively low levels of immigration to the United States. Preference Immigration and Diversity Limits The term preference is used in immigration law to designate priority categories for LPR status. As specified by the Immigration Act of 1990, an annual limit of between 416,000 and 675,000 currently exists for family-sponsored preference, employment-based preference, and diversity immigrants. Family-sponsored preferences consist of four categories: unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their children; spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents and their children; married
1
sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children; and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens aged 21 years and older and their spouses and children. The annual limit for family-sponsored preferences ranges from 226,000 to 480,000 (See APPENDIX for more details on the limit calculations).
In this report, years refer to fiscal years (October 1 to September 30).
Office of Immigration Statistics

POLICY DIRECTORATE
- 112 -
Employment-based preferences consist of five categories of workers (and their spouses and children): Legal Permanent Resident Flow: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 2011 2010 2009 priority workers; professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability; skilled Category of admission Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent workers, professionals (without advanced Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,062,040 100.0 1,042,625 100.0 1,130,818 100.0 New arrivals . . . . . . . . . . 481,948 45.4 476,049 45.7 463,042 40.9 degrees), and needed unskilled workers; certain Adjustments of status . . 580,092 54.6 566,576 54.3 667,776 59.1 special immigrants (e.g., ministers, religious workers, and employees of the U.S. government Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011. abroad); and employment creation immigrants or investors. The employment-based preferOther Admission Categories ence limit is equal to 140,000 plus any unused visas in the family-sponsored preferences from the previous year. The remaining admission categories have accounted for less than 3 percent of the annual LPR flow over the past five years. These categoIn 2011, the limit on preference immigration was 366,000 which ries tend to be limited to certain foreign nationals admitted under included 226,000 visas in the family-sponsored preferences and special legislation. 140,000 visas in the employment-based preferences (see APPENDIX). In addition, there are per-country and dependent area limits equal to 7 percent and 2 percent, respectively, of the total number of family-sponsored and employment preferences. In 2011, the per-country limit was 25,620 and the dependent area limit was 7,320. Diversity immigrants are nationals of countries with low rates of legal immigration to the United States. The Diversity Visa Program is available to nationals of countries with fewer than 50,000 admissions during the preceding five years in the employment-based and familysponsored preferences and immediate relative classes of admission. The annual diversity visa limit has been 50,000 since 1999. The Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) calculates diversity limits for six broad world regions using a formula based on immigrant admissions during the preceding five years and the population total of the region. The per-country limit of diversity visas was 3,500 in 2011. Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens Some LPR admission categories are exempt from the annual numeric limits for preference and diversity immigration. The largest category numerically is immediate relatives (spouses and children, including orphans adopted abroad, of U.S. citizens and parents of adult U.S. citizens aged 21 and over). Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens typically account for more than 40 percent of the annual LPR flow. New LPRs in the immediate relatives and family-sponsored preference categories of admission are collectively referred to as family-sponsored immigrants. Refugee and Asylee Adjustments of Status The number of persons who may be admitted to the United States as refugees each year, as defined by the Refugee Act of 1980, is established by the President in consultation with Congress. The ceiling on refugee admissions was set at 70,000 from 2003 to 2007 and 80,000 from 2008 to 2011. There is no numerical limit on the number of persons who can be granted asylum status in a year. Refugees are required to apply for adjustment to legal permanent resident status after one year of residence in the United States. Asylees are eligible to apply one year after they are granted asylum. Refugee and asylee adjustments of status are exempt from preference and diversity annual numerical limits. Until 2005, an annual limit of 10,000 existed on the number of persons authorized to adjust status as asylees. The REAL ID Act removed that cap.
2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 117 of 130 Page ID #:2238 Table 1.
Paths to LPR Status There are two paths to LPR status depending on whether the applicant is living in the United States or another country at the time of application. Foreign nationals living abroad apply for an immigrant visa at a consular office of the Department of State. Once issued a visa, a foreign national may enter the United States and become an LPR when admitted at a port of entry. These LPRs are referred to as new arrivals in this report. Persons who qualify for legal permanent resident status who are living in the United States, including refugees, asylees, and certain temporary workers, foreign students, family members of U.S. citizens or alien residents, and undocumented immigrants, file an application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). At the time they apply for adjustment of status, they may also apply for permission to work. Adjustment of status applicants are granted lawful permanent residence at the time their applications are approved. These LPRs are referred to as adjustments of status in this report. Eligibility for Naturalization Most legal permanent residents who are at least 18 years of age are eligible to apply for citizenship after meeting certain requirements. These requirements generally include 5 years of lawful permanent residency in the United States or 3 years for those married to a United States citizen and successful completion of English language, civics, and history tests. Legal immigrant children under 18 years of age may automatically acquire citizenship when a parent naturalizes. DATA The data presented in this report were obtained from the Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) of USCIS, which maintains information from the applications for lawful permanent resident status. These applications are the DS-230 Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration or the DS-260 Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration of the Department of State (used by applicants living abroad) and the I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status of USCIS (used by applicants living in the United States).
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics
- 113 -
Legal Permanent Resident Flow by Major Category of Admission: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011
2011 Category of admission Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family-sponsored immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family-sponsored preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens . . . . . Spouses and children of alien residents. . . . . . . . Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens . . . . . . . Siblings of U.S. citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . Spouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Children*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment-based preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Priority workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professionals with advanced degrees . . . . . . . . . . . Skilled workers, professionals, unskilled workers . . . . . Certain special immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diversity programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refugees and Asylees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refugee adjustments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asylee adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parolees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Children born abroad to alien residents. . . . . . . . . . NACARA Section 202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cancellation of removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject to annual limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not subject to limit (NACARA Section 203) . . . . . Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act . . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 1,062,040 688,089 234,931 27,299 108,618 27,704 71,310 453,158 258,320 114,527 80,311 139,339 25,251 66,831 37,216 6,701 3,340 50,103 168,460 113,045 55,415 1,147 14,902 633 158 7,430 4,206 3,224 154 6,527 Percent 100.0 64.8 22.1 2.6 10.2 2.6 6.7 42.7 24.3 10.8 7.6 13.1 2.4 6.3 3.5 0.6 0.3 4.7 15.9 10.6 5.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 2010 Number 1,042,625 691,003 214,589 26,998 92,088 32,817 62,686 476,414 271,909 116,208 88,297 148,343 41,055 53,946 39,762 11,100 2,480 49,763 136,291 92,741 43,550 1,592 15,633 716 248 8,180 4,475 3,705 386 6,103 Percent 100.0 66.3 20.6 2.6 8.8 3.1 6.0 45.7 26.1 11.1 8.5 14.2 3.9 5.2 3.8 1.1 0.2 4.8 13.1 8.9 4.2 0.2 1.5 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 2009 Number 1,130,818 747,413 211,859 23,965 98,567 25,930 63,397 535,554 317,129 120,155 98,270 140,903 40,924 45,552 40,398 10,341 3,688 47,879 177,368 118,836 58,532 2,385 14,870 587 296 8,156 3,392 4,764 552 5,279 Percent 100.0 66.1 18.7 2.1 8.7 2.3 5.6 47.4 28.0 10.6 8.7 12.5 3.6 4.0 3.6 0.9 0.3 4.2 15.7 10.5 5.2 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5
250,000 during the 1950s to more than 1 million between 2000 and 2011. Changes in immigration law associated with this increase included the elimination of country quotas controlling Eastern Hemisphere i m m i g r at i o n , i n c re a s e s i n annual limits for hemispheric and preference immigration, and the inclusion of parents of adult U.S. citizens as numerically exempt immediate relatives. The spike in legal immigration around 1990 reflects the legalization of 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Category of Admission
Family-sponsored immigrants (immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family preference classes of admission) represented 65 percent of the total LPR flow in 2011 (see Table 2). Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens accounted for 43 percent *Includes orphans. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. of all individuals granted LPR Figures round to 0.0. status in 2011. Spouses of U.S. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011. citizens represented 57 percent of immediate relative LPRs. Information recorded in CLAIMS includes class of admission, date the Parents of U.S. citizens accounted for 25 percent, and children of applicant was granted lawful permanent residence, country of birth, U.S. citizens, including adopted orphans, comprised 18 percent. country of last residence, date of birth, marital status, geographic resiMore than 22 percent of new LPRs in 2011 were admitted under a dence, occupation, and, for adjustments of status, prior nonimmigrant family-sponsored preference. The second preference (spouses and status and date of most recent entry as a nonimmigrant. The number children of alien residents) accounted for 46 percent of familyand demographic composition of new LPRs are affected by many facsponsored preference LPRs, and the fourth preference (siblings of tors including changes to immigration legislation and procedure and U.S. citizens) comprised 30 percent. volatility in application levels at USCIS. For these reasons, caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions about the propensity to Immigrants admitted under an employment-based preference immigrate from the data presented in this report. accounted for 13 percent of the LPR flow in 2011. The second preference (professionals with advanced degrees) represented 48 TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW LEGAL percent of new employment-based preference LPRs. This large PERMANENT RESIDENTS proportion was due to the increased availability of unused visas from the other employment preferences. The third preference The number of individuals granted LPR status in 2011 increased 1.9 (skilled workers, professionals, unskilled workers) represented 27 percent from 1,042,625 in 2010 to 1,062,040 (see Table 1). LPR percent, and the first preference (priority workers) accounted for adjustments of status increased from 566,576 in 2010 to 580,092 18 percent. The number of new LPRs admitted under an employin 2011. New arrival LPRs increased 1.2 percent from 476,049 in ment-based preference declined 6.1 percent between 2010 and 2010 to 481,948 in 2011. Fifty-five percent of LPRs in 2011 were 2011 because of a decrease in the annual limit for the employadjustments of status and 45 percent were new arrivals. ment preferences in 2011. Historical Trends Refugee and asylee immigrant classes of admission represented 16 The annual LPR flow has exhibited an upward trend since World percent of the total LPR flow in 2011. Refugee adjustments accounted War II (see Figure 1). The average annual LPR flow increased from for 11 percent; asylee adjustments represented 5.2 percent.
- 114 -
Diversity immigrant classes of admission accounted for 4.7 percent of the total LPR flow in 2011. Region and Country of Birth
Legal Permanent Resident Flow by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011
(Countries ranked by 2011 LPR flow) 2011 Region and country of birth REGION Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North America . . . . . . . . . Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . Central America . . . . . . Other North America . . . Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South America . . . . . . . . . Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . COUNTRY Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . China, Peoples Republic . . India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominican Republic . . . . . Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vietnam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korea, South . . . . . . . . . . Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All other countries . . . . . . Number 1,062,040 100,374 451,593 83,850 333,902 133,680 43,707 156,515 4,980 86,096 1,245 1,062,040 143,446 87,016 69,013 57,011 46,109 36,452 34,157 22,824 22,635 22,111 21,133 19,662 18,667 16,707 16,518 15,546 14,822 14,064 13,793 12,800 357,554 Percent 100.0 9.5 42.5 7.9 31.4 12.6 4.1 14.7 0.5 8.1 0.1 100.0 13.5 8.2 6.5 5.4 4.3 3.4 3.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 33.7 2010 Number 1,042,625 101,355 422,063 88,801 336,553 139,951 43,951 152,651 5,345 87,178 1,330 1,042,625 139,120 70,863 69,162 58,173 53,870 33,573 30,632 22,227 22,406 22,582 19,855 19,825 18,806 14,819 12,925 18,258 14,182 14,247 14,266 13,328 359,506 Percent 100.0 9.7 40.5 8.5 32.3 13.4 4.2 14.6 0.5 8.4 0.1 100.0 13.3 6.8 6.6 5.6 5.2 3.2 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 34.5 2009 Number 1,130,818 127,046 413,312 105,476 375,180 146,071 47,868 181,241 5,578 102,860 1,366 1,130,818 164,920 64,238 57,304 60,029 49,414 38,954 29,234 25,859 27,849 24,280 12,110 21,783 19,909 16,651 13,621 21,555 18,553 16,957 15,462 16,140 415,996 Percent 100.0 11.2 36.5 9.3 33.2 12.9 4.2 16.0 0.5 9.1 0.1 100.0 14.6 5.7 5.1 5.3 4.4 3.4 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.1 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 36.8
The leading regions of birth of new LPRs in 2011 were Asia (43 percent) and North America (31 percent) (see Table 3). Together, Asia and North America accounted for 70 percent or more of the LPR flow each year from 2009 to 2011. In 2011, 14 percent of all persons granted LPR status were born in Mexico. Other prominent countries of birth were China (8.2 percent), India (6.5 percent), Philippines (5.4 percent), and the Dominican Republic (4.3 percent). These five countries accounted for nearly 38 percent of all new LPRs in 2011. The number of persons granted LPR status who were born in China increased by 23 percent from 2010 to 2011. Asylee adjustments accounted for most of this increase. State and Metropolitan Area of Residence California was the state of residence of one-fifth (20 percent) of persons granted LPR status in 2011 (see Table 4). Other leading states of residence included New York (14 percent), Florida (10 percent), Texas (8.9 percent), and New Jersey (5.2 percent). These five states represented the residence of 58 percent of new LPRs in 2011. The leading metropolitan area of residence for new LPRs in 2011 was New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-PA (17 percent) (see Table 5).2 Other prominent metropolitan areas of residence included Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (8.1 percent), Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL (6.8 percent), Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (3.7 percent), and ChicagoNaperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (3.3 percent). These five metropolitan areas accounted for the residence of 39 percent of new LPRs in 2011.
2 The most current CBSA definitions are available from OMB at http://www. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fedreg_2010/06282010_ metro_standards-Complete.pdf.
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011.
Table 4.
Legal Permanent Resident Flow by State of Residence: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011
(Ranked by 2011 LPR flow) 2011 State of residence Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . . . . . . . New York . . . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Jersey . . . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . Massachusetts . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . Other*. . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 1,062,040 210,591 148,426 109,229 94,481 55,547 38,325 32,236 27,767 27,015 25,778 292,645 Percent 100.0 19.8 14.0 10.3 8.9 5.2 3.6 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 27.6 2010 Number 1,042,625 208,446 147,999 107,276 87,750 56,920 37,909 31,069 28,607 24,833 26,450 285,366 Percent 100.0 20.0 14.2 10.3 8.4 5.5 3.6 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.5 27.4 2009 Number 1,130,818 227,876 150,722 127,006 95,384 58,879 41,889 32,607 29,825 28,396 26,722 311,512 Percent 100.0 20.2 13.3 11.2 8.4 5.2 3.7 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 27.5
*Includes unknown, U.S. territories and armed forces posts. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011.
- 115 -
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 120 of 130 Page ID #:2241 Table 5. Age, Gender, and
Legal Permanent Resident Flow by Metropolitan Area of Residence: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011
(Ranked by 2011 LPR flow) 2011 Metropolitan area of residence Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . . . Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other, including unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number Percent 1,062,040 183,681 86,161 71,775 39,365 35,039 32,433 31,136 28,090 25,909 22,035 506,416 100.0 17.3 8.1 6.8 3.7 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.1 47.7 2010 Number Percent 1,042,625 186,084 87,443 69,420 41,322 35,109 31,761 30,844 26,003 24,969 20,445 489,225 100.0 17.8 8.4 6.7 4.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.0 46.9 2009 Number 1,130,818 189,849 97,538 83,936 42,567 38,840 32,302 32,021 29,020 26,346 23,343 535,056 Percent 100.0 16.8 8.6 7.4 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.1 47.3
Marital Status
New LPRs have historically been younger than the native population of the United States. In 2011, the median age for persons becoming LPRs was 31 years; in contrast, the median age of the U.S. native population was 35 years (see Table 6).3
New LPRs are more likely to be female than the native U.S. population. In 2011, females accounted for 55 Note: Metropolitan areas defined based on Core-based Statistical Areas (CBSAs). percent of persons granted Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011. LPR status (see Table 7) compared with 51 percent for Table 6. the U.S. native population. The majority (56 perLegal Permanent Resident Flow by Age: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 cent) of new LPRs were married compared with 2011 2010 2009 38 percent of the native population (see Table 8).4
Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,062,040 Under 5 years . . . . . . . 38,378 5 to 14 years . . . . . . . . 123,123 199,114 15 to 24 years . . . . . . . 25 to 34 years . . . . . . . 252,917 35 to 44 years . . . . . . . 197,377 45 to 54 years . . . . . . . 120,797 55 to 64 years . . . . . . . 77,198 65 years and over . . . . 53,126 Unknown age . . . . . . . . 10 Median age (years) . . . . 31 100.0 3.6 11.6 18.7 23.8 18.6 11.4 7.3 5.0 X 1,042,625 37,592 118,987 191,328 253,188 195,209 118,070 75,817 52,425 9 31 100.0 3.6 11.4 18.4 24.3 18.7 11.3 7.3 5.0 X 1,130,818 38,177 130,701 209,682 277,867 210,901 124,621 80,208 58,659 2 31 100.0 3.4 11.6 18.5 24.6 18.7 11.0 7.1 5.2 X
3 Calculated from the March 2011 Current Population Survey public use microdata file from the U.S. Census Bureau. 4
Ibid.
X Not applicable. Figure rounds to 0.0. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011.
Table 7.
Legal Permanent Resident Flow by Gender: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011

2011 Gender Total . . . . . . . . . . . Male . . . . . . . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . Unknown . . . . . . . . . Number 1,062,040 480,679 581,351 10 Percent 100.0 45.3 54.7 2010 Number 1,042,625 471,849 570,771 5 Percent 100.0 45.3 54.7 2009 Number 1,130,818 513,015 617,799 4 Percent 100.0 45.4 54.6
Figure rounds to 0.0. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011.
Table 8.
Legal Permanent Resident Flow by Marital Status: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011
2011 Marital status Total . . . . . . . . . Single . . . . . . . . . Married . . . . . . . . Other*. . . . . . . . . Unknown . . . . . . . Number 1,062,040 405,164 599,122 53,017 4,737 Percent 100.0 38.1 56.4 5.0 0.4 2010 Number 1,042,625 390,470 596,959 51,174 4,022 Percent 100.0 37.5 57.3 4.9 0.4 2009 Number 1,130,818 417,232 654,674 54,454 4,458 Percent 100.0 36.9 57.9 4.8 0.4
*Other includes persons who are widowed, divorced, or separated. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), Legal Immigrant Data, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011.
- 116 -
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 121 of 130 Page ID #:2242 Table A1. APPENDIX
PREFERENCE IMMIGRATION LIMITS5 Family-sponsored Preferences Limit
Annual Limits for Preference and Diversity Immigrants: Fiscal Year 2011
Preference/description Family-sponsored preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens. . . Third: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth: Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment-based preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First: Priority workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second: Professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Third: Skilled workers, professionals, and needed unskilled workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth: Certain special immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fifth: Employment creation (investors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limit 226,000 23,400* 114,200 23,400 65,000 140,000 40,040 40,040 40,040 9,940 9,940 50,000
The annual limit is calculated as 480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or who adjusted to LPR stat us i n t he prev ious f isc a l ye a r a s 1) immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, 2) children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent, and 3) children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on tempo- *Plus unused family 4th preference visas. be used in these categories. Visas not used in higher preferences may rary trips abroad minus 4) certain cate- Plus unused employment 4th and 5th preference visas. gories of aliens paroled into the United Source: U.S. Department of State. States in the second preceding fiscal year plus 5) unused visas in the employment preferences in the preThe 2011 employment-based preference limit was 140,000. The ceding year. limit is 28.6 percent of the total for each of the first three employment preferences and 7.1 percent for each of the last two The family-sponsored preference limit may not fall below a minipreferences. mum of 226,000 in any year. The number of legal permanent residents issued visas or who adjusted status in 2010 under categories Per Country and Dependent Area Limits 1 to 4 above was 479,487. There were 388 unused visas in the A limit of 7 percent of the total family-sponsored and employemployment preferences in 2010. The calculated limit for familyment-based preferences is set for independent countries, and a sponsored preferences in 2011 was 901 (480,000 minus 479,487 limit of 2 percent is set for dependent areas. The 2011 per country plus 388). Since this number was below 226,000, the familylimit for independent foreign states was 25,620 (7 percent of sponsored preferences limit was set at 226,000. The limit for each 366,000 or 226,000 plus 140,000), and the limit for dependencategory is shown above (see Table A1). cies was 7,320 (2 percent of 366,000). Employment-based Preference Limit Diversity Limits The annual limit is equal to 140,000 plus unused visas in the famThe annual limit for diversity visas was 50,000 in 2011. ily-sponsored preferences in the previous fiscal year. There were zero unused visas in the family-sponsored preferences in 2010.
5 The Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, is responsible for determining these limits. See the monthly Visa Bulletin for more information on the limits (http://travel.state.gov/ visa/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html).
- 117 -
Exhibit 16
- 118 -
- 119 -
- 120 -
- 121 -
Exhibit 17
- 122 -
- 123 -
- 124 -
- 125 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) I hereby certify that on this 6th day of November, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing COMBINED EXHIBITS RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & CLASS CERTIFICATION with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system. Dated: November 6, 2012 /// /s/ ___Carlos Holgun________
-5-

Additional Counsel Listed Next Page Attorneys For Plaintiffs

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Additional Counsel Listed Next Page Attorneys For Plaintiffs

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 1 of 130 Page ID #:2122

Hearing: November 20, 2012 Time: 10:00 am Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 2 of 130 Page ID #:2123

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 3 of 130 Page ID #:2124

INDEX TO EXHIBITS Page

Exhibits In Support Preliminary Injunction, etc.

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 4 of 130 Page ID #:2125

Dated: November 6, 2012.

Exhibits In Support Preliminary Injunction, etc.

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 5 of 130 Page ID #:2126

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 6 of 130 Page ID #:2127

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 7 of 130 Page ID #:2128

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 8 of 130 Page ID #:2129

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 9 of 130 Page ID #:2130

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 10 of 130 Page ID #:2131

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 11 of 130 Page ID #:2132

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 12 of 130 Page ID #:2133

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 13 of 130 Page ID #:2134

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 14 of 130 Page ID #:2135

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 15 of 130 Page ID #:2136

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 16 of 130 Page ID #:2137

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 17 of 130 Page ID #:2138

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 18 of 130 Page ID #:2139

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 19 of 130 Page ID #:2140

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 20 of 130 Page ID #:2141

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 21 of 130 Page ID #:2142

THE NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES UNITED STATES FROM 2000-2005

MORE SAME-SEX MIDWEST

COUPLES ARE IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES IN THE

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 22 of 130 Page ID #:2143

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 23 of 130 Page ID #:2144

USEFUL IN ESTIMATING THE SIZE OF THE

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 24 of 130 Page ID #:2145

HAS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 25 of 130 Page ID #:2146

RANKS FIRST IN THE PERCENTAGE OF

INDIVIDUALS IN THE POPULATION AND LARGEST NUMBER OF

GLB NEW YORK CITY HAS THE

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 26 of 130 Page ID #:2147

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 27 of 130 Page ID #:2148

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 28 of 130 Page ID #:2149

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 29 of 130 Page ID #:2150

WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STUDY

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 30 of 130 Page ID #:2151

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 31 of 130 Page ID #:2152

38% 39% 33% 15% 43% 50% 81% -

indicates that any increase/decrease is not considered statistically significant.

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 32 of 130 Page ID #:2153

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 33 of 130 Page ID #:2154

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 34 of 130 Page ID #:2155

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 35 of 130 Page ID #:2156

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 36 of 130 Page ID #:2157

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 37 of 130 Page ID #:2158

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 38 of 130 Page ID #:2159

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 89 Filed 11/06/12 Page 39 of 130 Page ID #:2160