Even if ORR completed that reunification withoutcomplying with the TVPRA’s protections—something its declarant is unclear about—one exam-ple in almost 20 years is hardly a longstanding practice.

Congress spoke in mandatory and sweeping terms: this process “shall” apply to“[a]ny unaccompanied alien child” whom DHS seeks to “remove[].” Id. (emphases added). Atthe time, Congress knew about ORR’s reunification responsibility. Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.,498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990) (“We assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legis-lation.”). If that responsibility authorized ORR to expel unaccompanied alien children from thecountry, it would be odd for Congress to have enacted the TVPRA’s comprehensive process with-out specifically acknowledging that supposed authority. Defendants’ view, after all, would renderthe TVPRA inapplicable any time ORR invoked this purported authority to expel an unaccompa-nied alien child for reunification purposes

Instead, the class depends on whether an unaccompanied child fromGuatemala has received either a final order of removal or permission from the Attorney Generalto voluntarily depart the United States. In any event, the record here is barren of evidence that anychild in the proposed class wants to return to Guatemala, even if their parents can be found. Allthe evidence suggests the opposite: Plaintiffs have offered over 30 declarations from Guatemalanchildren who object to being sent back.

In the end, only parentsfor about 50 to 57 of the 609 children that ORR identified to Guatemala “were willing to welcomeback their children.” Id. at 3–4. Even within that small group, though, “none of them was request-ing their [child’s] return.” Id. at 4. The parents of one child explained why: their daughter “hadreceived death threats and therefore could not live in” Guatemala, so they would “do everythingpossible to get her out of the country again” if the United States sent her back

efore “conducting home visits” with those families, the office called them and “dis-covered that the families were surprised”—and “some even annoyed”—by the outreach because“many” did “not expect” their children “to be returned to Guatemala.”

“[A]ll of these children,” counselasserted, “have their parents or guardians in Guatemala who are requesting their return.

That communication included a “Notice to Attorney of Record” that the provid-ers were to “immediate[ly] disseminat[e] to attorneys of record and child advocates,” presumablywithin that two-hour window in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend

helters in Texas, for example, called immigration attorneys at the South Texas Pro BonoAsylum Representation Project (“ProBAR”) just before midnight on August 30 to explain “thatthey had been told to prepare children to be repatriated.” ECF No. 20-3 ¶ 5. Transportation wouldapparently “arrive to pick them up in two hours.

At a hearing later that day, counsel for Defendants explainedwhy it was “fairly outrageous” for Plaintiffs to have sued: all Defendants wanted to do was reunifychildren with parents who had requested their return. But that explanation crumbled like a houseof cards about a week later. There is no evidence before the Court that the parents of these childrensought their return. To the contrary, the Guatemalan Attorney General reports

nd the Court will also grant their request for preliminary relief.Congress enacted into law a specific process for removing unaccompanied alien children likePlaintiffs, and Defendants’ “reunification” plan likely contravenes those statutory requirements.