Author Archives: American Immigration Council

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-00257 (W.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 22, 2023)

Matthew Borowski is an immigration attorney and U.S. citizen who resides in Canada but manages an immigration law firm in Buffalo, New York. As such, he routinely commutes across the U.S./Canadian border for work. He has maintained a NEXUS card since 2012. NEXUS is a trusted traveler program that permits faster travel across the border.

Mr. Borowski and his family have had several encounters with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers while traveling across the border. In one incident, a CBP officer assaulted Mr. Borowski’s wife and took the families’ NEXUS cards. CBP ultimately returned the NEXUS cards. Mr. Borowski and his wife sued the assaulting CBP officer, who continued to harass the family while the lawsuit was pending. In 2017, Mr. Borowski successfully renewed his NEXUS card.

During the Trump administration, Mr. Borowski was outspoken about his opposition to new immigration policies and engaged in a range of activity to express his views, including a protest in immigration court. Mr. Borowksi continued to travel back and forth across the U.S./Canadian border, and though he was routinely sent to secondary inspection for no apparent reason, he was always permitted to continue his travel. In December 2022, CBP declined his request to renew his NEXUS card without explanation. A NEXUS Supervisor indicated to Mr. Borowski that prior incidents had led to the denial.

Mr. Borowski submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the reason for the denial. CBP has yet to respond. On March 22, 2023, Mr. Borowski filed suit alleging that the denial of his request to renew his NEXUS card was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and challenging the failure to respond to his FOIA request. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss, and Mr. Borowski filed an amended complaint on June 20, 2023. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2023, and plaintiff filed his response August 21, 2023.  Defendant submitted a motion for partial summary judgment on October 16, 2023, arguing that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claim that CBP improperly withheld responsive documents because information was properly withheld under the FOIA statute.

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part on February 21, 2024, dismissing Mr. Borowski’s FTCA and constitutional claims without prejudice but denying the motion to dismiss as to his APA claim. Defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 5, 2024. On May 10, 2024, the court denied Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that CBP had not adequately addressed the deficiencies Plaintiff identified in its production, nor adequately justifying the information it had withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions. On July 9, 2024, Defendant CBP filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that it had run a new search for documents and all withheld documents were properly done so pursuant to FOIA’s exemptions. Briefing is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Matthew Borowski

Contact: Matthew Borowski | (716) 330-1503

Press:

Daniel Telvock, NEXUS pass dispute pits attorney vs. U.S. Customs, WIVB4, Aug. 3, 2023.

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, et al., v. DHS, et al., No. 1:23-cv-10479 (D. Mass, filed Mar. 2, 2023)

On December 14, 2021, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) and Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) submitted a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking information about how CBP adjudicates humanitarian parole requests. Immigration law authorizes CBP and other agencies to parole noncitizens into the United States for “humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” As the government sets up more obstacles to legal entry—such as the former bar on entry pursuant to Title 42 and other limits on processing asylum seekers at ports of entry—humanitarian parole is often the only vehicle to seek temporary protection in the United States.

CBP has provided little information about how it adjudicates these urgent requests. Since 2017, FIRRP has been providing legal services to asylum seekers in Nogales, Sonora, just across the border from the Nogales Port of Entry into Nogales, Arizona. For their most vulnerable clients, FIRRP submits humanitarian parole applications, but the overwhelming majority of these clients have received boilerplate denials or no response at all. FIRRP and LCR submitted a FOIA request seeking CBP’s policies and procedures for processing these requests and data regarding processing times and outcomes.

After CBP failed to provide any responsive records for over a year, on March 2, 2023, FIRRP and LCR filed a lawsuit under FOIA to compel CBP to respond. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request, with production to be completed by November 3, 2023. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request. On March 19, 2024, the court stayed the case while the parties continue to cooperatively attempt to satisfy the FOIA request.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers for Civil Rights | Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Marian Albert | Lawyers for Civil Rights | (617) 482-1145

Transgender Law Center v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Posted on by

Transgender Law Center v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. 3:2019-cv-03032 (N.D. Cal., filed May 31, 2019) and No. 20-17416 (9th Cir., filed December 15, 2020)

On May 25, 2018, Roxsana Hernandez, a transgender woman, died in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE refused to provide her medical treatment. Roxsana entered the United States approximately two weeks before her death, seeking protection after fleeing persecution in her home country of Honduras, and also persecution she experienced in Mexico, due to her gender identity. Roxsana, who was suffering from untreated HIV, suffered from several physical ailments including frequent vomiting, diarrhea, persistent fever, severe weight loss and a cough in which she spat up bloody phlegm. She disclosed her condition no later than May 11, 2018, and requested medical attention multiple times. ICE refused and instead shuttled her to various holding, processing, and detention facilities, depriving her of food, water, sleep, and opportunities to relieve herself. She finally received treatment on May 17, 2018. The treatment did not come soon enough, and she died in the hospital on May 25, 2018.

On January 29, 2019, Plaintiffs Transgender Law Center and Jolene K. Youngers filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for any documents pertaining to Roxsana. On April 19, 2019, Defendant ICE acknowledged the FOIA request and assigned it a tracking number. On May 31, 2019, after not receiving any records responsive to the FOIA request, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 24, 2020, the district court granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment from both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The case was argued on appeal on November 16, 2021. On May 12, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, vacated, and remanded this case to the district court. The court of appeals held that ICE and DHS had failed to meet their burden to show that their search for records was adequate “beyond material doubt,” failed to support their withholding of responsive documents—including by relying on mere boilerplate justifications—and failed to adequately segregate responsive, non-exempt records.

On October 17, 2022, a magistrate judge held a case management conference with the parties and referred the case to another magistrate judge for a settlement conference. The court continued the case management conference to May 8, 2023. Defendants continue to produce documents responsive to the FOIA request and the case has been referred for a settlement conference.

Documents:

Counsel: Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. | Transgender Law Center | Law Office of R. Andrew Free

Contact: Dale Melchert | Dale@transgenderlawcenter.org

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:22-cv-10301 (D. Mass., filed Feb. 23, 2022)

On February 23, 2020, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (the Clinic) sued Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Clinic filed the FOIA in response to CBP denying entry to several Harvard students of Middle Eastern descent—many from Iran. Some were given expedited removal orders or had their visas revoked, even though the Department of State performed extended security checks during the visa processing.

The FOIA request identified three categories of information the Clinic sought from CBP: (1) records regarding the expedited removal of students at a port of entry; (2) records regarding withdrawal of admission by students at a port of entry; and (3) directives, policies, and communications by CBP regarding visa holders at ports of entry. CBP failed to provide an adequate response. The Clinic requested documents starting January 1, 2012, and the only documents CBP produced were from 2020. CBP also failed to produce any policy directives.

The Clinic filed an administrative appeal, requesting the responsive records and all non-exempt portions of the records. The administrative appeals unit ordered CBP to conduct a new search, but CBP failed to timely respond, and the Clinic sued. Since the initial filing, CBP filed its answer to the complaint, and the parties have filed periodic status reports as production in response to the FOIA request continues. As of a status report filed August 2025, the parties have reached an end result of the litigation concerning the document-related dispute and are addressing the issue of attorneys’ fees.

On September 16, 2025, the district court administratively closed the case, noting that the issue of attorneys’ fees is the only outstanding task. The judge has allowed for further status reports from defendants following the October-November 2025 federal government shutdown.

Documents:

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu

Civil Rights Complaint Regarding CBP’s Mistreatment of Harvard Medical Fellow

Posted on by

On April 2, 2021, and April 18, 2021, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied Dr. Maryam, a Canadian citizen from Iran, entry into the United States. Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States using her Canadian passport and all necessary evidence to support her admission in J-1 status. She and her family planned to stay in the U.S. for two years during Dr. Maryam’s competitive two-year fellowship at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The family planned to return to Canada after Dr. Maryam finished her fellowship.

During her first attempted entry, Dr. Maryam, her husband, and her two children drove with their belongings to the port of entry in Pembina, North Dakota. CBP pulled the family over for secondary inspection after seeing Dr. Maryam and her husband were born in Iran. CBP arbitrarily and discriminatorily interrogated Dr. Maryam’s husband for eight hours about his past in Iran, his thoughts and feelings about the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and his previous compulsory military service. Eventually, the family was turned back for allegedly failing to show non-immigrant intent—even after providing evidence of assets and ties to Canada. CBP issued an expedited removal order against Dr. Maryam’s husband and asked Dr. Maryam to withdraw her request for admission. CBP also took both fingerprints and DNA samples from Dr. Maryam and her husband before the family left the facility.

On April 18, 2021, Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States again. She planned to fly from Toronto to the United States, but CBP once again interrogated her and turned her back. This time, the CBP officer in secondary inspection denied her entry because (1) she allegedly had to wait until her husband’s case was resolved and (2) the CBP officer incorrectly told her that there that a “travel ban” against Iranian nationals prevented her from lawfully entering the country.

After her attempts to enter the U.S., Dr. Maryam filed an application for a J-1 visa with the U.S. Consulate (even though Canadian citizens are not required to apply for a visa in advance to enter the United States). The U.S. Consulate in Calgary refused to adjudicate the case, saying that it was waiting for her husband’s case to first be resolved.

In response to the inhumane treatment and rejection of Dr. Maryam and her family, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program filed an administrative complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), requesting CRCL to further investigate the April 2 and April 18 incidents. Additionally, the Program filed a writ of mandamus in the district court, requesting the Department of State adjudicate Dr. Maryam’s visa within 15 days of an order, pursuant to the Administration Procedures Act (APA) or to the court’s Mandamus authority. (Case No. 1:22-cv-1162-ZMF (D.D.C.).) On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the mandamus action.

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu

Bouey v. United States of America

Posted on by

Bouey v. United States of America et al., No. 3:22-cv-00442 (S.D. Cal., filed April 4, 2022)

On July 16, 2020, Janine Bouey, a U.S. citizen, visited Tijuana, Mexico for the day for a dental appointment. When she attempted to return to the United States via the pedestrian lanes at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (OMPOE), a CBP officer pulled her out of line. The CBP officer approached her, flirted with her, and ask her questions about both her trip to Mexico and her personal life. When Ms. Bouey refused to answer the questions about her personal life, the CBP officer retaliated by taking Ms. Bouey to the main building at the OMPOE.

Inside the OMPOE building, CBP performed multiple harmful and invasive searches of Ms. Bouey. On multiple occasions an officer fondled and penetrated Ms. Bouey’s genitalia without her consent and without justification. She was handcuffed to a bench, asked to strip down naked, and then ordered to bend over as an officer shined a flashlight into the areas of her genitalia. CBP officers also used a canine agent to invasively smell several of Ms. Bouey’s orifices. CBP officers never explained the reason for these searches, denied Ms. Bouey’s repeated requests to call an attorney, and failed to acknowledge her U.S. citizenship. The mistreatment by CBP caused Ms. Bouey physical pain and emotional distress, including anxiety, shock, humiliation, apprehension, and anguish. In response, on April 4, 2022, Ms. Bouey filed suit seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens. The FTCA claims included: (1) negligence, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) battery, and (4) violation of the Bane Act. The Bivens claim sought a remedy for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. On June 3, 2022, counsel for the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on July 14, 2022, though the court did grant the government’s request to strike the demand for attorneys’ fees. Defendant United States then filed an answer to the complaint on July 28, 2022. The parties are scheduled for a settlement conference on May 24, 2023.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Egbert v. Boule, which largely shields federal border agents—including CBP officers and Border Patrol agents—from civil lawsuits seeking damages for excessive-force claims, the parties began exploring the possibility of settlement. The court signed off on the settlement in June and dismissed the case on August 11, 2023.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Egbert v. Boule, which largely shields federal border agents—including CBP officers and Border Patrol agents—from Bivens liability for excessive-force claims, the parties began exploring the possibility of settlement. The court signed off on the settlement in June and dismissed the case on August 11, 2023.

Counsel: Joseph M. McMullen | joe@imm-legal.com
Contact: Kendall Martin | kendall@alliancesd.org | (619) 629-0337

Press:
● Abuse, Assault and Impunity at DHS Must Stop: Former LAPD Officer Subjected to Sexual Assault by DHS Sues the Agency, Alliance San Diego, Jun. 16, 2021.

● Alex Riggins, Former LAPD Officer Settles Suit Against CBP, San Diego Tribune, Aug. 11, 2023.

Civil Right Complaints Regarding CBP Abuse of Children

Posted on by

On April 6, 2022, Americans for Immigrant Justice (AIJ), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef), and Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) filed separate administrative complaints with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (DHS CRCL) and the DHS Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) about the treatment of unaccompanied children in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody in 2021. The organizations condemned CBP for violations of the Flores Settlement Agreement and the CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detentions and Search (TEDS).

The complaints highlighted the sleeping conditions and the freezing temperatures in the facilities, the lack of water and food, the lack of access to personal hygiene, the inadequate medical care and the verbal and physical abuse by CBP officers. The complaints include stories of several minors who detail aspects of their treatment while in detention by CBP.

As shared by AIJ, 12-year-old N.A.E. was told “he would be reunited with his mother in the United States,” only to be illegally returned to Guatemala without his knowledge or consent. C.C.L., age 10, “had his mattress taken away,” which CBP did “if they felt someone was misbehaving.” At age 15, K.G.C. had to share a mattress with three other girls while detained, during which she contracted lice.

These stories, and others shared in the complaints, illustrate the inhumane conditions affecting the health and safety of children while in CBP custody. The administrative complaints contain recommendations for preventing CBP’s abuse of children. These recommendations include: CBP adherence to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVRPA), to the CBP National Standards on TEDS, and to the Flores settlement agreement; providing comparable care to that of Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) facilities; additional training for CBP officers and staff; access to legal counsel; and the hiring and use of child welfare professionals.

Counsel: Americans for Immigrant Justice; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)

Contact: Jennifer Anzardo | janzardo@aijustice.org | Carley Sessions | cesssions@supportkind.org

Moore v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Posted on by

Moore v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. EP-19-CV-00279-DCG, (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 1, 2019)

From June 2018 to March 2019, Plaintiff Robert Moore, a journalist, submitted five Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), seeking critical records related to border enforcement, fundamental shifts in the treatment of people seeking asylum, and operation of immigration detention facilities in El Paso. Among other requests, Mr. Moore asked that CBP release any and all directives, emails, text messages and other communications from CBP officials regarding the handling of people seeking asylum at ports of entry when port facilities are at “capacity.” He also requested information related to CBP’s use of a “field force demonstration” in a community next to the border on the day of mid-term elections in November 2018. When the three agencies failed to timely produce responsive records, Mr. Moore filed a lawsuit on October 1, 2019, to compel the agencies to conduct searches and produce responsive records.

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court stayed the motion and set a production schedule.

In a series of motions, the parties have litigated the speed at which CBP must review and produce responsive records, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff moved for the Court to lift the stay and to enter a finite production schedule. The Court allowed the stay to remain in place, in light of the global pandemic, but ordered a finite production schedule.  On November 19, 2020 (the day before the production deadline), at 4:56 p.m., CBP filed a motion for a new stay of proceedings pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C) and Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976), and to extend the deadline under the finite production schedule.

On January 12, 2021, the Court denied CBP’s request for an Open America stay. The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordered the parties to confer regarding a revised finite production schedule, and ordered CBP to produce weekly status reports to the Court for the duration of the case. The Court explained that the weekly reports, accompanied by a declaration, “SHALL detail CBP’s progress and developments in processing both Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and track the specific number of files/records/documents and total amount of pages reviewed that week and how many are outstanding for each individual FOIA request. Any incomplete, late, or seemingly cloned (‘copied-and-pasted’) submissions SHALL not be deemed to comply with this Order.”

The case was set for a bench trial on September 15, 2021, related to the withholding of information from CBP’s FOIA production. On September 14, 2021, CBP rolled back certain redactions from its production, resolving the issues that were to be presented at trial. The parties submitted a joint motion to retain the case while fees are resolved.

On November 17, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Consequently, on December 15, 2021, the parties agreed to a stipulation of dismissal.

Counsel: Law Office of Lynn Coyle, PLLC

Contact: Christopher Benoit | chris@coylefirm.com | (915) 532-5544

Castellanos v. United States

Posted on by

Castellanos v. United States, No. 18-CV-2334-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2018)

In this case, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents’ excessive use of force during a routine inspection at Calexico Port of Entry left a seventy-five-year-old man in the hospital with a fractured elbow and displaced ribs. On December 17, 2017, Jesus and Raquel Castellanos, at the time seventy-five and seventy-one years old, and their adult son, Marco Castellanos, were in secondary inspection at the Calexico Port of Entry, when a CBP officer began yelling at Marco for using his cellphone. Marco explained he was responding to a message, put his cellphone away, and asked the CBP officer to bring a supervisor, but the CBP officer preceded to put Marco in a chokehold and a group of officers gathered and slammed him against a fence.

Jesus Castellanos pleaded with the officers to let his son go and stop assaulting him. CBP Officer Hedlund shoved Mr. Castellanos, threw him over a bench, and punched him in the chest and ribs multiple times. As Mr. Castellanos lay face down on the bench, Officer Hedlund continued to put all his weight on Mr. Castellanos and twisted his elbow with such force that it was fractured. Mr. Castellanos also suffered multiple displaced ribs from the assault.

Officer Hedlund and two other CBP officers took Mr. Castellanos to a holding cell and when he told them his arm had been injured, Officer Hedlund further bent his arm.  Mr. Castellanos was able to get the attention of a supervisor who called an ambulance that arrived thirty minutes later and took him to the hospital. While her husband was being assaulted and detained, Mrs. Castellanos, who suffers from dementia, pleaded for the officers to stop and became confused and distraught as CBP officials did not explain to her where they had taken her husband or son.

On January 12, 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Castellanos filed administrative complaints under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but received no response. On October 10, 2018, they brought this action seeking damages under Bivens and the FTCA. The second amended complaint alleges Officer Hedlund is liable for Fourth Amendment violations under Bivens. The complaint further seeks to hold the United States liable under the FTCA for assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment under the FTCA.

In February 2020, the district court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment. After the summary judgement motion was denied, the Castellanos family reached a settlement agreement with the government on April 24, 2020. Details of the settlement agreement have not been disclosed. It is unknown if Officer Hedlund or any of the other CBP officers involved were disciplined in any way.

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Contact: Eugene Iredale | 619.233.1525 | contact@iredalelaw.com

D.A. v. United States

Posted on by

D.A., et al., v. United States of America, et al., No. 1:20-cv-03082 (N.D. Ill., filed May 22, 2020), and No. 3:22-cv-295 (W.D. Tex., transferred Aug. 24, 2022)

On the night of May 23, 2018, D.A. and A.A. entered the United States with their mother, Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales, seeking asylum from political violence in their native Honduras, along with other asylum seekers. Shortly after crossing the U.S. border, several U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers approached the group and arrested them. The CBP officers loaded the group into a van without offering them food or water. They insulted Lucinda and her children, calling them liars and telling them that they were tired of immigrants, and questioned their motives for coming to the United States. The CBP officers also told the group that they would all lose their children.

CBP officers took Lucinda and her children to the Ysleta Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. The type of holding center they were taken to is commonly referred to by asylum seekers as a “hielera” (an “icebox,” in Spanish) because of the freezing cold temperatures. D.A. and A.A., who were still wet from crossing the river, were forced to sit, shivering, on concrete steps in the hielera. CBP officers did not give them any blankets or jackets to protect them from the cold while they waited. Though Lucinda had crutches for her injured leg, CBP officers confiscated them. The family remained in the hielera for approximately one and a half days, during which time CBP officers repeatedly insulted them.

On or around May 24, 2018, federal agents took Lucinda and told her that she was going to federal prison. The federal agents did not give Lucinda an opportunity to explain anything to D.A. and A.A., or hug and kiss them goodbye. As the federal agents took Lucinda away in handcuffs, fourteen-year-old D.A. and five-year-old A.A. screamed and cried for their mother through a plexiglass divider.

Lucinda and the children remained separated for almost three months. Both the mother and the children were mistreated in government custody, exacerbating the trauma of their separation. The family filed administrative claims for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to which the government failed to respond.

In this action, filed on May 22, 2020, the family seeks damages under the FTCA for the trauma they suffered and continue to suffer. They also brought claims against the government contractor responsible for the care and custody of the children, Heartland Alliance. The complaint alleges that the United States is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent supervision, conversion, abuse of process, and loss of consortium, and that Heartland Alliance is liable for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent supervision, and violation of the Rehabilitation Act. On September 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On October 16, 2020, both the federal Defendants and the Heartland Alliance Defendants separately moved to dismiss. Briefing was completed in December 2020. On May 18, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to stay the proceedings for 60 days for the parties to pursue settlement. As such, the court struck the motions to dismiss with leave to reinstate should settlement negotiations fail. On July 19, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendant United States jointly requested that the stay be extended until September 17, 2021. However, Plaintiffs requested that the stay of their claims against Defendant Heartland Alliance be lifted and that Heartland Alliance’s pending motion to dismiss be reinstated.

In November 2021, Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Defendant Heartland Alliance, and dismissed Heartland Alliance from the case. On January 18, 2022, the stay of Defendant United States’ motion to dismiss was lifted.

On August 24, 2022, the court transferred the case to the Western District of Texas without ruling on the merits of the pending motion to dismiss. The United States filed a renewed motion to dismiss on October 13, 2022. On March 23, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed two of the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the medical negligence claim for failure to state a claim. After a period of discovery, the parties jointly moved to stay all deadlines, having reached a settlement agreement in principle. The court granted the motion to stay on May 6, 2024, while the parties finalized the terms of the settlement. An unopposed motion for settlement was submitted on July 31, 2024. On October 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, which the court approved on October 8.

Documents:

Counsel: Loevy & Loevy | Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP)

Contact: Conchita Cruz | (305) 484-9260 | conchita.cruz@asylumadvocacy.org