Author Archives: American Immigration Council

Perez, C.Y. v. United States

Posted on by

Perez, C.Y. v. United States, 3:13-cv-01417-WQH (S.D. Cal., Fourth Amended Complaint, filed Sep. 22, 2016); 17-56610 (9th Cir., filed Oct. 19, 2017) 

This case challenges CBP and U.S. Border Patrol’s excessive use of force pursuant to the agency’s “Rocking Policy,” which permits the use of lethal force against persons throwing rocks and other objects in the direction of Border Patrol agents. Maria Del Socorro Quintero Perez filed a lawsuit against the United States, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), the U.S. Border Patrol (“USBP”), and various Border Patrol supervisors and agents in their individual capacities for the wrongful death of her husband, Jesus Alfredo Yañez Reyes.

On June 21, 2011, Yañez and Jose Ibarra-Murietta crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. Soon thereafter they were apprehended by Border Patrol agents Chad Michael Nelson and Dorian Diaz. While Yañez managed to escape back to the Mexican side of the border through a small hole in a fence, Agent Nelson tackled Murietta to the ground and began to strike him. Yañez climbed a tree that leaned against the Mexican side of the fence near the area where Agent Nelson was beating Murietta.

The events that followed are in dispute. Agents Nelson and Diaz allege that, during Nelson’s struggle with Murietta, Yañez threw one or two rocks in the direction of Agent Nelson, neither of which hit him. They further allege that Yañez threw a nail-studded board that struck Agent Nelson in the head. Murietta, meanwhile, asserts that Yañez never threw anything at Agent Nelson, but instead attempted to stop Nelson’s beating of Murietta by threatening to record the scene on his cellphone.

In both versions of the event, Diaz then instructed Yañez to come down from the fence. Without any further warning or provocation from Yañez, Diaz shot Yañez directly in the head, killing him. Yañez fell out of the tree on the southern side of the fence, and neither agent attempted to render any assistance to him. Agent Nelson sustained only minor injuries, none of which originated from rocks or a nail-studded board.

Plaintiffs argue that, regardless of which version of events is accurate, the agents unlawfully used excessive lethal force against Yañez. Both agents admitted that neither of them gave Yañez any verbal command or warning to stop throwing objects. Furthermore, Yañez’s alleged conduct did not create a risk of death or serious injury; the rocks were small, they did not hit the agents, and the allegedly thrown nail-studded board did not cause Agent Nelson any injury. There was no evidence that Yañez was about to throw any other objects in the moments before the shooting.

Yañez’s death was not an isolated event. According to a detailed report by an expert witness in the case, Thomas Frazier, Border Patrol agents along the U.S-Mexico border have regularly used lethal force against persons of perceived Hispanic or Mexican nationality. Plaintiffs allege that Border Patrol supervisors and other various agents within DHS acquiesced and tacitly approved of the excessive use of force against persons crossing the border. Between January 2010 and October 2012, Border Patrol agents responded to an alleged thrown rock with deadly force at least twenty-nine times.

Plaintiffs claim that the Rocking Policy violates international peremptory norms against extrajudicial killings, bilateral treaties, and domestic law, including the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and a federal regulation that prohibits the police from using deadly force in the absence of a significant risk of death or serious physical injury. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable relief.

On February 22, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or to strike portions of the Plaintiffs’ complaint, seeking to strike all causes of action alleged by the Plaintiffs other than their Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Agents Nelson and Diaz and then- Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher. In late March 2016, the judge granted Defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part.

Following the District Court’s decision, on September 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint. On October 20, 2016, Defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint.

On March 3, 2017, the Court granted in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Amendment Claims. In addition, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims. On April 1, 2017, the remaining two individual defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the surviving Fourth Amendment claims. On September 21, 2017, the District Court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion, declining to find a Bivens remedy for Plaintiffs’ alleged Fourth Amendment violation and also concluding that qualified immunity barred suit. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

The parties completed appeal briefing in May 2018, and the case was argued in November 2018. In May 2019, the court withdrew the case from submission pending a decision from the Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Mesa, a case that addressed the availability of a Bivens remedy for victims of cross-border shootings. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez limiting th’e availability of Bivens, 140 S.Ct. 735 (2020), the parties submitted supplemental briefing. On August 9, 2021, the case was resubmitted. On August 16, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of ATS and FTCA claims and granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s Bivens claims.

Counsel: Singleton Law Firm, APC; Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP; Hilliard & Shadowen, LLP

Gallegos v. United States of America, et al

Posted on by

Gallegos v. United States of America, et al., No. 5:14-cv-00136 (S.D. Tex., Amended Complaint filed June 23, 2015)

This case challenges the actions of two U.S. Border Patrol agents, who shot dead an unarmed man on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border in 2012. Nora Lam Gallegos, on behalf of herself and her minor children, brought a lawsuit against the United States and various Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agents in their individual capacities for the wrongful death of her husband, Guillermo Arevalo Pedraz (“Arevalo”).

On September 3, 2012, Arevalo and his family were celebrating his birthday in a park in Mexico bordering the Rio Grande when a U.S. Border Patrol airboat pulled beside a man swimming in the river. The two agents, Matthew Lambrecht and Christopher Boatwright, were responding to a report that three people had swum over to the Texas border. Witnesses allege that the man in the river was swimming back to Mexico in order to evade capture. One of the Border Patrol agents on the boat attempted to catch the person swimming in the river using a long boat hook. A crowd gathered on the Mexican shore as onlookers shouted at the two agents to leave the man alone. Arevalo ran toward the crowd. The agents in the airboat later reported that about 20 people on the Mexican shore began throwing rocks at the boat, but Mexican witnesses vehemently denied this. One of the agents on the boat aimed and fired at least five shots at the crowd, which included children. Two bullets hit Arevalo. He was rushed to a hospital but was pronounced dead after an unsuccessful attempt to revive him.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging that the agents unlawfully used excessive force in shooting Arevalo. Multiple eyewitnesses directly contradict Border Patrol’s assertion that Arevalo was throwing rocks before he was killed. Plaintiffs assert that, even assuming arguendo that Arevalo was throwing rocks, the agents’ response was grossly excessive; a cellphone video of the incident demonstrates that when the agents opened fire, they were beyond the distance at which any thrown rock could pose a risk of death or serious bodily injury, and in any case, the agents could have shielded themselves by moving the boat further from the Mexican shore.

Plaintiffs allege that the agents were acting pursuant to the Border Patrol’s “Rocking Policy,” which permits the use of lethal force against persons throwing rocks and other objects in the direction of Border Patrol agents. Plaintiffs also assert that, despite condemnation from the Mexican government and international human rights organizations, high-ranking DHS and CBP officials have acquiesced to the Rocking Policy.

Plaintiffs allege that the Rocking Policy violates various international treaties as well Mexican sovereignty by permitting Border Patrol agents to fire their weapons into Mexico’s sovereign territory. They also claim that the Rocking Policy violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable relief.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020), the parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims should be dismissed. On May 22, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On September 15, 2021, the district court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss and dismissed all remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Counsel: Robert C. Hilliard | Singleton Law Firm, APC; Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP

Contact: Robert C. Hilliard | bobh@hmglawfirm.com | (361) 882-1612

Administrative Complaint Against Border Patrol Re: Denial of Food to Asylum Seekers

Posted on by

Administrative Complaint Against Border Patrol Re: Denial of Food to Asylum Seekers Awaiting Processing at San Yisidro Port of Entry, filed by ACLU of San Diego

On March 17, 2016, U.S. citizen and immigration attorney Nicole Ramos escorted her client “M.” to the San Ysidro Port of Entry, where M., a transgender woman with disabilities, waited in line to request asylum. Ms. Ramos had prepared a letter for M. describing her disabilities and special needs. Approximately eight hours after M. had arrived at the port of entry, Ms. Ramos communicated with M. and learned that she had not received any food. She also learned that when M. tried to present the letter to a CBP officer, the officer told her that “the letter doesn’t mean shit.” Ms. Ramos immediately contacted CBP, who told her that individuals awaiting credible fear interviews were fed three times daily. Another ten hours later – more than 18 hours after arriving at the port of entry – M. had still not received any food, despite multiple requests to CBP officers. A CBP officer on duty told M. that she was responsible for bringing her own food to the port.

At 11 AM on Friday, March 18, attorney Ramos returned to the port of entry to bring M. food. At that time, a CBP officer informed Ms. Ramos that individuals in line for asylum processing would be given something to eat “if they asked.” Despite further requests by M. for something to eat that day, she was not given any food. Around 9 PM on Friday, CBP supervisor Chief Knox told Ms. Ramos that CBP “was not obligated to feed people on the Mexican side” of the port of entry, despite the fact that asylum seekers were processed in the U.S. controlled area of the port.

CBP did not provide M. with any food for 34 hours.  This was in direct violation of the Border Patrol’s own detention standards, which require CBP officers to provide individuals awaiting processing at ports of entry food and water at regular intervals. In its complaint letter to CBP, the ACLU of San Diego also alleges that the denial of food and water violated M.’s substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, the ACLU alleges that the CBP officers’ abusive remarks and apparent lack of knowledge regarding official agency policies reflect CBP’s inadequate training on the humane treatment of asylum seekers.

The ACLU asks that CBP acknowledge the letter, provide the ACLU with copies of all policies relevant to the treatment of asylum seekers at ports of entry, and issue a formal apology for their treatment of Ms. Ramos and M.

In late April, CBP responded to the ACLU’s complaint.

Complaint Against CBP Over Failed Policies Regarding Return of Belongings

Posted on by

Complaint Against CBP Over Failed Policies Regarding Return of Belongings

On April 6, 2016, the New Mexico ACLU Center for Border Rights, along with the Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional and other partners, filed a complaint with DHS which documented 26 cases in which belongings—including important identity documents, money, and irreplaceable personal items—were confiscated by Border Patrol agents from individuals they apprehended and never returned at the time that the individuals were deported.  The reported cases highlight the devastating consequences that can flow from the loss of critical documents and money.  These 26 incidents are illustrative of the serious systemic problems with respect to CBP’s policies on return of belongings, including the ability for individual agent’s to abuse the system.

Counsel: Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional, ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, ACLU Foundation of Texas, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

Contact: Kristin Love | klove@aclu-nm.org | (505) 266-5915 extension 1007

Administrative Complaint Re: Extreme Temperatures in CBP Short Term Detention Facilities

Posted on by

Administrative Complaint Re: Extreme Temperatures in CBP Short Term Detention Facilities

On February 2, 2016, NIP/NLG, in collaboration with Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional  and the ACLU of New Mexico, filed an administrative complaint on behalf of persons held by CBP in short-term detention facilities where they are exposed to extreme temperatures. The administrative complaint also challenges the agency standards  addressing temperature controls in short-term facilities, but asserts that the agency fails to abide even by these standards.

Shortly after the complaint was filed, DHS OIG announced that it would inspect short-term detention facilities.

Counsel: Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional (PDIB) | National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild | ACLU of New Mexico

S.V. v. United States

Posted on by

S.V. v. United States, 8:16-cv-00419 (D. Neb, filed Sept. 2, 2016)

In the middle of 2014, a 14-year-old U.S. citizen, whose parents were from Guatemala, was traveling back to the U.S. with her older sister when she was taken into custody by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents.

While she had been born in Florida, her family moved back to Guatemala shortly after her birth.  She lived there for the next 13 years.  However, as a result of increasingly horrific gang violence, her family’s poverty, and difficult circumstances in the home, she decided she needed to return to the country of her birth, the United States.

Upon arriving at the U.S. border and presenting a copy of her Florida birth certificate, she was shocked to be detained and accused of presenting a fake document.  After her arrest, CBP transferred her to what she called the “hielera” or “icebox.” She was held in federal custody for 44 days before finally being released into the custody of a family member living in Nebraska.

However, the Department of Homeland Security continued to insist for almost a year that this U.S. citizen child should be deported back to Guatemala, before the Immigration Court terminated her removal proceedings and concluded she is a U.S. citizen.

As a result of the ordeal, this child has experienced significant emotional distress.  She filed her FTCA administrative complaint on October 14, 2015 against CBP, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). On March 4, 2016, CBP responded by issuing a final denial of her complaint. On July 6, 2016, DHHS closed the complaint without a decision in light of CBP’s denial. Following these denials, she filed an FTCA lawsuit in the District of Nebraska on September 2, 2016.

On January 26, 2017, the United States filed an answer to the complaint. In June 2017 the parties reached a settlement agreement after the meet and confer process, in which the government agreed to award monetary damages in the amount of $40,000 as satisfaction for any and all injuries to person and property this child suffered.

On June 14, 2017, the court dismissed the action.

Counsel: Justice for Our Neighbors

Contact: Charles Shane Ellison | charles@jfon-ne.org | (402) 898-1349

Rios-Diaz, et al. v. Colonel Tom Butler, Montana Highway Patrol, et al.

Posted on by

Rios-Diaz v. Montana Highway Patrol, No. 13-CV-77 (D. Mont. 2014)

On October 7, 2013, the Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance (“MIJA”) and four representative plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana against Colonel Tom Butler, sued in his official capacity as acting Chief Administrator of the Montana Highway Patrol, and Attorney General Tim Fox, sued in his official capacity as head of the Montana Department of Justice.

The lawsuit alleges that Montana Highway Patrol has a policy and practice of seizing Latino drivers or passengers, that a patrol officer believes may be in the country without authorization, for a prolonged period of time–often between forty minutes to two hours. The sole basis for detaining these individuals is to make contact with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to ascertain their immigration status and determine if an immigration enforcement officer wishes to assume custody of them.

On April 2, 2015, a final judgment was entered by U.S. District Court Judge Dana L. Christensen, approving an Offer of Judgment provided by Defendants and accepted by Plaintiffs. The settlement requires adherence to a new policy clarifying that Montana State’s Highway Patrol will not stop or prolong detention for purposes for verifying immigration status, even if requested to do so by CBP or ICE. In addition, the judgment also requires, among other things, training for MHP officials as to the new policy, requires MHA to collect data on all traffic stops anytime MHP contacts DHS and requires MHP to submit annual reports regarding racial profiling.

Counsel: Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Border Crossing Law Firm, P.C.

Press coverage:

Salem v. USA, et al.

Posted on by

Salem v. USA, et al., No. 5:15-cv-02091-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 9, 2015)

Mr. Salem brought this damages case against the United States, the Los Angeles Fire Department, and unknown CBP officers. Mr. Salem is a U.S. citizen who is also a citizen of Egypt. An accomplished playwright, 75 year old Salem was at the Los Angeles airport to begin his annual trip to Egypt, where he taught a literature class as an adjunct professor at the University of Cairo. He passed through security without incident, handed over his boarding pass and entered the passenger bridge to board his plane. At that point he was pulled over by an officer he believes was with CBP, who asked to see his passport. When he asked why he had been singled out, he was immediately surrounded by three other officers who forcibly grabbed both of his arms. They searched his carry-on luggage and, after finding nothing objectionable, forcibly escorted him to an interrogation room. There he was questioned for several hours, during which time the officers forced his arm behind his back, breaking it in the process. After about 4 hours of questioning, he was released without being charged. He was in great pain, and a bone in his arm was visibly displaced.

Mr. Salem’s suit includes Bivens claims under the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure and use of excessive force) and the Fifth Amendment (equal protection). It also includes FTCA claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

Defendant United States of America filed an answer to the amended complaint on January 18, 2017. Defendant City of Los Angeles filed an answer to the amended complaint on February 9, 2017. Individual Defendants also filed answers to the amended complaint on February 2, 2017 and March 07, 2017. The parties have agreed to stipulations for the Plaintiff’s inspection of the premises where Mr. Salem’s detention took place, and the Court accordingly entered a protective order regarding the Plaintiff’s entry and inspection of the premises on March 15, 2017.

On April 21, 2017, the individual federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposed. On June 13, 2017, the district court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on September 12, 2017, in which Defendant USA agreed to pay Plaintiff $45,000 under the FTCA in exchange for dismissing all other claims.

Counsel: Counsel on American-Islamic Relations, CA l Law Office of Shafiel A. Karim

Contact: Marwa Rifahie (Civil Rights Managing Attorney) | mrifahie@cair.com

Martinez-Castro, et al. v. Village of Wakeman, et al.

Posted on by

Martinez-Castro, et al. v. Village of Wakeman, et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (N.D. Ohio; 3:12-cv-2364)

In 2012, ABLE filed a federal court complaint on behalf of two Hispanic married couples from Norwalk, Ohio.  The married couples, traveling in the same car and returning from work at a local nursery, were stopped by the Wakeman Police Department early one morning.  Without reasonable suspicion or cause, the Wakeman police officer contacted the U.S. Border Patrol.  When Border Patrol agents arrived at the scene, they proceeded to interrogate and verbally harass the occupants of the car.  The individuals were aggressively removed from the car, handcuffed and taken to the Sandusky Bay Station.  At the station, the individuals were then placed in a room where they were harassed and interrogated by ten to twelve different agents over the course of the day.

The complaint filed against the Village of Wakeman and the U.S. Border Patrol alleges claims under the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Bivens claims against the individual Border Patrol agents and claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.  The complaint alleges that the U.S. Border Patrol and the Wakeman Police Department have engaged in illegal profiling of Hispanics and seeks injunctive relief to prohibit the use of race as a motivating factor in stops and detentions.

Following extensive discovery, the court declined to dismiss all but one of Plaintiffs’ claims, finding that they stated a claim for relief and also that they satisfied the pleading standard set out in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–89 (2009). Subsequently, the parties entered into settlement discussions and reached a resolution of the case in early 2014 in which each of the plaintiffs received $7,000.00 plus an additional amount in attorneys fees.

Vasquez-Palafox v. United States

Posted on by

Vasquez-Palafox v. United States U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (N.D. Ohio; 3:12-cv-2380)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Cir. 13-3599)

In a related case to Muñiz v. United States Border Patrol, ABLE filed a subsequent federal court complaint on behalf of an individual who was questioned by two Border Patrol Agents while walking down a street in Fremont, Ohio, after picking up his son at school.  The plaintiff believes he was targeted for questioning because he is Hispanic.  He alleges in his Federal Tort Claims Act case against the United States that two Border Patrol Agents committed the Ohio torts of assault, false imprisonment, deprivation of civil rights through ethnic intimidation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  In 2013, the federal district court judge granted the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  The dismissal was appealed and, while pending in the Sixth Circuit, the parties were able to reach a settlement in which the Plaintiff received a nominal amount.