Author Archives: American Immigration Council

Alba Quinonez Flores v. United States of America

Posted on by

Alba Quinonez Flores v. United States of America
No. 1:14-cv-03166 (E.D.N.Y. Filed May 20, 2014)

Filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, this suit seeks damages for the physical and psychological injury Ms. Quinonez Flores suffered at the hands of CBP while she was detained in holding cells, known as hieleras (iceboxes), in CBP’s Rio Grande Valley Sector. The complaint alleges that CBP negligently placed Ms. Quinonez Flores in detention conditions that they knew or should have known posed a substantial risk of harm, failed to oversee the agents who managed the day-to-day operations of the detention facilities, and that their acts and omissions constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress. For more information regarding this case, see Texas, FTCA Administrative Complaints.

On December 30, 2014, Defendants moved to transfer venue, arguing that venue was not proper in the E.D.N.Y. because Plaintiff was not lawfully present in the U.S. The court denied Defendants’ motion on June 12, 2015.

Thereafter, CBP offered to settle the case for $80,000. On February 4, 2016, after Plaintiff accepted the offer, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the suit.

Counsel: Law Office of David K.S. Kim, PC; Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger; Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Ira Kurzban | Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger | 305-444-0060 | ira@kkwtlaw.com

Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Johnson, et al.

Posted on by

Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Johnson, et al. No. 2:13-cv-03972 (C.D. Cal., filed June 4, 2013)

Filed by the ACLU and Cooley LLP on behalf of eleven Mexican nationals and three immigration advocacy organizations, this class action lawsuit challenged deceptive tactics used by Border Patrol agents and ICE officers to convince noncitizens to accept “voluntary return.” Each individual plaintiff had significant family ties in the United States and lacked any serious criminal history. Thus, they could have asserted strong claims to remain in the United States if they had been granted a hearing before an immigration judge.

The complaint alleged that Border Patrol agents and ICE officers have a pattern and practice of pressuring undocumented immigrants to sign what amount to their own summary expulsion documents. In recent years, this “voluntary return” procedure has been used to summarily expel hundreds of thousands of noncitizens from Southern California. Because of the coercive and deceptive tactics immigration officers employ, voluntary return regularly results in the involuntary waiver of core due process rights. An individual who signs for voluntary return forfeits his or her right to a hearing before an immigration judge and is usually expelled from the United States within a matter of hours.

Through the lawsuit, the individual plaintiffs sought to return to the United States and to receive a fair hearing before an immigration judge. The organizational plaintiffs, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, and the San Bernardino Community Service Center, sought systemic reforms to the voluntary return process throughout Southern California.

Following more than a year of litigation, including intensive discovery and the deposition of key government officials, the government agreed to significant reforms of the voluntary return system in Southern California. Under a settlement reached by the parties, government officials must:

  • Provide detailed information – in writing, orally, and through a 1-800 hotline – regarding the consequences of accepting voluntary return to noncitizens asked to choose between voluntary return and a hearing before an immigration judge;
  • Cease “pre-checking” the box selecting voluntary return on the forms the immigration agencies provide to noncitizens;
  • Permit noncitizens to use a working phone, provide them with a list of legal service providers, and give them two hours to reach someone before deciding whether to accept voluntary return;
  • Provide lawyers meaningful access to clients detained by Border Patrol or ICE;
  • Cease pressuring or coercing individuals to accept voluntary return;
  • Allow some of the hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals who have been subject to unlawful voluntary returns to reunite with their families in the United States; and
  • Allow ACLU attorneys to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement for three years.

Additional information on the class settlement is available here.

90 class members were identified under the settlement, and 82 of those individuals successfully returned to the United States. Others decided not to return, or could not be located. Monitoring of compliance of the settlement is ongoing. The ACLU of San Diego and their partners conducted visits to Border Patrol stations covered by the settlement in March 2017 to monitor compliance.

Press:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties; ACLU Foundation of Southern California; ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Cooley LLP

Vazquez-Mentado v. Buitron, et al.

Posted on by

Vazquez-Mentado v. Buitron, et al., 5:12­-cv-­00797 (N.D. N.Y., filed Nov. 6, 2012)

Mr. Gerardo Vazquez-Mentado, a naturalized U.S. citizen, filed this suit in federal district court in the Northern District of New York based on his unlawful arrest by Border Patrol agents. He brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for false arrest and false imprisonment and a second claim under Bivens for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

On September 29, 2009, Mr. Vazquez, a resident of Oswego, New York, was driving into the city of Oswego. His wife and two children were with him in the family van. He was pulled over by Border Patrol agents who demanded his ID. He then presented his New York state driver’s license. After the agents accused him of being undocumented, Mr. Vazquez responded that he was a U.S. citizen. The Border Patrol agents ignored him, and instead placed him in handcuffs and transported him, with the help of the Oswego Police Department, to the Border Patrol station. He was released only after his wife returned to the station with his U.S. passport and Certificate of Naturalization, approximately 90 minutes after he was first stopped.

Mr. Vazquez first filed a complaint in federal court on May 14, 2002. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 28, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 6, 2012. Defendants then filed a renewed motion to dismiss on December 7, 2012. After briefing by the parties, the federal court issued an order on May 28, 2013, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the FTCA claim as well as the Bivens claim as to the two arresting agents, and granting Mr. Vazquez leave to further amend the complaint to include additional allegations needed to maintain the Bivens claim against the supervising officer.

After subsequent filings, including a second amended complaint, a motion to dismiss by the supervisor officer, and summary judgment motions by the arresting officers, the parties entered into settlement negotiations which culminated in a settlement approved by the court on November 10, 2014.

Brown, et al. v. CBP and DHS – FOIA Class Action Against CBP

Posted on by

Brown, et al. v. CBP and DHS, 15-cv-01181-JD (N.D. Cal.)

On March 12, 2015, fourteen plaintiffs, including three immigration attorneys and eleven noncitizens filed a complaint with class allegations in federal district court in the Northern District of California against Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), seeking redress for CBP’s failure to comply with the statutory timelines under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiffs challenge a pattern or practice that has resulted in the agency having a backlog of over thirty thousand unanswered requests under FOIA. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against both CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as well as a motion to certify a nationwide class.

On May 18, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to allege any actionable claim under the FOIA, lacked standing, and did not identify a discrete CBP policy or practice. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 1, 2015. On September 17, 2015, the court denied CBP’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

The court held a hearing on the pending motion for class certification on October 7, 2015, but did not rule on the motion. Instead, the court requested that the parties engage in discovery and file amended briefs on class certification following this discovery.

During the course of the lawsuit, CBP implemented new procedures for handling FOIA requests and added staff. In light of this, the parties reached a settlement and, On October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed the case pursuant to this settlement.  At the time of the settlement, CBP’s backlog had been reduced to approximately 3,000 FOIA requests, most of which were complex, and CBP generally was responding to new requests within 20 days. In the settlement, CBP committed to continuing its efforts to timely process FOIA requests.  Additionally, the agency committed to increased transparency about its performance; CBP will now post monthly FOIA statistics to its website, including the total number of FOIA requests pending, how long they have been pending, how many new requests are received each month, and how many are processed.

Contact: Stacy Tolchin | stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

Mendiola v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Mendiola v. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Western Regional Office

In this individual right of action appeal before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Western Regional Office, Border Patrol Agent Froylan Mendiola challenged his removal from the Border Patrol and the agency’s efforts to require him to undergo a Fitness-for-Duty examination in retaliation for his protected activity as a whistleblower.  Mr. Mendiola, a sixteen-year Border Patrol veteran with a consistently excellent work performance record, reported incidents of racial profiling which he witnessed at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station in early 2012.  He was retaliated against as a result.

In a lengthy decision, the Board explains why Mr. Mendiola’s whistleblowing activities are protected, and details how Border Patrol took systematic steps to retaliate against Mr. Mendiola as a result.

Counsel: Anne Richardson | Hadsell Stormer | 866.457.2590

ACLU San Diego et al. v. DHS et al. (SoCal Roving Patrols FOIA)

Posted on by

American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties et al v. Department of Homeland Security et al., No. 8:15-cv-00229-JLS-RNB (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 20, 2015)

This is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case challenging defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for information regarding U.S. Border Patrol’s interior enforcement / “roving patrol” operations in Southern California.

There is little publicly-available information regarding the extent or impact of Border Patrol roving patrol operations, or regarding Border Patrol agents’ respect for regulatory or constitutional limitations on their authority. In Southern California, Border Patrol agents are present throughout a number of both major metropolitan and rural areas a considerable distance from the U.S.-Mexico border, including Fallbrook, CA (seventy miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border), Laguna Beach, CA (almost ninety miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border), and Long Beach, CA (over 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border).

Because Border Patrol does not release stop data or other information related to roving patrol operations, Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request with Defendants in July 2014, seeking records related to U.S. Border Patrol’s “roving patrol” operations in the San Diego and El Centro Sectors, including relevant agency policies, stop data, and complaint records.

DHS entirely ignored the request. CBP sent the ACLU a series of contradictory emails, none of which were legally adequate responses under the FOIA itself or DHS regulations. In February 2015, Plaintiffs filed suit in the Central District of California to compel Defendants to release the requested records. On June 23, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Defendants to produce all responsive records on or before November 2, 2015.

On January 27, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the parties’ respective Motions for Summary Judgment. On February 10, 2017, the Court issued an order denying both Motions for Summary Judgment, and additionally requiring (1) that the government provide specified documents to the Court for in camera review, and (2) that both parties submit supplemental briefing. The parties submitted supplemental briefing on April 5, 2017, and subsequent replies on April 19, 2017.

On August 18, 2017, the Court heard additional arguments on the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. On November 6, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in party both Motions for Summary Judgment, and additionally requiring the government to submit specified documents to the Court for in camera review. On April 19, 2018, the Court issued a supplemental order granting in part and denying in part both of the parties’ motions. The Court entered a final judgment in the case on May 11, 2018. Neither party will appeal the order, and the parties reached a settlement on costs and fees in November 2018. Productions are now completed, and ACLU hopes to publish the documents sometime in 2019.

Related documents:

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties | ACLU of Southern California | University of California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic

Contact:  Mitra Ebadolahi | ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties | mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org

ACLU of Arizona et al. v. Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS et al. – CBP Child Abuse FOIA Litigation

Posted on by

ACLU of Arizona et al. v. Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS et al., Nos. 15-00247 (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 11, 2015) and 18-15907 (9th Cir., filed May 18, 2018)

This lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) challenges the failure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and several of its component agencies to produce records related to the abuse and mistreatment of children in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its sub-agency, the U.S. Border Patrol. The ACLU affiliates sought the requested records to shed light on longstanding allegations of abusive treatment of children by Border Patrol, including prolonged detention in degrading and inhumane conditions. They also sought information on how the subcomponent agencies within DHS that are responsible for investigating and responding to complaints of abuse by agency personnel—including both the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and the Office of the Inspector General—have handled complaints related to Border Patrol’s abuse of children.

When the government failed to produce any requested records within the statutorily-allotted time period, Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a court order compelling production.

After lengthy production delays by the agencies, the parties cross moved for summary judgment. Finally, in August 2017, the District Court ordered the government to conduct supplemental searches. The Court also ordered the government to release the names of  CBP officials and Border Patrol agents credibly alleged to have mistreated children in their custody.

The government moved for reconsideration of the District Court’s ruling that certain DHS officials’ names should be released. In March 2018, the District Court denied the government’s motion for reconsideration and again ordered the agency to release the names of agents accused of misconduct. The government appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit. Briefing was completed in February 2019 and oral argument was held in San Francisco on May 16, 2019. The case was subsequently sent to mediation.

In October 2020, the parties reached a settlement that required the Defendant agencies to re-review production documents and re-produce them to Plaintiffs with the previously-redacted names of certain individuals who had been named in connection with an allegation of abuse against a minor in DHS custody replaced with unique alpha-numeric identifiers. The agencies must re-review and re-produce the documents in accordance with the settlement on a rolling basis through April 2022. Under the settlement, the District Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement to resolve any claims of a material breach of the settlement. Following entry of the stipulated settlement agreement, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the pending appeal.

Using the CRCL productions from this lawsuit, the ACLU and the University of Chicago Law School International Human Rights Clinic published a report in May 2018 highlighting some of the egregious abuses reported by children and calling out the lack of meaningful response from DHS’ oversight agencies. The CRCL productions that form the report’s evidentiary basis are attached as an appendix to the report itself. The rest of the productions from this lawsuit were published in summer 2019 (see below).

Related Documents:

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties & Cooley, LLP

The Estate of Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas v. United States

Posted on by

The Estate of Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas v. United States
No. 3:11-cv-00522-L-DHB (S.D. Cal., Third Amended Complaint filed Mar. 23, 2012)

This case challenges CBP and U.S. Border Patrol’s excessive use of force.  Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas died of a heart attack on May 28, 2010 near the San Ysidro Port of Entry after agents working for the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection beat him and shot him repeatedly with a Taser. Cell phone videos taken by witnesses show Hernandez-Rojas, a Mexican national and long-time San Diego resident, on the ground surrounded by agents and calling out for help.  He was 42 years old.

In this federal lawsuit brought under Bivens, the Federal Torts Claims Act, and the Alien Tort Claims Act, Hernandez-Rojas’s family alleges that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when agents beat him after he asked for help, using excessive force. They also allege that their father’s death has deprived his children of their 14th Amendment due process right to associate with their father.

Eight agents and four supervisors are named as defendants in the lawsuit. They have claimed that using force against Hernandez-Rojas was justified because he posed a threat to the officers.

In September 2014, the district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  In his order, U.S. District Court Judge M. James Lorenz wrote: “The sheer number of officers available at the scene demonstrates rather strongly that there was no objectively reasonable threat to the safety of any one other than Anastasio.” That decision is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit; Plaintiffs have filed a motion in the district court to declare that appeal frivolous. On December 31, 2015, the district court denied that motion, and the matter is stayed pending the resolution of Defendants’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

On November 6, 2015 the Department of Justice announced that it would not criminally prosecute the agents involved in his death, a decision that angered his family and border-rights advocates.

On March 30, 2017, the court issued an order approving a $1 million settlement, to be dispersed among Mr. Hernandez-Rojas’s five children.

In March 2016, Hernandez-Rojas’ family filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The complaint alleged several violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, including violation of the prohibition against torture, violation of the right to life and liberty, and failure to investigate, prosecute, and provide full reparations. On November 5, 2022, the Inter-American Commission conducted a hearing on the complaint. On February 14, 2023, Hernandez-Rojas’s family submitted a final written observation to the Inter-American Commission. A report with the Commission’s findings is forthcoming.

Documents:

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Contact: Julia Yoo | (619) 233-1525

Additional Links:

Press Coverage:

Arreaga v. United States of America

Posted on by

Arreaga v. United States of America, 5:16-cv-00007 (S.D. Texas, Complaint filed January 19, 2016)

The complainant, a United States citizen, stopped at a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in Texas at approximately 11 a.m. on September 4, 2014. He told the agents that he was a United States citizen and showed them his citizenship card. The agents incorrectly believed that he was carrying drugs in his vehicle. They detained and questioned him and disassembled his truck. No drugs were found. Without probable cause, they continued to detain him for a total of approximately 17 hours, finally releasing him at about 4 a.m. the morning following his initial stop. In January 2016, Plaintiff Julio Adolfo Arreaga filed a complaint in the S.D. Tex. Discovery concluded as of December 2016.

The parties agreed to Court-hosted mediation on May 16, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the case was dismissed following a settlement between the parties.

Counsel: Javier Maldonado

Contact: Javier Maldonado | (210) 277-1603 | jmaldonado.law@gmail.com

FTCA Administrative Complaint of Pregnant Minor

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint of Pregnant Minor (dated July 7, 2014)

Claimant, who is a minor, was taken into Border Patrol custody in May, 2014. Shortly after being taken into custody, agents took her to a hospital where it was determined that she was five months pregnant and in good health. She was released by the hospital back to the custody of Border Patrol. Sometime after her return to the Border Patrol station, she began to experience abdominal pain. She asked to be taken back to the hospital, but agents refused. The agents insisted that she remain seated even though the pain was so great she needed to lie down. Her water broke and she began to bleed. The agents refused to render aid or take her back to the hospital. Finally, another agent came to her aid and took her to the hospital. She alleges that she lost the baby because she did not receive immediate aid. The complainant decided not to file a federal lawsuit.

Counsel: Javier Maldonado

Contact: Javier Maldonado | (210) 277-1603 | jmaldonado.law@gmail.com