Author Archives: American Immigration Council

Hernandez v. United States of America, sub nom. Hernandez v. Mesa

Posted on by

Hernandez v. United States of America, Nos. 12-50217, 12-50301 (5th Cir.), sub. nom, Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 15-118 (U.S.)

On June 7, 2010, Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a fifteen-year-old Mexican national, was playing with a group of friends on the Mexican side of the border near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. The boy and his friends were playing a game in which they ran up the incline of a cement culvert, touched the fence separating the US and Mexico and then ran back down the incline. While they were playing, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. stopped one of Hernandez’s friends, and Hernandez retreated and observed from beneath the pillars of the Paso del Norte Bridge (on the Mexico side). Agent Mesa, standing on U.S. soil, fired at least two gun shots from within the country. One of the bullets hit the boy in the face and killed him.

The boy’s parents sued, raising claims against the United States, Agent Mesa, and unknown federal employees. The district court dismissed the claims for various reasons. On June 30, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court in part and affirmed in part. Although the Court affirmed parts of the district court’s decision, significantly, it ruled that the boys’ parents could bring a Fifth Amendment claim against Agent Mesa. In so holding, the court determined that the child had a Fifth Amendment right to be free from actions that “shock the conscience.” Both the United States and Agent Mesa asked the Fifth Circuit to rehear (reconsider) the court’s decision.

On November 5, 2014, the court granted en banc rehearing and vacated its earlier decision. On January 21, 2015, the en banc panel heard oral argument. On April 24, 2015, the Fifth Circuit issued an en banc opinion. On the question of the violation of Sergio’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, the court held that Plaintiffs could not assert a Fourth Amendment claim because Sergio had no significant voluntary connection to the United States and because was physically in Mexico when Agent Mesa shot him. The court further held that Plaintiffs could not assert a Fifth Amendment claim because, at the time of the shooting, no case law reasonably warned Agent Mesa that the prohibition on excessive force applied in this situation.

On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Court first addressed the Bivens claim. It determined that a recently decided Supreme Court decision—Ziglar v. Abbasi, which laid out special factors which counsel “hesitation” in applying a Bivens remedy—would inform the analysis of the Bivens question. The Court remanded to give the parties “the opportunity to brief and argue [Abbasi’s] significance” in answering that question. Second, the Court declined to resolve the Fourth Amendment issue before the Court of Appeals could weigh in under the guidance provided by Abbasi. Finally, with respect to the Fifth Amendment claims regarding Mesa’s qualified immunity, the Court held the Fifth Circuit erred when it granted qualified immunity because Hernandez was a noncitizen “who had no significant voluntary connection to…the United States.” Since that fact was not known to Mesa at the time he shot Hernandez, extending qualified immunity was not appropriate. The Court further declined to address the government’s arguments that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity regardless of his uncertainty about Hernandez’s nationality at the time of the shooting, and that petitioners’ claim was not cognizable at all under the Fifth Amendment.

On remand from the Supreme Court following its decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 U.S. 1843 (2017), the Fifth Circuit en banc held that a cross-border shooting presented a “new context” for which federal courts do not have the authority to find an implied damages action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the FBI, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs’ Bivens claims. On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time.

On February 25, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Bivens was unavailable applying the two-part test outlined in Abbasi. The court first determined that the Hernandez family’s Bivens claims arose in a new context. Turning to the second step of the test, the court found “multiple, related factors” counseling hesitation about extending Bivens. The Hernandez family’s case implicates foreign relations, the court reasoned, because of the “legitimate and important interests” of both the United States and Mexico “that may be affected by the way in which this matter is handled.” “It is not our task,” the court said, “to arbitrate between them.” The court also held that the case implicates the “conduct of agents positioned at the border,” which has a “clear and strong connection to national security.” Writing in dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that holding a rogue, low-ranking officer accountable for killing a teenager would not undermine U.S. diplomacy or national security.

Press Coverage

Edwards v. United States of America

Posted on by

Edwards v. United States of America, No. 0:13-cv-02336-JRT-JJK (D. Minn., filed Aug. 26, 2013)

Adijat Edwards arrived at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport from Nigeria.  U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) officers detained her upon arrival.  The officers confiscated $4,000 worth of her jewelry and, days later, forced her to withdraw $1,200 in cash using her bank card.  The officers told Ms. Edwards that the money was necessary to pay for her return flight to Nigeria as part of expedited removal proceedings.

Edwards later sued the United States for the torts of conversion and negligence based on the CBP officers’ misconduct.  The United States filed a motion to dismiss, which Edwards opposed.  The Court granted the government’s motion in most respects, but allowed the claim for conversion of property to move forward.  Following the Court’s decision, the parties reached a settlement. The Department of Homeland Security brought Edwards back to the United States; thereafter, Edwards obtained her green card and recently naturalized.

Counsel: Richard L. Breitman | (612) 822-4724 | breitman@ix.netcom.co

Moreno v. United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Mario Unate

Posted on by

Moreno v. United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Mario Unate and the United States of America., No. 3:14-CV-04266-B (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 3, 2014)

On December 2, 2012 around 5pm, Jorge Moreno Villegas, who is Hispanic, was driving a pick-up truck on a highway outside of Ozona, Texas with a Hispanic colleague as a passenger.  The men were on their way home from work.  Passing in the opposite direction, a Border Patrol agent saw the two men and, turning his vehicle around, squeezed it in between Mr. Moreno’s truck and the vehicle behind it. It is undisputed that Mr. Moreno had not committed any driving violations.  The agent stopped Mr. Moreno and began questioning him and his passenger about their immigration status and citizenship.  The men declined to respond.  The agent then began questioning them in Spanish and ordered Mr. Moreno to exit the truck.  The agent proceeded to handcuff Mr. Moreno and place him in the back of his vehicle.  He did the same for the passenger.

On December 3, 2014, Mr. Moreno filed a complaint against the agent.  He alleges that the agent stopped him without consent or legal authority and was motivated solely by his Hispanic appearance and that of his passenger.  Mr. Moreno brings a claim against the agent for violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and an FTCA claim against the United States for false imprisonment and assault.

On February 12, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Moreno’s FTCA claim for false imprisonment on the basis that he had failed to plead facts regarding his immigration status, and that the arrest would have been lawful if he had told the agent that he was not legally present in the United States. Finding that the Border Patrol agent had pulled Mr. Moreno over solely based on his Hispanic appearance, the Court concluded that he lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop and thus denied Defendants’ motion.

In late November 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for a stay pending decision on a forthcoming petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in De la Paz v. Coy et al., which was filed in January 2016 (No. 15-888). On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in De la Paz. Following the parties’ subsequent stipulation of dismissal, the district court dismissed the case on January 4, 2018.

Counsel: De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP

Contact: David Armendáriz | 210.534.1844 | davida@dmcausa.com

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties v. DHS et al. (PERF Report FOIA)

Posted on by

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties v. US Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection, No.  3:14-cv-01272-BTM-JMA (S.D. Cal., filed May 22, 2014)

In 2013, following intense public pressure and a letter from sixteen members of Congress calling upon Customs & Border Protection (CBP) to address numerous incidents involving excessive force, CBP undertook a comprehensive review of its use of force policies and practices. As part of this review, CBP commissioned a report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a non-partisan law enforcement think tank based in Washington, DC. PERF completed its review and issued a 23-page report that was highly critical of CBP’s use of force policies and practices. CBP refused to release the report or disclose PERF’s recommendations, and indicated that it would not adopt those recommendations.

In February 2014, the ACLU of San Diego’s Border Litigation Project filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with CBP seeking immediate disclosure of the report. CBP failed to respond to the request, forcing the ACLU to file suit May 22, 2014 to compel disclosure.

The following week, CBP finally released the full report, along with a revised Use of Force Policy Handbook that reflected many of PERF’s recommendations. The parties then stipulated to dismissal of the case on June 19, 2014. The case is now closed.

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties

Administrative Complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on Behalf of Unaccompanied Children Abused by CBP

Posted on by

Administrative Complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on Behalf of Unaccompanied Children Abused by CBP

On June 11, 2014, the National Immigrant Justice Center, Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) documenting 116 cases of unaccompanied immigrant children who were abused by Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officials.

Documented from approximately March to May of 2014, the complaints include numerous reports of physical and sexual abuse, as well as verbal abuse involving death threats and racial slurs. Approximately half of the children reported the denial of medical care, including CBP refusal to treat nursing and pregnant minors and infants as young as five months old. Children were forced into stress positions, strip searches, and painful shackling in three-point restraints during transport. Virtually all of the children describe being detained in squalid conditions characterized by extreme cold, overcrowding, and no privacy. More than 80 percent described denial of adequate food and water in CBP custody, including a child whose only available drinking water came from a toilet tank and others who received only frozen or spoiled food and subsequently became ill. Many children reported being separated from other family members, and almost one in three reported that their money and/or personal belongings were confiscated by CBP officials and not returned. Approximately 70 percent reported being held beyond the legally mandated 72-hour period.

For example, M.R., a 15-year-old girl, traveled from Guatemala with her two-year-old son. Both M.R. and her son became sick while in CBP custody, but M.R.’s requests for medical attention were ignored or dismissed for approximately five days, until she and her son were finally taken to a hospital. K.A., a 14-year-old girl, had her asthma medication confiscated by CBP officials and proceeded to suffer multiple asthma attacks in the filthy and overcrowded CBP holding cells. After the first asthma attack, officials threatened that they would punish her if she were faking. H.R., a seven-year-old boy, was severely developmentally disabled and suffering from acute malnourishment when he was apprehended, but CBP held him in custody for approximately five days without any medical treatment. He was eventually hospitalized and underwent emergency surgery.

The complaint notes that many of the same abuses have been documented and reported to DHS for years, but no reforms have been implemented. The complaint further notes that DHS oversight agencies have failed to respond to individual complaints of CBP abuse, conduct investigations, or hold agents accountable, and cites to AIC’s report, No Action Taken, which made similar findings. The complaint calls for the implementation of binding short-term detention standards, independent oversight, uniform complaint procedures, and the delegation of child screening responsibilities to an entity other than CBP, such as United States Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Department of Health and Human Services, among other recommendations.

Counsel: National Immigrant Justice Center | Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project | Americans for Immigrant Justice | Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project | ACLU Border Litigation Project

Contact:  Alexandra Fung | National Immigrant Justice Center |  AFung@heartlandalliance.org

Royce Murray | National Immigrant Justice Center | RMurray@heartlandalliance.org

Complaint by the ACLU to the Department of Homeland Security Denouncing Interior Checkpoint Abuses

Posted on by

Complaint by ACLU of Arizona and ACLU Border Litigation Project to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Denouncing Interior Checkpoint Abuses

On January 15, 2014, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concerning abuses committed by Border Patrol agents at interior vehicle checkpoints in southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 15 U.S. citizens, aged 6-69 years old, and detailed 12 incidents in which their rights were violated when they were stopped at 6 checkpoints over a period of a year and a half.

The complaint calls for the investigation of all of the incidents identified; a comprehensive review of all complaints regarding Border Patrol checkpoints over the past five years; a thorough review of Border Patrol checkpoint policies and practices to ensure that operations are in fact limited to briefly verifying citizenship and that agents are receiving guidance regarding the limits of their authority; and a review of all policies and procedures related to service canines, in light of widespread reports of “false alerts” by the dogs.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona

Contact: James Lyall | ACLU of Arizona | 602.650.1854 | jlyall@acluaz.org

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. v. CBP, et al. (Rio Grande Hieleras FOIA)

Posted on by

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. v. CBP, et al.
No. 1:14-cv-20945 KMW (S.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 13, 2014)

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. (AI Justice) has sued CBP and DHS under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for their failure to produce any records in response to a request which sought records pertaining to CBP’s short-term detention policies and procedures, particularly as implemented in the Rio Grande Valley (Valley) in Texas.  In 2013, AI Justice interviewed over 100 individuals who had been detained in CBP holding cells in the Valley prior to being transferred to ICE detention in Miami.  These individuals uniformly reported deplorable conditions in the holding cells. They reported that Border Patrol agents refer to the cells as “hieleras,” which is Spanish for “iceboxes.”  The agents use this term because they keep the temperatures in the cells unbearably low, so that the detainees always are extremely cold.  Additionally, the holding cells are overcrowded; have no beds, although most detainees reported being there at least several days, with some being held up to two weeks; have no bathing facilities and few toiletries; and have toilets that are out in the open.  The detainees also complained of being served inadequate food.  The AI Justice FOIA seeks records relating to these holding cells for the period 2008 through 2013.

CBP finally produced some responsive records, and the parties subsequently agreed to dismiss the case by stipulation on September 10, 2015.

Counsel: Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Jennie Santos | jsantos@aijustice.org

Doe v. El Paso County Hospital District, et al.

Posted on by

Doe v. El Paso County Hospital District, et al., No. 3:13-cv-00406  (W.D. Tex., filed Dec. 18, 2013)

Jane Doe sued several CBP officers in their individual capacity (as well as medical personnel and a hospital) after being subjected to six hours of increasingly invasive searches of her body in violation of the United States Constitution.  She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Jane Doe is a 54-year-old United States citizen who, when returning from a visit to Mexico and after having her valid passport swiped, was randomly picked by CBP officers for additional screening.  She was sent to secondary inspection and frisked by two female officers, one of whom put her finger in the crevice of Ms. Doe’s buttocks.  Although no contraband was found, she was placed in a line with others, where a dog allegedly alerted CBP officers that she possessed contraband.  She was not carrying any contraband, however, and thus the alert was either a false one or did not occur.  Thereafter, she was strip-searched by CBP officers and examined with a flashlight.  When this revealed no contraband, the defendant CBP officers transported her in handcuffs to the hospital, where she was forced to take a laxative and monitored while having a bowel movement.  Despite no evidence of contraband, she was then subjected to an x-ray, a physical examination of her vagina and rectum, and a C-T scan.  After each of these exams, defendants insisted on proceeding to the next, more invasive exam despite the fact that none of them produced any evidence.  After the C-T scan, Ms. Doe was informed that she could sign a statement indicating voluntary consent to the searches, in which case CBP would pay the hospital bill; if she refused to sign the consent form, she was told she would be billed for the hospital’s expenses.  She refused to sign and subsequently was billed $5,000.

On December 18, 2013, Ms. Doe filed a complaint against various CBP officers alleging constitutional violations for unreasonable seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, unreasonable search, and deprivation of due process under Bivens. Her complaint also asserted multiple §1983 claims against the medical facilities and staff involved. The claims against the medical staff and facilities were subsequently settled for $1.1 million. The case against CBP continues.

In July 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the CBP Defendants answered in November 2015.  On June 14, 2016, the District Court accepted the parties’ stipulation of dismissal.  On July 21, 2016, the ACLU announced that CBP had agreed to pay Plaintiff $475,000.

Counsel: Edgar Saldivar, Rebecca Robertson | ACLU of Texas

Laura Schauer Ives, Kristen Love, Jesse Hale | ACLU of New Mexico

Contact: Edgar Saldivar | ACLU of Texas | esaldivar@aclutx.org

Laura Schauer Ives | Kennedy Kennedy & Ives, LLC | LSI@civilrightslawnewmexico.com

Von Der Haar v. Leiba, et al.

Posted on by

Von Der Haar v. Leiba, et al., No. 1:14-cv-247 (S.D. Ind., filed Feb. 19, 2014)

Ms. Christine Von Der Haar sued two CBP officers individually for their role in unlawfully detaining and questioning her at an airport in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.   Ms. Von Der Haar, a senior lecturer at Indiana University, accompanied a friend to the airport to pick up computer equipment he had shipped separately to the United States.  At the airport, she and her friend, who was in the United States on a valid B1/B2 visa, understood that they were there simply to pick up the computer equipment.  Instead, a CBP officer immediately asked them if they planned to marry.  They were then separated by CBP officers.  Ms. Von Der Haar was twice taken into a back room by the defendant officers, whom she believed were armed and who stood guard at the door and questioned her about her sexual relationship with her friend.  They specifically questioned her about their email communications.  Because the computer equipment shipped by the friend did not include his hard drive, the only way that the CBP officers could have known of the emails was if someone had surreptitiously monitored their communications.  Ms. Von Der Haar seeks compensatory damages for her unlawful detention.

A settlement conference was held on February 6, 2015, and resulted in the parties’ agreement on settlement terms. The case was dismissed with prejudice on April 14, 2015, with each party to bear its own costs.

Counsel: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose | ACLU of Indiana

Contact: Kenneth Falk | ACLU of Indiana | 317-635-4105 | kfalk@aclu-in.org

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Posted on by

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al., No. 09-02865 (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 10, 2009); No. 12-4419 (6th Cir.)

Fifteen individuals and two workers’ rights organizations brought this lawsuit to challenge Border Patrol (BP) agents and three local law enforcement agencies and their officers for their systematic racial profiling of Hispanic residents in three Ohio towns.  Plaintiffs have been stopped and questioned about their immigration status while driving, pumping gas, or walking their children home from school.  Plaintiffs allege that BP agents engaged in a pattern or practice of initiating these stops solely on the basis of their Hispanic appearance and did not have any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect that they were present without authorization when they did so.  Additionally, the suit alleges that BP encouraged local law enforcement agencies to profile Hispanics and detain them for BP.

There have been considerable developments in this case since the original complaint was first filed in December 2009.  The parties have completed discovery; Plaintiffs have dismissed without prejudice their claims for monetary damages and claims against the federal agents in their individual capacity; and Plaintiffs have settled their claims against the three local law enforcement agencies for damages, attorney fees, and the adoption of non-discriminatory policing policies.  Additionally, Plaintiffs successfully appealed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In its December 2013 decision, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s holding, concluding that § 702 of the Administrative Procedures Act conferred jurisdiction upon the court to consider the remaining claims in the suit—all non-monetary in nature—without being limited by the requirements established by § 704 of the Act.

Back in district court, Judge Jack Zouhary denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery related to the use of racial slurs by Border Patrol. The court also refused to let plaintiffs add two Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) cases to the suit, which had been separately filed against the United States regarding the conduct of BP agents.

On February 24, 2016, Judge Zouhary found in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove a Fifth Amendment violation of equal protection; that anecdotal evidence proffered by plaintiffs failed to amount to a “pattern or practice” of racially profiling Hispanics; and that Border Patrol agents’ use of the word “wetbacks” merely represented “isolated instances of poor judgment.” Furthermore, Judge Zahoury held that plaintiffs failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Despite plaintiffs’ testimony that they believed that they were unable to leave during police interrogations, the court found that, in all cases, the encounters either did not constitute seizures or were lawful interrogations or seizures based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit on April 19, 2016. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on August 24, 2017.

Press:

Counsel: Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. | Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A.

Contact: Mark Heller | ABLELAW | 419.255.0814 | mheller@ablelaw.org