Author Archives: NWIRP

Al Otro Lado, et al., v. Trump

Posted on by

Al Otro Lado, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 3:25-cv-01501 (S.D. Cal., filed Jun. 11, 2025)

On June 11, 2025, a group of individuals and organizational plaintiffs filed the latest challenge to the Trump administration’s attempt to shut down access to asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The administration has taken drastic steps to block access to the asylum process, in violation of U.S. law. On January 20, 2025, the president issued a proclamation that made it effectively impossible for individuals to present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. In doing so, the government pulled the rug out from under people who had been waiting to schedule appointments at ports of entry and imposed vague, onerous documentation requirements as a pretext to bar access to the asylum process.

The administration also abruptly canceled all advance appointments that had been scheduled through the government’s CBP One app, leaving approximately 30,000 asylum seekers stranded in Mexico without any recourse. One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Maria Doe, scheduled an appointment through CBP One in hopes of seeking asylum after suffering a years-long retaliation campaign by a cartel that had targeted her for testifying against its police collaborators in Mexico. The appointment was cancelled on January 20, forcing Maria and her husband into hiding. The complaint seeks relief from the presidential proclamation and an end to the shutdown of asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Documents:

Counsel: American Immigration Council ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ Democracy Forward ǀ Center for Constitutional Rights

Contact: Rebecca Cassler ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rcassler@immcouncil.org
Melissa Crow ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu

Press:

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology v. CBP

Posted on by

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, et al., v. CBP, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01732 (D.D.C., filed June 2, 2025)

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, and Americans for Immigrant Justice submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to defendants Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking records related to the agencies’ policies and practices on the collection and use of noncitizen DNA. The agencies failed to make a determination on the FOIA requests and failed to produce the responsive records within the time prescribed by FOIA, leading plaintiffs to file suit on June 2, 2025.

The lawsuit comes amid a widespread immigration crackdown by the administration and increased surveillance efforts. Plaintiff organizations allege that the agencies have not been transparent about their rapidly-expanding program of genetic data collection from migrants, including children. The suit expresses mounting concerns about both the scale and lack of oversight of DNA collection practices.

Documents:

Counsel: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Amelia Dagen ǀ Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ amelia@amicacenter.org
Stevie Glaberson ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ stephanie.glaberson@georgetown.edu

Press:

Perez Perez v. USA

Posted on by

Perez Perez v. USA, No. 3:25-cv-01821 (S.D. Cal., filed Jul. 17, 2025)

On October 22, 2024, Jesus Atenco Perez was one of two passengers killed in a vehicle crash as a U.S. Border Patrol agent pursued them at high speeds on a southern California highway. Atenco Perez’s mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on July 17, 2025, alleging the chase caused undue risk for her son and for others on the road. The suit alleges that the chase violated California Law Enforcement Vehicle Pursuit Guidelines, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) directives, and other agency policies and recommendations.

Defendant Border Patrol Agent D. Boone initiated the chase after the vehicle passed through the Otay Mesa Port of Entry based on suspicion that the vehicle had mismatched plates. The lawsuit alleges the agent failed to adequately apply a risk-based “objective reasonableness” standard in initiating the pursuit, and should have weighed the government’s interest in apprehension (in this case, severity of the suspected crime of mismatched plates) with the risks to the public, officers, and vehicle occupants. The agent also failed to consider the high volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the availability of alternative means to apprehend the driver later, as the vehicle’s description and license plates were known. CBP policy mandates pursuits be initiated “only when the need for immediate apprehension outweighs the risks to public safety,” such as when it involves a violent felony. According to the complaint, CBP policies require pursuing agents “to maintain a safe distance to avoid pressuring the suspect into increasingly dangerous maneuvers.” The complaint faults CBP for failing to implement stricter protocols and training, and alleges the agency was aware of at least three prior pursuits on state Route 905 that year that resulted in “collisions or near-misses.”

On September 18, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. On October 7, 2025, the plaintiff submitted a response opposing the government’s motion to dismiss.

Documents:

Counsel: Joseph C. La Costa

Contact: Joseph C. La Costa ǀ joelacostaesq@gmail.com

Press:

Sileiri Doe, et al, v. DHS

Posted on by

Sileiri Doe, et al, v. DHS, et al., No. 1:25-cv-12245 (D. Mass, filed Aug. 11, 2025)

The Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts and three individuals from Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti, respectively, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) challenging the Trump administration’s sudden and unlawful termination of the plaintiff’s parole status, which allowed them to live and work legally in the United States.

Starting in 2023, noncitizens seeking asylum or other immigration relief in the United States were required to use the CBP One mobile application to schedule appointments at ports of entry. After inspection by immigration officials, some were granted parole. However, in April 2025, through a mass email with the message, “It is time for you to leave the United States,” DHS notified hundreds of thousands of noncitizens that their parole status was terminated, and, as a result, their work authorizations and eligibility for certain benefits were also revoked. The email threatened penalties in order to encourage self-deportation.

The complaint alleges that this unlawful policy violates federal law, which requires a case-by-case determination that the purpose of parole was served before it can be ended. The shift in policy also ignores noncitizens’ legal rights and disrupts their lives, costing them jobs, homes, access to health care, and placing them at risk of deportation.

On October 16, 2025, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the government. On November 6, 2025, the government filed a consolidated motion to dismiss, cross-motion for summary judgment, and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion.

Documents:

Counsel: Massachusetts Law Reform Institute ǀ Democracy Forward Foundation

Contact: Heather Arroyo ǀ Massachusetts Law Reform Institute ǀ harroyo@mlri.org

Press: Lawsuit challenging revocation of parole for migrants in US under Biden-era CBP One App, NBC 6 Miami, Aug. 12, 2025.

Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v. Noem, et al.

Posted on by

Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal., filed July 2, 2025)

Since June 6, 2025, the federal government has dramatically increased the presence and activity of immigration enforcement officers, including U.S. Border Patrol agents, in the Los Angeles area. As part of this increased activity and in response to growing pressure from the administration to satisfy arrest quotas, officers in roving patrols have relied on perceived race or ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion that the target was subject to removal, to conduct stops, warrantless home raids, and worksite operations.

On July 2, five individuals who were stopped or arrested during large-scale raids in the Los Angeles area, along with three membership organizations (Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights) and a legal services provider (Immigrant Defenders Law Center), filed a class action lawsuit calling to end unlawful stops and arrests, and for the protection of due process and access to counsel for people in immigration detention as a result of those arrests. Counsel for the plaintiffs filed two motions for temporary restraining orders (TRO): one seeking access to counsel for those individuals detained in a basement area of the Los Angeles Federal Building and a second motion to restrain government agents from conducting unlawful stops. The district court granted both motions, prohibiting the government from making stops based solely on the following four factors: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or the type of work one does. The government appealed the orders to the Ninth Circuit, requesting a stay of the orders during appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, finding the government failed to dispute that seizures requiring reasonable suspicion had occurred and holding that plaintiffs have standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that one provision of the TRO was impermissibly vague and stayed that one provision, but held that the district court did not err by entering a district-wide TRO prohibiting stops based on the four enumerated factors. Back at district court, plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunctions on the same issues, access to counsel and unconstitutional stops, as well as a motion for class certification. The government filed an application for a stay with the Supreme Court.

On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s application for stay. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh applied the Nken four-factor framework, noting a “fair prospect” that the Government would ultimately succeed on the merits. Justice Kavanaugh also noted the district court’s injunction accordingly constituted irreparable harm because it prevented the government from effectuating the Immigration and Nationality Act. Ultimately, Justice Kavanaugh concluded, “the balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government.”

On July 29, 2025, several cities and the County of Los Angeles filed a complaint in intervention for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin defendants from continuing to conduct unlawful arrests in the area. On August 13, the intervenor cities and county filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On November 13, the District Court issued an order granting intervenors’ preliminary injunction motion.

Documents:

Counsel: Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ Public Counsel ǀ UC Irvine School of Law ǀ National Day Laborer Organizing Network ǀ American Civil Liberties Union Northern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties ǀ Hecker Fink LLP ǀ Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc. ǀ Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights ǀ Immigrant Defenders Law Center

Contact: Mayra Joaquin ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ mjoaquin@aclusocal.org

American Immigration Council v. CBP and DHS

Posted on by

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:21-cv-03314 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2021)

The American Immigration Council filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in December 2021 for their failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records related to the agency’s implementation and use of the CBP One mobile application. CBP developed CBP One to collect information about individuals who interact with CBP, and launched the app in 2020. Since that time, CBP has added different functions to the app, including allowing asylum seekers to schedule inspection appointments via the app. However, apart from limited information available on its website, CBP has failed to provide easily accessible and consistent information to the public about CBP One, including other current or future uses for the app and any plans to use, sell, or distribute the information it collects through the app.

In September 2023, CBP agreed to publish past versions of the Department of Homeland Security’s Privacy Impact Assessments on CBP One. The assessments describe additional app features not listed on the CBP webpage. CBP agreed to post these assessments, which provide vital insight on the functions of the app, in the agency’s FOIA library. Agencies’ FOIA libraries—or Reading Rooms—are designated webpages where the public can view agency documents without the need to file a request under FOIA.

Documents:

Counsel:

Raul Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Skylight Engagement and AIC v. DHS and CBP

Posted on by

Skylight Engagement, Inc. and American Immigration Council v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:21-cv-00922 (E.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 19, 2021)

Skylight Engagement, a nonprofit human rights media organization, and the American Immigration Council filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on February 19, 2021, seeking records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding their actions at and around a humanitarian aid station near Arivaca, Arizona in 2017 and 2020.

The records sought include information on three aggressive raids conducted by CBP on the aid station, located about 11 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border and intended to provide aid to migrants who have crossed the border and are at risk due to the extremely hot and dry climate. The aid station was organized and operated by No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a humanitarian organization that supplies medical care, food, and water to migrants.

CBP raided the Arivaca aid station on June 15, 2017, July 31, 2020, and again on October 5, 2020. During these raids, CBP interrogated, detained, and arrested individuals at the aid station in an aggressive manner. Plaintiffs filed an administrative FOIA request on October 14, 2020, seeking CBP records regarding the raids, but did not receive responsive records. In particular, the request sought video footage, photographs, or other media that CBP recorded documenting their actions during the raids, as well as communication and correspondence regarding the raids, including records related to search warrants.

On May 19, 2023, the parties stipulated to dismiss the suit after Defendants released records requested by Plaintiffs. The case was dismissed on June 5, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel:

Raul Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Access Now v. CBP

Posted on by

Access Now v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:24-cv-03979 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 23, 2024)

A digital rights advocacy organization—Access Now—and the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for failing to produce records related to personal data the agency collects via its CBP One app.

According to an internal CBP One privacy impact assessment cited by the lawsuit, the app can collect biographical information, images, and geolocation. In February 2024, CBP disclosed on the Federal Register that the app also will begin gathering biometric information from nonimmigrants leaving the country, who will now be required to provide photos with geolocation data to prove they have left the United States.

The complaint alleges that CBP One can use the data it gathers for automated decision making, profiling, and registering people on the move. The lawsuit seeks records documenting how the app functions and the number of people in the Mexican, Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadoran governments who access CBP One to obtain data about migrants.

Access Now is an international organization that defends and extends the digital rights of people and communities at risk around the world. Access Now does not provide legal advice to migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and other people on the move.

CBP filed its answer on August 2, 2024. On October 10, 2024, Access Now issued a press release that CBP has released 2,912 pages of documents in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, and is reviewing the documents to assess adequate compliance.

Documents:

Counsel: Mason A. Kortz ǀ Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic

Contact: Access Now ǀ equipolac@accessnow.org

Press:

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. CBP

Posted on by

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 2:24-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal., filed May 8, 2024); No. 1:24-cv-01956 (D. Colo., transferred July 16, 2024)

Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the Central District of California to compel the government to release information about its policies and practices related to the CBP One app and to asylum-seekers with disabilities.

The government has forced asylum-seekers to use the CBP One App since May 2023 — when Title 42 was lifted — to schedule asylum interviews with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at U.S. ports of entry. The lawsuit comes after a report by Human Rights Watch criticized the app as a modern-day form of metering to keep asylum-seekers from crossing ports of entry. The suit also seeks information as it relates to discrimination of asylum-seekers with disabilities. The complaint alleges that the government has not provided the information the groups requested in administrative FOIA requests.

The lawsuit notes that CBP One requires a smartphone and a high level of technological proficiency to install and use, and alleges that the application is prone to frequent glitches and other technical issues. This in turn leads to discriminatory practices against individuals with disabilities and unequal access to the asylum process for anyone experiencing barriers to downloading and using the app.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks from CBP all final agency opinions and orders, policies, interpretations, and administrative staff manuals and instructions concerning Technology Accessibility for persons with disabilities as that information relates to CBP One.

On July 15, 2024, the court, after the parties jointly stipulated, transferred the case to the District of Colorado, and CBP filed its answer on July 31, 2024. Production is now ongoing.

Documents:

Contact: Laura Murchie ǀ Disability Rights United ǀ lmurchie@creeclaw.org
Jeremy Jong ǀ Al Otro Lado ǀ jeremy@alotrolado.org

Press:

Annette Mattia v. USA

Posted on by

Annette Mattia, et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00252 (D. Ariz., filed May 16, 2024)

The family of indigenous Arizona man Raymond Mattia filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after he was shot and killed by U.S. Border Patrol agents outside his home on tribal land. Tohono O’odham Nation Police Department requested assistance from Border Patrol after receiving a report of two gunshots heard on Tohono O’odham Nation land on the evening of May 18, 2023. Border Patrol agents agreed to respond and arrived on the reservation lands within 30 minutes in a convoy of approximately seven vehicles, with body armor and assault rifles.

Upon arriving at the location of the reported gunshots, agents did not see or hear additional activity, but nonetheless began searching a wide area to attempt to encounter persons of interest. After several minutes exploring the neighborhood and surrounding yards and wilderness, agents approached Mr. Mattia’s home. Agents had no specific suspicion of Mr. Mattia, or of any particular person in the neighborhood.

According to body camera footage, one agent drew a handgun and aimed it at Mr. Mattia’s home before announcing himself or the other agents present. Mr. Mattia emerged from his home and complied with agents’ requests to toss aside his hunting knife. Agents did not identify themselves or explain why they were present. They began yelling conflicting commands at Mr. Mattia, who remained calm and compliant. Several other agents drew firearms and aimed them at Mr. Mattia. When told to remove his hand from his pocket, Mr. Mattia did so, holding nothing but a cell phone. At least three agents opened fire, and Mr. Mattia was pronounced dead on the scene.

The family of Mr. Mattia filed suit against CBP under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for use of excessive force, deprivation of right to familial association, assault, battery, negligence, and wrongful death, as well as for intentional infliction of emotional distress on surviving family members. Defendant United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which plaintiffs have opposed.

Documents:

Contact:

Ryan Stitt ǀ Stitt Vu Trial Lawyers APC ǀ rstitt@stittvu.com

Marcus Bourassa ǀ Mckenzie Scott PC ǀ mbourassa@mckenziescott.com

Press: