Author Archives: NWIRP

Texas Civil Rights Project v. CBP

Posted on by

Texas Civil Rights Project v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:24-cv-00535 (W.D. Tex., filed May 17, 2024)

The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) and Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) failed to respond to administrative requests for information that the organizations filed in October 2023 regarding the death of an 8-year-old girl who died in CBP custody.

Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez was held for eight days in CBP custody with her family after they crossed into the country at Brownsville. She was in medical isolation at a CBP detention facility in Harlingen, Texas for high fever and the flu when she suffered cardiac arrest and passed away on May 17, 2023. The medical isolation unit at the facility was shut down following her death.

TCRP says CBP failed to respond to a request for expedited processing and explicitly denied their administrative request to produce records regarding the incident. According to the lawsuit, Reyes and her family were members of the Afro-indigenous Garifuna community in Honduras who have suffered an ongoing history of anti-Black and anti-Indigenous discrimination. The family previously fled to Panama for refuge, where Anadith was born, and then subsequently to the United States.

Litigation deadlines are stayed as CBP produces documents responsive to the complaint.

Documents:

Contact:

Karla Marisol Vargas ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ KVargas@texascivilrightsproject.org

Press:

Sandra Sanchez, Groups sue to get info on child who died in CBP custody in South Texas, Border Report, May 17, 2024.

American Immigration Council v. ICE

Posted on by

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00975 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 5, 2024)

The American Immigration Council (AIC) filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking to compel the agencies to release records relating to implementation of Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM), a border management program announced in May 2023.

Under FERM, ICE places heads of households of asylum-seeking families detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.-Mexico border under surveillance with ankle monitors and under curfew. The alternative to detention program only applies to certain nationalities and is active only in certain cities throughout the country.

ICE has said that the FERM program ensures families show up at credible fear interviews, which serve as asylum screening interviews, but advocates have seen that families enrolled in the program face rapid removals. Complaints suggest that families enrolled in the FERM program often lack legal representation during their credible fear interviews. If the families fail the credible fear interview, ICE moves to remove them without the opportunity of ever seeing an immigration judge to assess their claims.

Since its inception, ICE has continued to expand the FERM program. Initially, ICE announced that the FERM program would be active in four cities. As of December 2023, the program was active in 45 cities nation-wide. 

AIC and the American Immigration Lawyers Association originally filed requests under FOIA with ICE and CBP on November 21, 2023, to find out more about the program. The requests sought more specific information on the criteria the agencies use to enroll families in the FERM program, including the list of nationalities who may be subject to FERM and the cities where it operates. The organizations also requested the information given to families about the program, including information about access to legal representation. The requests also asked the agencies to produce demographic data on the families placed in FERM. 

Neither ICE nor CBP responded to the initial request, and AIC filed this lawsuit to compel disclosure. CBP filed an answer, and productions are now ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: American Immigration Council

Contact: Raul A. Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Press: Council Files Lawsuit to Get Records about Program that Monitors Families Seeking Asylum, American Immigration Council, Apr. 5, 2024.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01702 (D.D.C., filed June 12, 2024)

Two immigrant rights groups filed suit against the Biden administration, challenging a June 4, 2024, Interim Final Rule and accompanying Implementation Guidance that categorically exclude an entire group of asylum seekers from access to that protection because of where they entered the country, directly contrary to Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the Rule, which incorporates a June 3, 2024, Presidential Proclamation, noncitizens arriving between ports of entry at the southern border are, with extremely limited exceptions, categorically ineligible for asylum whenever a rolling seven-day average of the number of daily “encounters” of inadmissible noncitizens exceeds a certain numerical threshold. The complaint argues that these executive actions will effectively shut off any access to asylum protections for the vast majority of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, no matter how strong their claims. The proclamation echoes the Trump administration’s previous asylum entry ban, which immigrants’ rights advocates successfully challenged.

The lawsuit alleges that the ban, which allows asylum access only for people who can secure a scarce appointment to present themselves at a port of entry or satisfy a very narrow exception, is flatly inconsistent with the asylum statute that Congress enacted, which permits migrants to apply for asylum whether or not they enter at a port of entry. In addition to barring asylum for most migrants, the new rules and procedures also create potentially insurmountable obstacles for seeking other types of protection by imposing new, unlawful regulations governing how arriving noncitizens are screened to determine whether they are eligible for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and providing only four hours to consult with an attorney before those screenings.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services filed the complaint on June 12, 2024, in the D.C. District Court. Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on July 12, 2024. Cross motions for summary judgment are now fully briefed. Separately, Texas filed a motion with the court to intervene as a defendant in the case.

Following the finalization of the Interim Final Rule on September 30, 2024, the government argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 1, 2024, as well as a supplemental brief for summary judgment on November 15, 2024.

On May 9, 2025, the district court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and similarly granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court vacated the limitation on asylum eligibility as contrary to law, the manifestation of fear requirement as arbitrary and capricious, and the Guidance providing asylum seekers only 4 hours to consult with an attorney before a CFI as arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the reasonable probability standard.   

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia ǀ Jenner & Block LLP ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

Contact: Lee Gelernt ǀ ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ lgelernt@aclu.org
Keren Zwick ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ kzwick@immigrantjustice.org
Melissa Crow ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu

Press:

International Rights Advocates Sue CBP to Block Import of Cocoa Harvested by Child Labor

Posted on by

International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas and Troy A. Miller, No. 1:23-cv-00165 (Ct. Intl. Trade, filed Aug. 10, 2023)

International Rights Advocates, a child welfare advocate organization, filed a federal lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in August 2023 asking a judge to force the Biden administration to block imports of cocoa harvested by children in West Africa that can end up in America’s most popular chocolate desserts and candies.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and requests that the federal government enforce a 1930s-era federal law that requires the government to ban products created by child labor from entering the United States. In February 2020, International Rights Advocates, along with University of California Irvine Law School Human Rights Clinic and Corporate Accountability Lab, filed a petition to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking to ban the import of cocoa from Cote d’Ivoire by seven major chocolate companies, harvested in whole or in part by forced child labor. CBP failed to respond to the petition or to a follow-up inquiry signed by interested parties and organizations requesting enforcement of the law. Because the agency failed to take any action in response, Plaintiff International Rights Advocates now seeks a court order requiring government entities to comply with the law and fulfill their statutory obligations.

The petition and the complaint rely on extensive evidence documenting children cultivating cocoa destined for well-known U.S. candy makers, including Hershey, Mars, Nestle, and Cargill. The major chocolate companies pledged to end their reliance on child labor to harvest their cocoa by 2005, though now have extended the deadline to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in their supply chains by 2025.

In response to media inquiries, CBP has said it is unable to disclose information or plans regarding forced labor enforcement due to the protections afforded to sensitive information related to law enforcement activities.

On December 15, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on lack of jurisdiction, claiming that International Rights Advocates does not have standing for the case, and failure to state a claim. Briefing, along with ordered supplemental briefing, concluded on July 11, 2024. Oral argument was held July 16, 2024. On August 8, 2024, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that International Rights Advocates did not suffer an injury in fact, and even if it had, the injury is not traceable to CBP’s inaction. On September 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court’s decision.

Documents

Counsel: International Rights Advocates
Contact: Terrence P. Collingsworth ǀ International Rights Advocates ǀ tc@iradvocates.org

Press:

Estate of Joel Reyes Munoz v. USA

Posted on by

Estate of Joel Reyes Munoz, et al., v. United States of America, No. 3:23-cv-01422 (S.D. Cal., filed Aug. 3, 2023)

On August 3, 2023, the family of Joel Reyes Munoz filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act and California state law in the Southern District of California against the federal government for the wrongful death of Mr. Reyes Munoz, who died after falling from a border wall near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. The complaint, filed on behalf of Mr. Reyes Munoz’s estate, his widow, and children, alleges that on January 12, 2022, law enforcement refused to seek medical attention for Mr. Reyes Munoz after he fell from the wall. Although it was obvious that he had sustained serious injuries and was in need of immediate emergency medical care, Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials refused to bring him to an emergency hospital facility. Instead, after the fall, Mr. Reyes Munoz was arrested and held in custody at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. He later “became ill and eventually unresponsive,” according to CBP. Lifesaving efforts commenced, but he was pronounced dead about an hour and 45 minutes after his fall.

Only when Mr. Reyes Munoz became unconscious and stopped breathing did any government official summon emergency medical services. By that time, Mr. Reyes Munoz, because of the delay, had already died. Border fall deaths and injuries in the San Diego area had been on the rise around the time of Reyes Munoz’s death, according to the complaint. The suit alleges the increase in fall incidents should have put Border Patrol and CBP officials on notice of the potentially fatal consequences.

Figures from the San Diego County Medical Examiner indicate there were zero such deaths between 2016 and 2018, but 16 people died from border barrier falls between 2019 and 2021, according to the complaint. Fall injuries during those same time periods also increased from 67 between 2016 and 2018 to 375 between 2019 and 2021.

The government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim under California’s Bane Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on October 20, 2023. The court granted the motion to dismiss that claim on February 13, 2024. On February 27, 2024, the government filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. The case is now in discovery, with status updates ongoing and a mandatory settlement conference scheduled for December 6, 2024.

Documents

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Press

ACLU New Hampshire v. CBP

Posted on by

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of New Hampshire v. United States Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-00282 (D.N.H., filed May 22, 2023)

The ACLU of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit in federal court under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on the number of apprehensions and encounters at the New Hampshire-Canada border. In response to previous inquiries seeking this information, CBP has said it cannot release state-specific data. Rather, CBP has only produced aggregated apprehension numbers from all of the Swanton Sector, which covers a 295-mile section of the border spanning New Hampshire, Vermont, and parts of New York. New Hampshire’s border constitutes 58 of those 295 miles.

In early 2023, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu proposed a $1.4 million dollar state budget expansion for policing and surveillance efforts along the Canadian border, which he and state officials say is in response to an increase in unauthorized New Hampshire border crossings, though the state has not produced data on the increased crossings. In March, the ACLU of New Hampshire also filed right-to-know requests with Governor Sununu’s Office and the N.H. Department of Safety, but both offices said they could not provide materials in response to the requests.

Though the New Hampshire House of Representatives stripped this proposed increase in policing funding out of the state budget, in May 2023, the Senate Finance Committee voted to restore this funding to the budget in a proposal to be voted on by the full state senate.

As the lawsuit details, because there is a budget proposal that relies on the requested information, there is a compelling public interest in releasing this data. Yet in the face of this obvious public interest, CBP categorically rejected the ACLU-NH’s initial FOIA request because “CBP does not release enforcement statistics and/or enforcement data at less than a Sector or Field Officer level.” CBP made this statement despite the fact that a local news outlet, WMUR, reported the fact that no crossing was “recorded in New Hampshire” between October 2022 and January 2023, while “there were 94 people…taken into custody across Vermont and New York”—implying that CBP had previously provided disaggregated data to WMUR.  

The ACLU-NH filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2023. Briefing on cross motions for summary judgment was completed and the court set oral argument for January 5, 2024.

On January 26, 2024, the parties settled the case and stipulated to dismissal, with CBP releasing data showing that there were only 21 encounters and apprehensions in New Hampshire during the 15-month period between October 2022 and December 2023.

Documents

Contact

Ari Schechter ǀ ACLU of New Hampshire ǀ ariana@aclu-nh.org

Press

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Al Otro Lado, et al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., No. 3:23-cv-01367 (S.D. Cal., filed Jul. 27, 2023) and No. 23-3396 (9th Cir., filed Nov. 9, 2023)

This lawsuit challenges the federal government’s border-wide policy and practice of turning back asylum seekers without an appointment scheduled through the CBP One mobile application at ports of entry (POEs) along the southern border, denying them access to the U.S. asylum process. The suit seeks to end U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) newest iteration of unlawful metering, and to ensure that the government is complying with U.S. laws meant to protect asylum seekers’ rights and safety.

Restricting asylum access to only those individuals who can use a smartphone app imposes unfair and at times insurmountable barriers for asylum seekers. The CBP One Turnback Policy, under which CBP officers turn back most asylum seekers who cannot secure an appointment made via the CBP One app, creates language, literacy, and disability access issues. There is evidence that CBP in some cities is coordinating with Mexican officials to block asylum seekers without CBP One appointments from physically approaching ports of entry. The policy therefore causes unreasonable delays and endangers asylum seekers’ lives. Even those able to use the app are denied appointments due to limited slots, forcing indefinite waits in precarious conditions in Mexico.

The plaintiffs in the suit are immigrant rights organizations Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance, and 10 individuals turned away at the southern border by CBP and denied their fundamental right to seek asylum in the United States.

The CBP One Turnback Policy has harmed plaintiffs, leaving them vulnerable to assault, rape, kidnapping, and even murder in dangerous Mexican border towns. It also disrupts organizations’ missions, diverting resources to counteract the policy’s harmful effects.

On August 9, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the policy until the case is decided, along with a motion to provisionally certify a class. If granted, the government would be required to follow its own binding guidance, and process all people seeking asylum at ports of entry, regardless of whether they are lucky enough to obtain a CBP One appointment.

On October 23, 2023, the court denied the motion for preliminary injunction in an oral opinion, holding that the jurisdictional bar at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief. The court also denied the motion for provisional class certification as moot based on the denial of the preliminary injunction. On November 11, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal on both denied motions to the Ninth Circuit. Briefing is complete and oral arguments were heard on May 13, 2024. Back at the district court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 13, 2023, for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. Briefing on the motion was completed on February 12, 2024.

On June 5, 2024, defendants filed a notice with the court regarding President Biden’s proclamation limiting asylum seekers at the southern border, contending that the President’s recent action on immigration is relevant to plaintiffs’ claims in this matter concerning operations at land ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The parties submitted briefing on how the presidential action might affect plaintiffs’ claims.

On September 30, 2024, the court denied the government’s motion in large part, dismissing only Plaintiffs’ claims that enjoin or bind Mexican officials/persons outside of US federal agencies, and Plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute claim.

Documents

Counsel: American Immigration Council | the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies | Center for Constitutional Rights | Mayer Brown LLP | Vinson & Elkins LLP

Contact:  Suchita Mathur | American Immigration Council | smathur@immcouncil.org

Press:

J.R.G. and M.A.R. v. United States of America

Posted on by

J.R.G. and M.A.R. v. United States of America, No. 4:22-cv-5183 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 12, 2022)

In May 2018, J.R.G. and her then-eight-year-old daughter, M.A.R., entered the United States seeking asylum and fleeing persecution and torture in El Salvador. Shortly after they crossed the border, they were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Within a day of their detention, CBP officers forcibly separated the mother and daughter from each other pursuant to the Trump administration’s family separation policy. Mother and daughter would not be reunited again until the end of March 2019 – after over ten months of forced separation.

As a direct result of the trauma inflicted upon them due to their forced separation, J.R.G. and M.A.R. suffered catastrophic emotional and mental harm that continues to this day. J.R.G. did not have any contact with her daughter for one month, after which she was finally able to speak to her daughter on the phone. During that month, she was provided almost no information about her daughter’s whereabouts, wellbeing, health, or safety, despite her relentless inquiries to detention officers. J.R.G. was unable to eat or sleep because of the stress during her months in detention, and she experienced depression and anxiety from worrying about her child. J.R.G. lost 20 pounds while incarcerated and began experiencing severe medical issues. Even after they were finally reunited, J.R.G. and M.A.R. experienced ongoing physical symptoms from the trauma they suffered.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs submitted a claim for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Defendant agencies failed to make a final disposition on plaintiffs’ claims within six months, and J.R.G. and M.A.R. filed suit in the Northern District of California on September 12, 2022. The government filed a motion to dismiss and motion to transfer the court venue to the Western District of Texas (where the separation occurred) on December 5, 2022. A motions hearing was held on April 6, 2023, and on April 11, 2023, the court denied defendant’s motion to transfer venue and motion to dismiss. After a period of discovery, the parties entered settlement negotiations. On May 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion to approve settlement involving claims of a minor. On May 9, 2024, Defendant filed its statement of non-opposition to said motion. On July 9, 2024, the magistrate judge granted the motion to approve the settlement. On November 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | The Law Office of Julianna Rivera

Contact: Matt Adams | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

NYLAG v. DHS

Posted on by

New York Legal Assistance Group, Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:22-cv-05928 (S.D.N.Y., filed Jul. 12, 2022)

New York Legal Assistance Group, Inc. (NYLAG), a not-for-profit civil legal services organization in New York, New York, filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to produce responsive records to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to the deployment of federal law enforcement personnel in New York City during protests related to the killing of George Floyd in 2020.

In June 2020, at a New York City protest against police brutality, a protestor was violently arrested on the Upper West Side by an officer identified as an agent for ICE or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). After the identification of the officer, organizations like NYLAG raised concerns questioning the authority of the federal government to deploy federal agents to monitor local protests and surveil immigrant protestors.

NYLAG submitted an administrative FOIA request on September 29, 2020, requesting records from May 25, 2020, through the date of filing the request. Following their administrative request, NYLAG received some communications from DHS, ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Secret Service (USSS), and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), indicating that responsive records existed and were identified. However, after nearly two years, the agencies failed to produce to NYLAG any of the documents they identified as responsive to the FOIA request, prompting NYLAG to file suit in July 2022. On September 16, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. 

Defendants’ production of documents responsive to the FOIA request is ongoing, and they continue to meet and confer with NYLAG to narrow NYLAG’s scope of objections to the production.

Counsel: New York Legal Assistance Group | Cooley LLP

Contact: Danielle Tarantolo | NYLAG | (212) 613-5000
Marc Suskin | Cooley LLP | (212) 479-6000

Related Links: https://nylag.org/nylagvdhs/

Davis Wright Tremaine v. CBP

Posted on by

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. United States Customs and Border Protection, No. 2:19-cv-00334 (W.D. Wash., filed Mar. 6, 2019)

A Seattle-area law firm filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit against CBP after the agency refused to respond to a FOIA request for information concerning CBP’s widely publicized policy and practice of denying entry to noncitizens due to their involvement with the legal cannabis industry in Canada. Individuals subjected to the policy in the past have been detained and at times even told they are banned for life from entering the United States. In one instance cited in the complaint, the executive commissioner for CBP’s Office of Field Operations, Todd Owen, was quoted as claiming, “If you work for the [cannabis] industry, that is grounds for inadmissibility.” Owens also claimed that CBP had the authority to permanently ban from entering the U.S. even those who only invested in legal cannabis business.

The firm which filed the suit, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, sought access to records to assess whether CBP’s actions are within the scope of the authority granted to it by Congress, whether CBP was acting pursuant to any policies or procedures, and whether it promulgated any such policies or procedures consistent with the procedures Congress has required for agency rulemaking.

On June 16, 2020, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and CBP’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The court found CBP’s production in response to the FOIA request inadequate, and the parties submitted periodic status reports on the agency’s ongoing production. Chief among the documents produced was a 2018 CBP Information Guide which acknowledged that foreign nationals who work in legal foreign cannabis industries are not inadmissible, assuming their visit to the United States is unrelated to domestic or cross-border cannabis operations – a policy which contradicts statements and actions by CBP in the past regarding Canadian citizens associated with the industry. The parties stipulated to dismiss the case in 2022.

Counsel: Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Contact: Bruce Johnson | brucejohnson@dwt.com
Caesar Kalinowski | caesarkalinowski@dwt.com