Author Archives: NWIRP

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 released 2,912 pages of documents in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, and was reviewing the documents to assess adequate compliance. The parties reached a settlement in principle on September 29, 2025, and the case was later dismissed.

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 Jul. 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. After plaintiffs received defendants’ production, the parties stipulated to dismiss on February 26, 2026.

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:

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.

After CBP produced documents responsive to the complaint, TCRP moved to voluntarily dismiss the action.

Documents:

Contact:

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

Press:

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 made productions. The parties subsequently settled the matter.

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 parties settled in April 2025.

Documents

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Press