Category Archives: All Cases

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 3:24-cv-01601 (N.D. Cal., filed Mar. 14, 2024)

Since at least late 2022, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has forced thousands of migrants to await processing for asylum or other relief in dangerous and squalid open-air detention sites along the California-Mexico border without reliable access to food, water, shelter, warmth, sanitation, or medical care.Initially located near San Ysidro, CBP has expanded its use of outdoor detention to locations near Jacumba and reports indicate CBP has added new locations in the Otay Mountain Wilderness.

Al Otro Lado submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – one in October 2023 and a second, joined by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), in December 2023, seeking records regarding CBP’s activities at these detention sites – what CBP calls “gathering sites.” The FOIAs seek to uncover CBP’s policies and practices surrounding the detention sites, including their supervision and monitoring of the sites. When CBP failed to respond to either request, CGRS and Al Otro Lado filed suit under FOIA to compel the production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado & Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Edith Sangueza | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies | sanguezaedith@uclawsf.edu

Osorio v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Osorio v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-03779 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2023)

Plaintiff Lianet Alvarez Osorio learned that her mother, Idania, had died while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody from a CBP press release issued two weeks after her mother’s passing. Ms. Osorio knew that her mother would be arriving at the border at Eagle Pass, Texas, and processed by CBP on January 2, 2023. The next day, she learned from another woman that her mother had been suffering from chest pains while in CBP custody. For the next two weeks Ms. Osorio frantically sought information about her mother’s whereabouts, only to have a family member call her with news of a press release announcing the death of a woman who matched her mother’s description. Contrary to CBP policy, nobody from CBP personally notified Ms. Osorio. Nor has CBP provided Ms. Osorio with more information about the circumstances of her mother’s death beyond what was included in the press release.

On March 8, 2023, Ms. Osorio filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking records regarding her mother’s death, including any CBP investigation, and information regarding the circumstances of the press release. When CBP failed to timely respond, Ms. Osorio filed suit on December 20, 2023, and subsequently amended her complaint on February 6, 2024.  In her amended complaint, Ms. Osorio alleges that a recent whistleblower complaint to Congress alleging serious mismanagement, understaffing, and incompetence by Loyal Source Government Services – the medical contractor to CBP border facilities – raised more questions about her mother’s death and heightened the need for transparency.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado

Contact: Andrew Fels | Al Otro Lado | andrew@alotrolado.org

National Immigration Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

National Immigration Project, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00641 (D.D.C. filed March 6, 2024)

Following media reports that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio, Texas are disproportionately targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries for prosecution, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking data regarding the individuals prosecuted for certain offenses in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Del Rio).

In August 2023, The L.A. Times first reported that federal prosecutors in Del Rio, Texas were charging people from Muslim-majority countries with illegal entry (8 U.S.C § 1325), illegal reentry (8 U.S.C § 1326), and the obscure offense of failing to properly report at entry (19 U.S.C. § 1459) at high rates, even though they make up a very small percentage of the people crossing the U.S.-Texas border.

On January 5, 2024, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates submitted their FOIA request to the Department of Justice and CBP – the agency generally responsible for referring people apprehended at the border for federal prosecution. The request seeks three categories of records: (1) records of the number of people prosecuted in Del Rio for the three relevant offenses, including their national origin; (2) records regarding the number of referrals made by CBP to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio for the relevant offenses, including national origin information; and (3) records showing the number of arrests by the Del Rio Sector of CBP, including national origin information.

When CBP and the Department of Justice failed to respond within the 30-day deadline set by FOIA, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed suit on March 6, 2024, seeking to compel production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: National Immigration Project; Muslim Advocates

Contact: Khaled Alrabe | National Immigration Project | khaled@nipnlg.org

American Immigration Council v. CBP

Posted on by

American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 3:23-cv-5270 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 16, 2023)

In early 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented a new policy requiring asylum seekers approaching ports of entry (POEs) along the southern border to first schedule an appointment through the CBP One mobile application. Under the CBP One Turnback Policy, CBP officers turn away most asylum seekers who have not made an appointment through CBP One, thereby endangering asylum seekers who must remain in potentially dangerous conditions and risk losing their asylum eligibility.

On July 11, 2023, the American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies sent Defendants a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, seeking to understand CBP’s policies regarding asylum seekers who approach POEs without a CBP One appointment, including the number of migrants impacted and CBP’s cooperation with authorities in Mexico. Plaintiffs requested expedited processing because of the urgency of the situation. Plaintiffs also believe that this policy directly conflicts with the federal court ruling in Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Mayorkas, 619 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (S.D. Cal. 2022), which held that refusing to inspect asylum seekers arriving to the United States—as officers do to those without a CBP One appointment—is unlawful. CBP did not respond to the request. On October 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court under FOIA to obtain the responsive documents.

Documents:

Council: American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Raul Pinto | American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org; Neela Chakravartula | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies ǀ neela@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.

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.

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.

Documents

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

Contact:  Gianna Borroto | American Immigration Council | gborroto@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. The discovery period is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

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

East Bay Sanctuary, et al., v. Biden, et al.

Posted on by

East Bay Sanctuary, et al., v. Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al., No. 4:18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal., amended complaint filed May 11, 2023) and No. 23-16032 (9th Cir., filed July 26, 2023)

Anticipating the end of the policy that allowed for the expulsion of asylum-seekers arriving at the U.S./Mexico border under Title 42, on May 10, 2023, the Biden administration issued a new final rule that bars certain asylum seekers from asylum if they did not apply for asylum in a country they passed through on their way to the United States or failed to obtain advance permission to arrive at a port of entry or travel to the United States. The exceptions to this new asylum ban are extremely narrow. This is the third in a string of asylum bans attempting to bar many people from the asylum process. The first two originated under the Trump administration and were found unlawful by the district court in this case and the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit on November 9, 2018, in response to the Trump administration’s first asylum ban, which barred anyone who did not enter the United States at a port of entry from receiving asylum. The district court found this first ban unlawful and enjoined it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed those orders on February 28, 2020, (and in an amended opinion on March 24, 2021). The case was stayed.

On July 16, 2019, East Bay Sanctuary and others filed a related lawsuit in the same court challenging the second asylum ban, which barred those who did not apply for asylum in a country they transited through on their way to the United States from seeking asylum in the United States. The district court similarly preliminarily enjoined the second asylum rule as likely unlawful and the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed that order on July 6, 2020, (amended April 8, 2021).

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint in this case to challenge the third asylum ban. Defendants consented to the filing of the amended complaint and to lifting the stay on the case. Plaintiffs argue that the new rule is unlawful for the same reasons the first two asylum bans were unlawful. It will effectively eliminate asylum for nearly all non-Mexican asylum seekers who enter between designated ports of entry, and even for those who present at a port of entry if they have not first secured an appointment.

On July 25, 2023, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion, vacating the rule yet again. The government appealed the order, and on August 3, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the administration’s transit ban can continue through September, staying the lower court decision. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on November 7, 2023, and the parties await a decision of the court.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; National Immigrant Justice Center; ACLU of Northern California

Contact: Katrina Eiland | ACLU Immigrant Rights Project | keiland@aclu.org

Press: