Category Archives: All Cases

ACLU v. ICE

Posted on by

ACLU v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 1:24-cv-07444 (S.D.NY., filed Oct. 2, 2024)

The ACLU filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on October 2, 2024, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) after the departments failed to produce requested documents by the deadline under FOIA (20 working days). The ACLU is requesting documents related to detention management and care as well as deportation practices. Specifically, the ACLU requested CBP’s documents related to the transportation of individuals between detention centers and airports during deportation proceedings, including the transportation of unaccompanied minors; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) records of detention facility bed availability and commercial lodging practices; DHS’s policies between CBP, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and any legal memoranda related to the “mass influx” provision, 8 U.S.C. section 1103(a)(10), from DHS and DOJ. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 12, 2024, and as of September 2025 continue to file status reports with the court while production in response to the initial FOIA requests is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Goodwin Procter LLP ǀ ACLU

Contact: Kyle Virgien | kvirgien@aclu.org

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. CBP, et. al.

Posted on by

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:24-cv-02430 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 24, 2024) and No. 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C., docketed Nov. 5, 2024)

Three immigration attorneys and two individual plaintiffs are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to make a determination on each plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the 20 or, at most, 30 business days mandated by FOIA. Two plaintiffs had FOIA requests pending for over a year and a half at the time the complaint was filed. Because CBP engages in a nationwide pattern and practice of failing to make a determination on individual FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe, plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated FOIA requestors who must wait for prolonged periods for determinations on their requests.

In addition to class certification, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering CBP to respond to FOIA requests for an individual’s records that have been pending for more than 30 business days without a determination and ordering CBP to make timely determinations as required by FOIA. Significant delays in FOIA productions often mean that immigrants and their attorneys are unable to know crucial information for immigration cases, such as when the individual traveled, if the individual was subject to any inspections, if the individual was ever deported, or any other meaningful action that could impact their ability to make an effective defense and to apply for status.

On July 15, 2024, defendants filed a motion to transfer or dismiss the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 2 clarifying why jurisdiction and venue in that district were proper. However, on November 4, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS and transferring the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the FOIA claim against Defendant DHS on January 31, which was granted by the D.C. District Court on June 18, 2025, and the FOIA claim reinstated.

On September 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the D.C. District Court. Defendants oppose the motion and have requested extensions of time to answer.

Documents:

Counsel:

National Immigration Litigation Alliance ǀ Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ǀ Van Der Hout LLP

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

Garcia Pleytes v. United States of America

Posted on by

Garcia Pleytes v. United States of America, No. 2:24-cv-1451 (W.D. Wash., filed Sept. 12, 2024)

On March 30, 2022, Jose Garcia Pleytes was seriously injured by a U.S. Border Patrol (BP) officer on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) near the Arizona-Mexico border. Mr. Garcia was walking in the desert after having recently entered the United States without inspection. He was approached by Border Patrol agents on ATVs, one of whom hit Mr. Garcia’s lower body with the ATV and completely crushed Mr. Garcia’s right leg with the front tires. Mr. Garcia felt excruciating pain and fell to the ground, nearly losing consciousness. In spite of Mr. Garcia’s state, the agent flipped Mr. Garcia over and stood over him, forcefully pulling Mr. Garcia’s hands behind his back to handcuff him, and causing him even greater pain. Eventually, the agents carried Mr. Garcia onto one of their ATVs and drove for two hours through rough desert terrain to an ambulance, each bump of the ride causing him even more pain.

After the ambulance transported Mr. Garcia to a nearby hospital, he was x-rayed and diagnosed with acute right knee dislocation and closed right tibial plateau fracture, with a likely ligament injury or rupture that required MRI imaging which the hospital could not perform. He was released with a knee immobilizer, crutches, and instructions that he needed an MRI and evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon as soon as possible.

However, Mr. Garcia was instead taken to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holding facility, or hielera, where he was placed in a cramped, frigid cell with only the floor or hard benches for sleeping. He was denied a request to contact his family and denied prompt and comprehensive medical treatment. The next morning, CBP officers placed Mr. Garcia on a bus with other migrants and attempted to deport him. When the Mexican authorities saw that Mr. Garcia was a citizen of Guatemala, they refused to accept him for deportation due to his injuries.

CBP transported Mr. Garcia back to a holding facility, then later that night, drove him and another small group of migrants into Mexico and left them in the Sonoran desert, without alerting Mexican authorities of their presence. Later, Mexican authorities recognized Mr. Garcia and reiterated that CBP should not have deported him to Mexico, and that they could not return him to Guatemala due to his injuries. Instead, they took him to a migrant shelter in Mexico, where he remained for 7 months until he was paroled back into the United States for medical treatment, with the help of Kino Border Initiative and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. He later underwent orthopedic surgery for reconstruction of his knee, and continued to use assistive devices for mobility for almost a year and a half after his injury.

Mr. Garcia Pleytes filed an administrative claim against CBP under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on February 14, 2024. CBP subsequently issued a notice denying Mr. Garcia’s claim, and he filed suit in the Western District of Washington on September 12, 2024. On March 14, 2025, the case was dismissed as the parties reached a settlement.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

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

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.