Category Archives: All Cases

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:

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. The parties have negotiated a proposed schedule for Defendants to produce the requested records. The parties are now engaged in settlement conversations, with a status update on settlement due to the court by October 1, 2024.

Documents:

Council: American Immigration Council ǀ 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.

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