Category Archives: All Cases

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

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. On February 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion filed by the parties to hold the case in abeyance pending settlement negotiations in this case and a related case, M.A. v. Mayorkas, No. 1:23-cv-1843 (D.D.C.). On October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the states of Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia, challenging the Ninth Circuit’s order granting the hold.

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:

American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Posted on by

American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:23-cv-01395 (D.D.C., filed May 17, 2023)

On December 20, 2018, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, announced a new government policy, the so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), which would force noncitizens seeking admission from Mexico to return to Mexico to await their removal proceedings. The Trump administration voiced its intention to implement the policy “on a large scale basis,” beginning first with San Ysidro Port of Entry in California on January 28, 2019. MPP sparked litigation and in 2021, the Biden administration terminated the program. More information about MPP and related litigation is available here.

On May 17, 2023, American Oversight filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking to compel the release of communications from Trump administration political appointees to anti-immigrant groups concerning MPP. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 26, 2023. As of June 2024, the parties continue to file joint status reports with the court while production is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: American Oversight

Contact: Hart W. Wood | American Oversight | hart.wood@americanoversight.org

Civil Rights Complaints Regarding CBP’s Expanded Use of Open-Air Detention

Posted on by

On May 13, 2023, the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC) submitted a complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). The complaint, which is supported by multiple detailed affidavits and graphic photographs, documents an ongoing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) practice of detaining people outdoors between two fences in deplorable conditions near the San Ysidro port of entry.

Since at least late 2022, U.S. Border Patrol agents have been detaining people arriving at the U.S./Mexico border in California between two parallel border walls—a primary and a secondary wall near San Ysidro. Border Patrol agents are holding people—including children—on U.S. soil for days or weeks in open-air custody without adequate food, water, shelter, or medical care. CBP has provided only one port-a-potty for hundreds of people and the smell of feces is overwhelming.

Extended periods exposed to the elements without sufficient water, food, or sanitary conditions have caused migrants to suffer from serious medical conditions for which Border Patrol is not providing adequate care. SBCC submitted images of a man with a severely infected leg injury, a woman experiencing a severe allergic reaction, and described a child who suffered an epileptic seizure.

The May 2023 complaint explained that these conditions, and the prolonged period of time that Border Patrol is holding people between the walls, are in clear violation of CBP’s own detention standards and international law governing the treatment of migrants.

In September 2023, CRCL responded to the complaint, indicating that it had expressed concerns to CBP about this open-air detention, but that the people detained there had been processed – suggesting the issue had been resolved.

On December 13, 2023, Al Otro Lado, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Kindness, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and the National Immigration Law Center joined SBCC in filing a new complaint with CRCL documenting the ongoing detention between the walls at San Ysidro and the expanded use of open-air detention near the remote desert town of Jacumba, California. This complaint is similarly supported by declarations and photographic evidence.

The December 2023 complaint reports that CBP continues to hold people between fences at San Ysidro in dangerous conditions. In October 2023, just weeks after CRCL closed its initial investigation, a 29-year-old Guinean woman died after suffering a medical emergency.

Rather than respond to CRCL’s concerns, CBP has expanded outdoor detention. The complaint documents new open-air detention sites near Jacumba — a remote town where temperatures can drop a low as 20 degrees in the winter and hit over 100 degrees in the summer. CBP is holding asylum seekers and other migrants along the border fence with only donated tents or tarps to protect them from the elements. People are trapped by mountains, the harsh surrounding desert, and constant surveillance. The daily population at these sites ranges from 100 to over 750, yet CBP provides only limited water and snacks. Volunteers offer the only meals, shelter (in the form of tents), and warm clothing available. CBP does not provide adequate medical care and in some instances interferes with migrants and volunteers seeking to obtain emergency services. In December, a 13-year-old boy died after EMS took over an hour to reach the remote site. The December 2023 complaint urges CRCL to reopen its investigation and ensure that CBP, at a minimum, comply with its own detention standards if it cannot promptly process people.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Kindness, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the International Refugee Assistance Project, the National Immigration Law Center, Southern Border Communities Coalition

Contact: Erika Pinheiro | Al Otro Lado

Madrigales Vasquez, et al., v. United States of America

Posted on by

Madrigales Vasquez, et al., v. United States of America, No. 3:23-cv-5397, (W.D. Wash., filed May 2, 2023)

On February 21, 2021, a family of asylum seekers—two minor children and their parents—entered the United States seeking protection from persecution in Guatemala. After a long and arduous journey on foot and by bus, federal immigration officers arrested the family, dropped them off under an international border bridge near McAllen, Texas, and held the family there for three days, where hundreds of other migrants were similarly being held. 

The family expressed to officers their intention to apply for asylum right away, but officers ignored the family’s vulnerable situation and instead continued to detain them under the bridge in inhumane and unsafe conditions that violated their basic rights and sense of dignity as human beings. 

While held under the bridge, the family lacked adequate access to basic necessities, including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. They were constantly exposed to the elements and forced to sleep on the bare ground, with hardly any protection from freezing night conditions. For three days, they constantly felt cold, sore, famished, and exhausted. When one of the parents became ill from the conditions, she was denied medical care. Moreover, officers put the family and other asylum seekers at risk of contracting COVID-19 during a time when the vast majority of the United States and world population remained unvaccinated. In the holding area under the bridge, asylum seekers had no access to running water or hygiene items like soap, and social distancing was impossible in the crowded conditions.

During their three days under the bridge, officers refused to provide the family with any explanation regarding their situation, why they were detained, or what was going to happen to them. As a direct result of this unlawful conduct, the family suffered severe physical, mental, and psychological harm. 

On June 21, 2022, the family submitted an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the government actors who detained them, and on May 2, 2023, they filed a complaint in federal court in the Western District of Washington, where they currently reside. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on August 7, 2023. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 22, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, agreeing with the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the FTCA’s discretionary function exception (DFE), given that CBP made a policy decision to address the overburdened and under-resourced situation. The court therefore dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

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

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-00257 (W.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 22, 2023)

Matthew Borowski is an immigration attorney and U.S. citizen who resides in Canada but manages an immigration law firm in Buffalo, New York. As such, he routinely commutes across the U.S./Canadian border for work. He has maintained a NEXUS card since 2012. NEXUS is a trusted traveler program that permits faster travel across the border.

Mr. Borowski and his family have had several encounters with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers while traveling across the border. In one incident, a CBP officer assaulted Mr. Borowski’s wife and took the families’ NEXUS cards. CBP ultimately returned the NEXUS cards. Mr. Borowski and his wife sued the assaulting CBP officer, who continued to harass the family while the lawsuit was pending. In 2017, Mr. Borowski successfully renewed his NEXUS card.

During the Trump administration, Mr. Borowski was outspoken about his opposition to new immigration policies and engaged in a range of activity to express his views, including a protest in immigration court. Mr. Borowksi continued to travel back and forth across the U.S./Canadian border, and though he was routinely sent to secondary inspection for no apparent reason, he was always permitted to continue his travel. In December 2022, CBP declined his request to renew his NEXUS card without explanation. A NEXUS Supervisor indicated to Mr. Borowski that prior incidents had led to the denial.

Mr. Borowski submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the reason for the denial. CBP has yet to respond. On March 22, 2023, Mr. Borowski filed suit alleging that the denial of his request to renew his NEXUS card was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and challenging the failure to respond to his FOIA request. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss, and Mr. Borowski filed an amended complaint on June 20, 2023. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2023, and plaintiff filed his response August 21, 2023.  Defendant submitted a motion for partial summary judgment on October 16, 2023, arguing that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claim that CBP improperly withheld responsive documents because information was properly withheld under the FOIA statute.

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part on February 21, 2024, dismissing Mr. Borowski’s FTCA and constitutional claims without prejudice but denying the motion to dismiss as to his APA claim. Defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 5, 2024. On May 10, 2024, the court denied Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that CBP had not adequately addressed the deficiencies Plaintiff identified in its production, nor adequately justifying the information it had withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions. On July 9, 2024, Defendant CBP filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that it had run a new search for documents and all withheld documents were properly done so pursuant to FOIA’s exemptions. Briefing is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Matthew Borowski

Contact: Matthew Borowski | (716) 330-1503

Press:

Daniel Telvock, NEXUS pass dispute pits attorney vs. U.S. Customs, WIVB4, Aug. 3, 2023.