Category Archives: All Cases

Moore v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Posted on by

Moore v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. EP-19-CV-00279-DCG, (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 1, 2019)

From June 2018 to March 2019, Plaintiff Robert Moore, a journalist, submitted five Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), seeking critical records related to border enforcement, fundamental shifts in the treatment of people seeking asylum, and operation of immigration detention facilities in El Paso. Among other requests, Mr. Moore asked that CBP release any and all directives, emails, text messages and other communications from CBP officials regarding the handling of people seeking asylum at ports of entry when port facilities are at “capacity.” He also requested information related to CBP’s use of a “field force demonstration” in a community next to the border on the day of mid-term elections in November 2018. When the three agencies failed to timely produce responsive records, Mr. Moore filed a lawsuit on October 1, 2019, to compel the agencies to conduct searches and produce responsive records.

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court stayed the motion and set a production schedule.

In a series of motions, the parties have litigated the speed at which CBP must review and produce responsive records, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff moved for the Court to lift the stay and to enter a finite production schedule. The Court allowed the stay to remain in place, in light of the global pandemic, but ordered a finite production schedule.  On November 19, 2020 (the day before the production deadline), at 4:56 p.m., CBP filed a motion for a new stay of proceedings pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C) and Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976), and to extend the deadline under the finite production schedule.

On January 12, 2021, the Court denied CBP’s request for an Open America stay. The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordered the parties to confer regarding a revised finite production schedule, and ordered CBP to produce weekly status reports to the Court for the duration of the case. The Court explained that the weekly reports, accompanied by a declaration, “SHALL detail CBP’s progress and developments in processing both Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and track the specific number of files/records/documents and total amount of pages reviewed that week and how many are outstanding for each individual FOIA request. Any incomplete, late, or seemingly cloned (‘copied-and-pasted’) submissions SHALL not be deemed to comply with this Order.”

The case was set for a bench trial on September 15, 2021, related to the withholding of information from CBP’s FOIA production. On September 14, 2021, CBP rolled back certain redactions from its production, resolving the issues that were to be presented at trial. The parties submitted a joint motion to retain the case while fees are resolved.

On November 17, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Consequently, on December 15, 2021, the parties agreed to a stipulation of dismissal.

Counsel: Law Office of Lynn Coyle, PLLC

Contact: Christopher Benoit | chris@coylefirm.com | (915) 532-5544

Mendivil Perez v. United States

Posted on by

Angel Mendivil Perez v. United States, et al., 4:21-cv-00051-JEM (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 4, 2021)

On February 7, 2019, Alex Mendivil Perez, a U.S. citizen who was then 21 years old, was shot in the head by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer while attempting to exit the U.S. into Mexico through the Nogales port of entry. At around 7 p.m. that day, Mr. Mendivil arrived at the border crossing driving a pickup truck with a passenger. CBP officers approached his truck, which had license plates registered to a different vehicle, and questioned him. During the questioning, Mr. Mendivil accelerated towards Mexico. As Mr. Mendivil drove away, an unknown CBP officer shot Mr. Mendivil in the head through the back window of his car. Though Mr. Mendivil was so gravely injured that he was believed dead at the scene of his shooting, he survived with permanent injuries, including brain damage.

In February 2021, Mr. Mendivil filed suit against the United States and the unknown CBP officer alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act as well as violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2021, and Defendants filed their answer on August 24, 2021. After a period of discovery, the parties filed a proposed pretrial order on March 15, 2024, and then filed a joint notice of contingent settlement on April 12, 2024. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which the Court granted the same day.

Documents:

Counsel: Risner & Graham

Contact: William J. Risner & Kenneth K. Graham | bill@risnerandgraham.com | kk@risnerandgraham.com

Additional links:

• Dana Liebelson, A CBP Officer Shot a 21-Year-Old American in the Head. 6 Months Later, CBP Won’t Say Why, Huffington Post, Oct. 19, 2019.
• Ray Stern, A Tucson Man Shot by a Border Officer While Entering Mexico Has Filed a Lawsuit Against DHS, Phoenix New Times, Feb. 8, 2021.

No More Deaths v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

No More Deaths, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1:21-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 3, 2021)

Every year hundreds—possibly thousands—of migrants die while crossing into the United States from Mexico. The U.S. Border Patrol, within Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for most emergency aid requests for assistance in the desert, in part because local law enforcement agencies often refer 911 calls for emergency to Border Patrol when Spanish-speaking individuals call seeking help. Border Patrol’s role as an emergency services provider at the border is directly at odds with its role as an immigration enforcement agency.

Documentation by No More Deaths (NMD), a border aid organization, suggests that Border Patrol has often failed to carry out its search and rescue responsibilities: in 63% of all border distress calls referred to Border Patrol, the agency did not conduct any confirmed search or rescue mobilization. And when Border Patrol does initiate searches, they are significantly less effective when compared to searches for missing or lost U.S. citizens. Some Border Patrol searches last less than a day, or scarcely an hour. Documentation by local human rights organizations shows that in over 100 cases over a two-year period, Border Patrol agents actively interfered with family and humanitarian-organization led search efforts. In April 2019, NMD and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about CBP’s practices and policies relating to emergency services it claims to provide along the U.S.-Mexico border. In February 2021, after CBP failed to provide records for over 20 months, NMD and CCR filed a complaint seeking to compel an immediate, expedited search for and disclosure of requested records. The government filed its answer to the complaint in March 2021. CBP has finished producing documents, and plaintiffs are now determining whether to pursue litigation over any of the documents CBP withheld during production.

Documents:

Counsel: Center for Constitutional Rights

Contact: Angelo Guisado | aguisado@ccrjustice.org

Additional Links

Center for Democracy & Technology v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Center for Democracy & Technology v. Department of Homeland Security, et al., 1:21-cv-134 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 15, 2021)

In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a plan to implement “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiatives,” which were designed to collect, analyze, and disseminate social media content. DHS has since significantly expanded its collection and monitoring of social media information, using that information to inform who may travel to, enter, and remain in the United States, as well as decisions about naturalization.

In August and September 2019, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) submitted a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requesting documents and training materials related to the collection and use of First Amendment protected activity on social media. On January 15, 2021, CDT filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel DHS, CBP, and ICE to immediately process its FOIA requests and disclose all non-exempt documents to CDT. Defendants filed their answer on March 11, 2021, and the parties filed periodic status reports as Defendants produced documents responsive to the FOIA requests. The parties stipulated to dismiss the case on June 21, 2022.

Documents:

Counsel: Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

Contact: David M. Gossett, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP | davidgossett@dwt.com

American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Homeland Security, 1:20-cv-10083 (S.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 2, 2020).

Many modern cell phone applications routinely gather users’ location information and sell it to third parties, who then use it for marketing and other purposes. In February 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were purchasing location information from private companies and using it to locate and arrest noncitizens. One company, Venntel, appears to be selling access to a large database to DHS, CBP, and ICE. This raises serious concerns that CBP and ICE are evading Fourth Amendment protections by purchasing location information instead of obtaining warrants.

In February 2020, the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with DHS, CBP, and ICE seeking: (1) records of contracts, letters of commitments, and other agreements concerning government access to or receipt of cell phone location information; (2) all communications with or about Venntel Inc.; (3) policies, guidelines, memoranda, and trainings relating to government access and use of cell phone information purchased from commercial vendors; (4) formal legal analysis concerning access to commercial databases containing cell phone location information purchased from a commercial vendor; (5) records sufficient to show the volume of cell phone location data contained in commercial databases for which DHS, CBP, and ICE have purchased access; (6) records showing how many times each year DHS, CBP, and ICE employees or contractors have accessed such databases; and (7) records concerning the use of commercially purchased cell phone information in any court application, trial, hearing, or other proceeding.

On December 2, 2020, the ACLU filed a complaint seeking to compel CBP, ICE, and DHS to conduct adequate searches for the records they requested through FOIA. Defendants filed their answer on January 27, 2021, and production in response to ACLU’s FOIA request is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

Contact: Nathan Freed Wessler, ACLU Foundation | (212) 549-2500 | nwessler@aclu.org

Additional links:

• Brian Tau and Michelle Hackman, Federal Agencies Use Cellphone Location Data for Immigration Enforcement, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 7, 2020.

Malik v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Adam A. Malik, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 4:21-cv-00088-P (N.D. Tex., filed Jan. 25, 2021) and No. 22-10772 (5th Cir., filed Aug. 11, 2022)

Adam Malik is an immigration attorney based in Texas. In January 2021, Mr. Malik returned to the United States from a trip to Costa Rica, during which he had used his phone to contact clients and work on cases in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is an opposing party. When he attempted to reenter the United States through Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, Mr. Malik was sent to secondary inspection. After extensive questioning, including about his legal practice, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers seized Mr. Malik’s phone and informed him that its contents would be searched.

On January 25, 2021, Mr. Malik filed suit against the DHS and CBP in the Northern District of Texas. He claims that the seizure and search of his phone without probable cause or a warrant violates the First and Fourth Amendments. He also claims that CBP Directive 3340-049A, which governs the search of digital devices at ports of entry, is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), because it fails to adequately protect privileged legal information and impermissibly permits CBP to conduct searches and seizures that violate the First and Fourth Amendments. In addition to the return of his phone and the destruction of information and documents seized by CBP, Mr. Malik seeks injunctive and declaratory relief enjoining enforcement of CBP Directive 3340-049A and declaring it unlawful. On March 29, 2021, Defendants filed their answer to Mr. Malik’s complaint.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in early 2022. On August 4, 2022, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding both that Mr. Malik did not have standing to sue for declaratory relief under the APA and that no constitutional violation occurred to support the constitutional claims. Mr. Malik appealed the judgment to the Fifth Circuit.

The district court also ordered that Defendants may recover $4,542 dollars from Mr. Malik in taxable costs.

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on June 5, 2023. On August 15, 2023, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on both grounds.

Documents:

Counsel: Roy Petty & Associates, PLLC

Contact: Roy Petty, Roy Petty & Associates, PLLC | (214) 905-1420, roy@roypetty.com

Additional links:
• Tim Cushing, Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure and Search of His Work Phone, TechDirt.com, Feb. 2, 2021.
 

I.M. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

I.M. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 1:20-cv-3576-DLF (D.D.C., filed Dec. 11, 2020) and No. 22-5071 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 18, 2022)

I.M. is a sustainable agriculture entrepreneur and founder of a nonprofit organization that promotes sustainable farming who came to the United States on a B-1 visa to learn more about sustainable agricultural practices. Despite having been admitted for this purpose in 2019, when he attempted to reenter the country in 2020 on a valid B-1 visa he was detained on erroneous grounds by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer, who unilaterally decided to revoke I.M.’s visa and expel him from the country under the expedited removal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). At no point did I.M. have an opportunity to obtain judicial review of CBP’s legally and factually incorrect decisions to detain him, revoke his visa, and deny him admission to the country.

On December 11, 2020, I.M. filed a habeas petition and complaint against federal government defendants, including CBP, seeking vacatur of his removal order and reinstatement of his B-1 visa. I.M. argued that an unappointed CBP employee exercising unreviewed, unilateral discretion to revoke his visa and remove him violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The Appointments Clause requires that federal government officials who exercise significant authority be appointed by the President or, with Congress’s authorization, by a Head of Department or a court of law. I.M. claims that the decisions of CBP employees to unilaterally order removal under the expedited removal statute are void unless those employees were appointed consistent with the requirements of the Appointments Clause.

The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and petition on jurisdictional grounds in late February 2021. On January 1, 2022, the court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in a sealed opinion. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the D.C. Circuit. Briefing is complete and the D.C. Circuit held oral arguments on January 25, 2023. On May 12, 2023, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of I.M.’s claims on jurisdictional grounds, finding that because I.M. was out of the country, he was not in custody and therefore could not utilize a habeas petition for relief.

Counsel: Democracy Forward Foundation, National Immigrant Justice Center, Latham & Watkins

Contact: Mark Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, mfleming@heartlandalliance.org

Additional links:
• NIJC, DHS and CBP Sued for Unconstitutionally Allowing Unappointed Border Employees to Deport Immigrants (Dec. 11, 2020).

Grays v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Johnny Grays, et al. v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 3:21-cv-10526-RHC-KGA (E.D. Mich., filed Mar. 9, 2021)

Johnny Grays, Mikal Williams, and Jermaine O. Broderick, Sr., are all Black Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers at the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan, where only four out of 275 CBP officers are Black. They claim that, for over a decade, CBP management at the Port Huron Port of Entry systematically targeted Black drivers for stops; subjected them to additional scrutiny, including criminal record checks; and treated them in an unprofessional and demeaning fashion. They also claim that as Black CBP officers they were subjected to a hostile, racist work environment in which other CBP officers repeatedly made racist comments and were demeaning.

On March 9, 2021, Grays, Williams, and Broderick, Sr. filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan alleging widespread discrimination against Black travelers and Black CBP officers at the Port Huron, Michigan Port of Entry. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on July 29, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination under § 1981 as preempted by Title VII, but allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on their Title VII disparate treatment claim and allowing Grays to proceed on his Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The court also expressly permitted Plaintiffs Williams and Broderick to amend their complaint by August 20, 2021 to include Title VII retaliation claims after administratively exhausting. On August 12, 2021, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint. On August 23, 2021, after Plaintiffs advised the Court that their administrative remedies would not be exhausted by August 20 (as such claims can only be filed 180 days after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity administrative complaint), the Court issued an order permitting Plaintiffs to file their retaliation claims subsequent to this deadline. As such, the Court amended the case caption to reflect that Johnny Grays is the sole remaining Plaintiff in this action.

The parties engaged in discovery throughout the first half of 2022. In June 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 16, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for summary judgment. On October 6, 2023, the court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

Counsel: Deborah Gordon Law

Contact: Deborah Gordon, Deborah Gordon Law | (248) 258-2500 | dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com

Additional Links:

• Zack Linly, 3 Black Border Patrol Officers File Lawsuit Against CBP Alleging Constant Racial Profiling and Harassment of Black Travelers, The Root, Apr. 21, 2021.

Huisha-Huisha v. Gaynor

Posted on by

Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Gaynor, et al., No. 1:21-cv-0100 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 12, 2021); 21-05200 (D.C. Cir., filed Sep. 17, 2021); 22-05325 (Sup. Ct., filed Dec. 19, 2022)

On January 21, 2021, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Legal Services, Oxfam America, and the ACLU of the District of Colombia filed Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Gaynor, et al., a class action on behalf of noncitizens who arrive in the United States as a family unit of at least one child and that child’s parent or legal guardian and are subject to Title 42. The named plaintiffs are three parents and their minor children who sought asylum in the United States. In January 2021, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all noncitizens who “(1) are or will be in the United States; (2) come to the United States as a family unit composed of at least one child under 18 years old and that child’s parent or legal guardian; and (3) are or will be subjected to the Title 42 Process.” Plaintiffs also filed a series of emergency motions to stay the removal of the named petitioners. In February, the district court granted the stays of removal over the government’s objections.

On February 5, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from applying the Title 42 Process to members of the putative class. On February 23, 2021, the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to hold in abeyance the motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction. The case was held in abeyance until August 2, 2021, while the parties attempted to engage in settlement negotiations. On August 2, the parties jointly filed a motion to reset the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction, indicating their intent to resume litigation, and Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motions on August 11, 2021.

The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction on September 16, 2021, enjoining Defendants from applying the Title 42 process, including the CDC’s August 2021 order, to class members. The court agreed that the government’s policy was not authorized by statute and that class members would face “real threats of violence and persecution” if returned to their home countries. The government appealed the order to the D.C. Circuit the following day. On September 30, 2021, the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal, and as such, the preliminary injunction did not go into effect.

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in part, holding that the government may expel Plaintiffs, but only to places where they will not be persecuted or tortured. As a result, the preliminary injunction is now in effect. The court of appeals remanded the case to the district court to decide in the first instance whether the Title 42 expulsion rule is arbitrary and capricious.

On remand, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for partial summary judgment. On November 15, 2022, the district court issued an order holding that the U.S. government acted arbitrarily and capriciously in instituting the Title 42 policy and enjoined Defendants from continuing to apply the policy. The court granted Defendants’ request to stay the injunction until December 21, 2022.

On November 21, 2022, the states of Arizona, Louisiana, Texas, and 12 other states filed a motion to intervene with the district court. Shortly after, on December 7, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s final judgment. Given the appeal, the district court deferred on the motion to intervene, and Arizona, et al. filed a motion to intervene with the D.C. Circuit, along with a motion to stay the trial court’s decision pending appeal. The D.C. Circuit denied the motion to stay on December 9, 2022, and deferred the ruling on the motion to intervene.

On December 19, 2022, Arizona, et al. filed an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay pending certiorari along with a petition for a writ of certiorari. That same day the Supreme Court stayed the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to end Title 42 and ordered the parties’ responses be filed on December 20, 2022. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 27, 2022 to determine whether the state applicants may intervene to challenge the district court’s summary judgment order.  The Supreme Court’s review is limited to the question of intervention by the states.

The parties filed their briefs and the Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for March 1, 2023. On January 30, 2023, the White House issued a statement of administration policy ending the COVID national emergency and public health emergency declarations on May 11, 2023. On February 16, 2023, the Supreme Court removed the case from the February 2023 argument calendar.

On May 18, 2023, following the expiration of the public health emergency and therefore the end of Title 42, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the intervention motion as moot. On September 7, 2023, the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded. On November 8, 2023, the district court dismissed the case as moot.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Texas; ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; Texas Civil Rights Project; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Oxfam America; ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia

Contact: Stephen Kang, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | skang@aclu.org

Additional Links:

Administrative Complaint Series on CBP’s Abuse and Mistreatment of People Detained in its Custody

Posted on by

Between January and July 2020, the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, in tandem with the ACLU Border Rights Center, prepared and submitted a series of administrative complaints to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) detailing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s abuse and mistreatment of people in its custody. The complaints were based on a series of 103 interviews conducted with individuals recently released from CBP custody between March and July 2019.

Complaint #1 – Mistreatment of Pregnant People

The first complaint, filed January 22, 2020, focused on CBP’s abuse and mistreatment of detained pregnant people. One detained woman who was six months pregnant detailed how a Border Patrol  agent forcibly slammed her face against a chain link fence while other agents looked on and did nothing. Border Patrol then detained her for three days without medical care. Another woman reported her fear of her pregnant belly being kicked while having to sleep on the crowded floor of the holding cell. When she began to experience abdomen pain and other symptoms and asked for medical attention, Border Patrol agents told her she was lying.

The complaint contains numerous reports of pregnant individuals being denied not only medical care, but access to clean clothes and other basic hygienic necessities.

The complaint implores DHS OIG to conduct an immediate review of CBP’s treatment of pregnant people in its custody, including recommending CBP stop detaining pregnant people altogether and adopt explicit policies to ensure for adequate, timely medical care of pregnant individuals. For updated advocacy on this issue, consult the entry on ACLU and 137 organizations send letter to CBP Commissioner urging CBP not to detain pregnant, postpartum, and nursing people.

Complaint #2 – Mistreatment of Sick Children

The second complaint, filed on February 18, 2020, focused on the treatment of sick children in CBP and U.S. Border Patrol facilities. The complaint details how Border Patrol continued to hold a weeks-old infant who experienced significant weight loss while detained in custody against the express and repeated advice of medical professionals. In another case, Border Patrol held a five-year-old child for eight days without providing any medical attention for his persistent fever and diarrhea. The complaint also notes how, as of the time of its filing, at least seven children have died in CBP custody or shortly after being released, many of whom received delayed or no medical care. Finally, the complaint calls on DHS OIG to review CBP’s treatment of sick children in its custody, recommend that CBP prioritize the release of all children, and strictly prohibit continued detention of sick children.  

Complaint #3 – Separation of Families in CBP Processing & Detention

The third complaint, filed on April 15, 2020, focused on CBP’s separation of families during detention and processing and the agency’s refusal to implement a detainee locator system. The complaint noted that despite the supposed halting of DHS’s well-publicized separation of young children from their parents, family separations continue to occur as a result of CBP processing and detention practices. Border Patrol and DHS have adopted a very restrictive definition of “family” that includes only legal guardians accompanied by minor children and gives Border Patrol agents unilateral discretion to decide whether to separate family members, resulting in countless ongoing family separations. The ACLU’s investigation documented the separation of a grandmother and her nine-year-old grandson, a woman and her sister, and a mother and her non-minor son, among countless others. Noting the many ways in which family separations intensify trauma for already vulnerable asylum seekers of all ages and the many extreme barriers to locating and communicating with loved ones who are detained, the complaint calls on DHS OIG to recommend CBP implement a detainee locator system, refrain from detaining family units, and prioritize the prompt release of families. It also recommends adoption of a more expansive definition of “family”.

Complaint #4 – Verbal Abuse of Detained Individuals

The fourth complaint in the series, filed July 7, 2020, focused on U.S. Border Patrol’s verbal abuse of detained individuals. This complaint highlights Border Patrol’s “staggering culture of cruelty” and “systematic mistreatment and dehumanization of vulnerable people.” Detained individuals reported being told “Forget about asylum, we might just take away your daughter,” “Get out of here, what are you doing here if you don’t even speak English, you are worthless,” “If you keep complaining I will put you with the dogs,” “[Y]ou broke the law, you have no rights,” “I am treating you the way illegals should be treated,” and a litany of other abusive slurs. The complaint calls on DHS OIG to recommend CBP strictly prohibit personnel from verbally abusing individuals in its custody, adopt zero-tolerance policies for anti-immigrant and racist employee conduct, and create a new complaint process that allows for timely review and increased transparency.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties; ACLU Border Rights Center

Contact: Shaw Drake | ACLU of Texas | sdrake@aclutx.org