Category Archives: Arrests/Searches & Seizures

Civil Rights Complaint Regarding CBP’s Mistreatment of Harvard Medical Fellow

Posted on by

On April 2, 2021, and April 18, 2021, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied Dr. Maryam, a Canadian citizen from Iran, entry into the United States. Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States using her Canadian passport and all necessary evidence to support her admission in J-1 status. She and her family planned to stay in the U.S. for two years during Dr. Maryam’s competitive two-year fellowship at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The family planned to return to Canada after Dr. Maryam finished her fellowship.

During her first attempted entry, Dr. Maryam, her husband, and her two children drove with their belongings to the port of entry in Pembina, North Dakota. CBP pulled the family over for secondary inspection after seeing Dr. Maryam and her husband were born in Iran. CBP arbitrarily and discriminatorily interrogated Dr. Maryam’s husband for eight hours about his past in Iran, his thoughts and feelings about the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and his previous compulsory military service. Eventually, the family was turned back for allegedly failing to show non-immigrant intent—even after providing evidence of assets and ties to Canada. CBP issued an expedited removal order against Dr. Maryam’s husband and asked Dr. Maryam to withdraw her request for admission. CBP also took both fingerprints and DNA samples from Dr. Maryam and her husband before the family left the facility.

On April 18, 2021, Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States again. She planned to fly from Toronto to the United States, but CBP once again interrogated her and turned her back. This time, the CBP officer in secondary inspection denied her entry because (1) she allegedly had to wait until her husband’s case was resolved and (2) the CBP officer incorrectly told her that there that a “travel ban” against Iranian nationals prevented her from lawfully entering the country.

After her attempts to enter the U.S., Dr. Maryam filed an application for a J-1 visa with the U.S. Consulate (even though Canadian citizens are not required to apply for a visa in advance to enter the United States). The U.S. Consulate in Calgary refused to adjudicate the case, saying that it was waiting for her husband’s case to first be resolved.

In response to the inhumane treatment and rejection of Dr. Maryam and her family, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program filed an administrative complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), requesting CRCL to further investigate the April 2 and April 18 incidents. Additionally, the Program filed a writ of mandamus in the district court, requesting the Department of State adjudicate Dr. Maryam’s visa within 15 days of an order, pursuant to the Administration Procedures Act (APA) or to the court’s Mandamus authority. (Case No. 1:22-cv-1162-ZMF (D.D.C.).) On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the mandamus action.

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu

Bouey v. United States of America

Posted on by

Bouey v. United States of America et al., No. 3:22-cv-00442 (S.D. Cal., filed April 4, 2022)

On July 16, 2020, Janine Bouey, a U.S. citizen, visited Tijuana, Mexico for the day for a dental appointment. When she attempted to return to the United States via the pedestrian lanes at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (OMPOE), a CBP officer pulled her out of line. The CBP officer approached her, flirted with her, and ask her questions about both her trip to Mexico and her personal life. When Ms. Bouey refused to answer the questions about her personal life, the CBP officer retaliated by taking Ms. Bouey to the main building at the OMPOE.

Inside the OMPOE building, CBP performed multiple harmful and invasive searches of Ms. Bouey. On multiple occasions an officer fondled and penetrated Ms. Bouey’s genitalia without her consent and without justification. She was handcuffed to a bench, asked to strip down naked, and then ordered to bend over as an officer shined a flashlight into the areas of her genitalia. CBP officers also used a canine agent to invasively smell several of Ms. Bouey’s orifices. CBP officers never explained the reason for these searches, denied Ms. Bouey’s repeated requests to call an attorney, and failed to acknowledge her U.S. citizenship. The mistreatment by CBP caused Ms. Bouey physical pain and emotional distress, including anxiety, shock, humiliation, apprehension, and anguish. In response, on April 4, 2022, Ms. Bouey filed suit seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens. The FTCA claims included: (1) negligence, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) battery, and (4) violation of the Bane Act. The Bivens claim sought a remedy for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. On June 3, 2022, counsel for the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on July 14, 2022, though the court did grant the government’s request to strike the demand for attorneys’ fees. Defendant United States then filed an answer to the complaint on July 28, 2022. The parties are scheduled for a settlement conference on May 24, 2023.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Egbert v. Boule, which largely shields federal border agents—including CBP officers and Border Patrol agents—from civil lawsuits seeking damages for excessive-force claims, the parties began exploring the possibility of settlement. The court signed off on the settlement in June and dismissed the case on August 11, 2023.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Egbert v. Boule, which largely shields federal border agents—including CBP officers and Border Patrol agents—from Bivens liability for excessive-force claims, the parties began exploring the possibility of settlement. The court signed off on the settlement in June and dismissed the case on August 11, 2023.

Counsel: Joseph M. McMullen | joe@imm-legal.com
Contact: Kendall Martin | kendall@alliancesd.org | (619) 629-0337

Press:
● Abuse, Assault and Impunity at DHS Must Stop: Former LAPD Officer Subjected to Sexual Assault by DHS Sues the Agency, Alliance San Diego, Jun. 16, 2021.

● Alex Riggins, Former LAPD Officer Settles Suit Against CBP, San Diego Tribune, Aug. 11, 2023.

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 3:22-cv-00149 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 28, 2022)

On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) and the American Immigration Council (AIC) submitted three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking documents related to the Border Patrol’s immigration enforcement activities in Ohio. Specifically, the requests sought policies and communications of the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol Station in Port Clinton, Ohio, as well as various forms documenting apprehensions by the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol Station.

On January 28, 2022, after Defendant failed to adequately respond to the request, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant seeking a declaration that Defendant’s failure to disclose responsive records and failure to promptly produce responsive records violates FOIA, as well as an order that Defendant immediately conduct a reasonable search for agency records and immediately produce all responsive agency records.

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on May 23, 2022, which they amended May 25, 2022. In January 2023, the Plaintiffs indicated that they considered the FOIA requests resolved after Defendant’s production of documents. The parties settled the case upon payment by CBP to the Plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs, and the case was dismissed pursuant to their joint stipulation on December 6, 2023.

Documents:
● Complaint
● Amended Answer to Complaint

Counsel: Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; American Immigration Council; Immigrant Legal Defense

Contact:
Mark Heller | mheller@ablelaw.org
Emily Creighton | ECreighton@immcouncil.org
Claudia Valenzuela | claudia@ild.org

Abdulkadir Nur v. Unknown U.S. Customs & Border Protection Agents

Posted on by

Abdulkadir Nur v. Unknown U.S. Customs & Border Protection Agents, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00169 (E.D. Va., filed Feb. 17, 2022)

Abdulkadir Nur is a 69-year-old U.S. citizen who was born in Somalia but lives in northern Virginia. Mr. Nur is also Muslim. As a business owner and humanitarian, Mr. Nur frequently travels internationally, and every single time he arrives back in the United States after traveling overseas, CBP officers have illegally seized any phone or laptop he has with him.

In September 2008, Mr. Nur was providing logistical support to a United Nations relief program in Somalia when his caravan was raided by local insurgents. Following the event, a United Nations Monitor Group launched an investigation, and ultimately found that Mr. Nur had not done anything improper. However, the investigation drew the attention of the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, who demanded financial records and data from Mr. Nur and his company. Mr. Nur fully complied with the investigation, and both the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office told Mr. Nur that they wouldn’t be looking into the event any further.

However, since that time, Mr. Nur has been the target of increased scrutiny at airports and border crossings, always being subjected to secondary inspection and interrogation. In 2018, the intensity of this scrutiny increased – following every flight Mr. Nur has taken into the United States since then, CBP officers have seized Mr. Nur’s electronic devices and demanded the passwords. Believing he had no choice and not wanting to further prolong his detention, Mr. Nur gave his passwords to the officers, who then left the room with his devices, eventually returning them upon his release. When Mr. Nur eventually began refusing to give officers the passwords, the officers would still take Mr. Nur’s devices, sometimes seizing them and holding them for days or weeks.

Mr. Nur believes that following the incident in Somalia, he was placed on a federal terrorist watchlist known as the “Terrorism Screening Database” for those suspected to have ties to domestic terrorism. However, in order to be placed on the watchlist, the federal government need only have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is “reasonably suspected” of nefarious activities – a standard far lower than “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” that often leads to people being placed on the watchlist merely for being a friend or community member of someone on the watchlist, rendering the list highly over-inclusive. The FBI itself has admitted that it is “not aware of any instance where [the identifying information included on the watchlist] alone prevented an act of terrorism.” Mr. Nur believes that his placement on the watchlist has caused his repeated detention, interrogation, and seizure of his devices. 

On February 17, 2022, Mr. Nur filed a lawsuit alleging that CBP’s searches and seizures of his devices based solely on his inclusion on the watchlist violate the Fourth Amendment and that officers compelling him to provide his device passwords violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He also alleges that CBP’s policies of searching and seizing him and other U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents included on the federal watchlist are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. He seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Defendants must have reasonable suspicion apart from watchlist status before performing nonroutine search and seizures of persons on the watchlist or forensic searches of their electronic devices and that Mr. Nur’s placement on the watchlist imposed unlawful consequences on him. He also seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants from searching someone’s device because of their watchlist status or ordering individuals at the border to provide passwords or other access to their electronic devices, and ordering Defendants to remove Mr. Nur’s watchlist status and expunge records regarding his status and information illegally seized from him. Mr. Nur also seeks damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents. On July 11, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and on August 15, 2022, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On November 8, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties stipulated to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal on February 3, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel: CAIR Legal Defense Fund

Contacts:
Lena Masri | lmasri@cair.com
Gadeir Abbas | gabbas@cair.com
Justin Sadowsky | jsadowsky@cair.com
Kimberly Noe-Lehenbauer | knoelehenbauer@cair.com


Haitian Bridge Alliance, et al. v. Biden

Posted on by

Haitian Bridge Alliance, et al. v. Biden, et al., No. 1:21-cv-03317 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2021)

Mirard Joseph is a Haitian man who was whipped by a U.S. Border Patrol agent while attempting to bring food to his family in a Texas migrant encampment. Mr. Joseph alleges his wife received only bread and water and a single diaper for their infant daughter each day—conditions that eventually drove him and others to leave the Del Rio encampment and return to Mexico to buy food. When they attempted to reenter the camp with their purchases, they were met by Border Patrol officers who grabbed Mr. Joseph’s shirt, “lashed at him with reins, attempted to drag him back into the water, and nearly trampled him.”

Mr. Joseph and ten other Haitian nationals held in the temporary Border Patrol camp allege that this mistreatment was part of a discriminatory policy by the Biden administration to target Haitians. Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. government differentially applied the Title 42 process—a summary expulsion process purportedly designed to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the government used Title 42 at the Del Rio Port of Entry against Haitian and Haitian-appearing asylum seekers with the purpose of discouraging them from accessing their right to seek asylum. Plaintiffs assert that this Haitian Deterrence Policy diverges from standard practice for asylum seekers and is driven by discriminatory purpose. Despite ample warning that thousands of Haitian migrants were heading toward Del Rio, federal authorities refused to prepare adequate infrastructure to receive them when arrivals started ramping up in September. As a result, a makeshift processing center under the Del Rio International Bridge turned into an encampment, where up to 15,000 people were made to wait for days at a time in temperatures topping 100 degrees without adequate food, water, bedding, or medical attention.

Footage described in the complaint prompted a national outcry in September 2021, with White House press secretary Jen Psaki calling the tape “horrific” during her September 20 press briefing. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas launched an internal investigation into the encounter. While the Secretary initially called for findings to be released by the end of September, results are still pending.

Plaintiffs allege that the Haitian Deterrence Policy did not end with mistreatment in Del Rio. After being processed for admission, the U.S. government placed those Haitian asylum seekers in detention, split up families, and shackled and removed them to Haiti without providing the opportunity to request humanitarian protection in the United States. Plaintiff Wilson Doe testified that DHS officers lied and said his family was being transferred to another detention facility when they were actually being expelled pursuant to Title 42. Officers then beat him when he resisted boarding the plane.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They also seek certification for a class of all Haitian or presumed Haitian individuals who were denied access to the U.S. asylum process in or around the Del Rio encampment between September 9 and 24, 2021. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the government from subjecting members of the proposed class to the Haitian Deterrence Policy or Title 42 expulsions. They also seek return of those already expelled under Title 42 to allow them to pursue their asylum claims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 20, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 10, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the court found that the case was not related to Huisha-Huisha and P.J.E.S. v. Wolf and J.B.B.C. v. Wolf. Thus, it transferred the case for random reassignment.

On May 12, 2013, the court noted that it understood the Haitian Deterrence Policy to have expired on May 11, 2023, alongside the formal end of the Title 42 Policy, and so ordered plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case was not moot. On June 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a show cause motion and a supplemental complaint, both of which defendants opposed.  On February 22, 2024, the court issued an oral order at a status conference denying the motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs’ leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 18, 2024, adding new plaintiffs and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy ongoing injuries and to prevent defendants from engaging in similar violations of civil rights in the future. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 17, 2024. After briefing concluded, the court held oral argument on August 29, 2024. The parties jointly requested the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing regarding their respective views on 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) and 8 U.S.C. 1231 (United States Policy With Respect to Involuntary Return of Persons in Danger of Subjection to Torture) and how those provisions affect claims made in plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Documents:

Counsel: Innovation Law Lab | Haitian Bridge Alliance | Justice Action Center

Contacts:
Taisha Santil | tsaintil@haitianbridge.org
Tasha Moro | tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org
Alex Mensing | alexm@innovationlawlab.org

Press:
● Jennifer Doherty, Class Action Ties Alleged Whipping To Haitian Discrimination, Law 360, Dec. 21, 2021.
● Eileen Sullivan, Haitian Migrants File Lawsuit Protesting Treatment by Border Patrol, The New York Times, Dec. 20, 2021.

Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 3:19-cv-01255 (S.D. Cal., filed Jul. 8, 2019)

Pastor Kaji Douša sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to stop their unlawful retaliation against her for providing pastoral services to migrants and refugees—a central calling of her Christian faith. In 2018, Pastor Douša helped organize the “Sanctuary Caravan,” a mobile clinic of faith leaders to deliver pastoral services, such as prayer and church-blessed marriage ceremonies, to migrants seeking asylum in the United States. In December 2018, Pastor Douša traveled to Mexico to join the Sanctuary Caravan. But upon attempting to return to the United States, federal officials detained and interrogated her. She later learned that DHS had targeted her for heightened scrutiny and had revoked her clearance for expedited border crossing as part of Operation Secure Line, a DHS intelligence collection operation targeting activists, lawyers, and journalists working on issues related to the October 2018 migrant caravan and conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. In March 2019, media outlet NBC 7 San Diego revealed existence of a “watchlist” that included the names, photos, and information of fifty-nine individuals purportedly tied to the migrant caravans, including Pastor Douša.

Pastor Douša brought this suit in July 2019, alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, and violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She seeks declaratory relief and an injunction compelling the government to stop surveilling, detaining, interrogating, or acting unlawfully against her in retaliation for how, when, and where she exercises her religion.

On January 28, 2020, the court denied Pastor Douša’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s hybrid First Amendment rights claim, which asserted a Free Exercise claim in conjunction with a free speech and association claim, but allowed her to proceed with her First Amendment free exercise and RFRA claims. In December 2021, Pastor Douša moved to sanction DHS for misrepresentations, discovery delays, and failure to correct a false declaration. The court heard arguments on the motion for sanctions on May 12, 2022, and denied the motion that same day. A bench trial was held the week of August 29, 2022, and the parties submitted closing briefs on September 30, 2022.

On March 21, 2023, the court issued a decision finding that CBP unlawfully retaliated against Pastor Dousa for her First Amendment activity, violated her Free Exercise right to minister to migrants in Mexico, and violated the RFRA. The court based this conclusion on its finding that a CBP agent emailed Mexican authorities and claimed, without basis, that Paster Dousa likely did not have adequate documentation to enter Mexico and should be returned to the United States in retaliation for her ministry to migrants in Mexico.

On July 7, 2023, the court granted the parties’ joint motion and stipulation and awarded Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Further information can be found on the Protect Democracy website.

Two other lawsuits related to the unlawful targeting of journalists, attorneys, and advocates as part of Operation Secure Line are Guan v. Mayorkas and Phillips v. CBP.

Documents:

Counsel:
Arnold & Porter LLP; Protect Democracy

Contact:
Stanton Jones | stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com
Christine Kwon | christine.kwon@protectdemocracy.org

Press:
New York Pastor and Immigration Advocate Asks Court to Sanction Federal Officials
Source: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Government Tracking Journalists and Immigration Advocates Through a Secret Database – NBC 7 San Diego (nbcsandiego.com)
 

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Posted on by

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 20-2-01236-32 (Spokane Cnty. Sup. Ct., consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2021)

In April 2020, the Attorney General of Washington (Bob Ferguson) filed a lawsuit against Greyhound Lines challenging its practice of allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents on its buses to conduct warrantless and suspicionless immigration sweeps. Greyhound failed to warn customers of the sweeps, misrepresented its role in allowing the sweeps to occur on its buses, and subjected passengers to unlawful discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The case was set for trial on September 27, 2021.

On September 26, 2021, the parties filed a consent decree which requires Greyhound to pay $2.2 million and to enact a number of corporate reforms to end its unlawful conduct. For example, Greyhound must establish and implement a clear policy that denies CBP agents permission to board its buses without warrants or reasonable suspicion in the state of Washington. The Attorney General has stated that the $2.2 million will be used to provide restitution to those passengers who were detained, arrested, or deported as a result of the immigration sweeps on Greyhound buses. On March 31, 2022, the Washington Attorney General’s office closed the settlement claims process.

Documents:

Counsel: Lane Polozola, Yesica Hernandez, Brian J. Sutherland, and Emily C. Nelson (Washington State Attorney General’s Office)

Contact: Yesica Hernandez | Washington State Attorney General’s Office | civilrights@atg.wa.gov

Press:  Greyhound Agrees to Pay $2.2 Million Over Immigration Sweeps on Buses

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

Posted on by

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., No. 1:21-cv-05016-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 8, 2021)

Plaintiff Akram Djumaev, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, commenced this action against various federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mr. Djumaev is a resident of Chicago and a citizen of Uzbekistan who has been a lawful permanent resident since 2013. In January 2016, he traveled to Uzbekistan for the purpose of visiting family and getting engaged. After going through the security checkpoint at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, four law enforcement agents approached him and interrogated him, specifically asking whether he knew anyone in Turkey, Syria, or Afghanistan. Without consent or warrant, the agents then searched and confiscated his smartphone without providing any reason for doing so. After an hour of questioning, Mr. Djumaev was allowed to board the plane to Uzbekistan. However, the agents did not return his smartphone to him. In fact, to date, they still have not done so.

When Mr. Djumaev attempted to return home to the United States in March 2016, the airline attendant at the airport informed him that he would not be able to board—presumably because he had been placed on the U.S. government’s “No Fly List.” That same day, Mr. Djumaev contacted the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and filed a Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) complaint with DHS shortly afterward.

Two months later, Mr. Djumaev was instructed to visit the embassy for an interview. When he arrived, he was taken to a windowless room and interrogated by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and State Department agents. The agents allegedly stated that Mr. Djumaev was a “threat to the U.S.” without any explanation or justification for that claim. They also suggested—again, without providing any basis—that they knew he had terrorist affiliations and had been involved in criminal activity. The agents repeatedly coerced Mr. Djumaev to admit that he was guilty and threatened that he would be arrested and imprisoned upon returning to the United States. After about two hours of interrogation, the agents told him that he had only two choices: either return to the United States. and be imprisoned, or agree to sign a form stating that he would not return to the United States. The agents handed him a pre-filled Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. Although Mr. Djumaev had no desire whatsoever to relinquish his LPR status, he signed the form, believing that he had no other choice. During this process, the agents never informed Mr. Djumaev of his rights.

After that incident, Mr. Djumaev attempted twice to return to the United States, but he was denied boarding each time. Although LPRs placed on the No Fly List are eligible for a one-time waiver to return to the United States, the embassy has refused to issue such a waiver to Mr. Djumaev. Later, Mr. Djumaev retained counsel and challenged the validity of the I-407, but the government has not provided any response. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Djumaev has been unable to return to the United States for over five years and has suffered significant financial and emotional harms.

Mr. Djumaev’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by placing him on the No Fly List without adequate notice or opportunity to challenge the decision, as well as by coercing him to abandon his LPR status. The complaint further asserts that Defendants’ actions violated his rights under the INA (depriving him of LPR status and excluding him from the United States without charge or a removal hearing) and the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure of his smartphone and its private contents). Finally, Mr. Djumaev claims that Defendants’ actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law,” in violation of the APA. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and requests, among other things, that the district court issue an order voiding the improper I-407 form and directing Defendants to restore his LPR status. The parties agreed to a settlement and stipulated to dismiss the case on January 24, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel: Jamila Marjani Hall & Sharnell S. Simon | Jones Day, Atlanta
Ramzi Kassem & Naz Ahmad | Main Street Legal Services, Inc.

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States

Posted on by

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States, No. 6:21-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex., filed Apr. 6, 2021); 21-40618 (5th Cir., filed Aug. 20, 2021); 22-40367 (5th Cir., filed Jun. 23, 2020)

On April 6, 2021, the State of Texas and the State of Louisiana commenced this action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of interim immigration enforcement priorities outlined in two memoranda issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (dated Jan. 20, 2021) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (dated Feb. 18, 2021). Noting DHS’s limited resources and inability to respond to all immigration violations, those memos announced that the agency would prioritize enforcement against individuals who are purported to pose a threat to national security, individuals apprehended at or near the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020, and individuals convicted of an “aggravated felony” and recently released from criminal detention. Texas and Louisiana argue that these enforcement priorities are unlawful because:

(1) They violate the mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), as well as § 1231(a)’s requirement that noncitizens with final orders of removal be detained during the removal period;
(2) They unconstitutionally direct executive officials not to enforce federal immigration laws, in contravention of Article II’s “Take Care” Clause;
(3) They constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
(4) DHS and ICE issued the interim enforcement priorities without following the notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA; and
(5) The memos were issued without adherence to the notice and consultation requirements contained in DHS’s cooperation agreements with Texas and Louisiana.

On August 19, 2021, the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, concluding that the memos violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the APA. It thus enjoined the government from following the interim priorities outlined in the challenged memos. The U.S. government then sought an emergency stay pending appeal as well as a temporary administrative stay. The Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay and heard oral argument on the motion for emergency stay pending appeal.

On September 15, 2021, the Fifth Circuit published its decision granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. While staying much of the injunction, the Fifth Circuit left narrow portions of the order in place. Specifically, the court declined to stay the injunction only insofar as it restrained the Biden Administration from using the Priorities Memos to guide the discretion of immigration officials in deciding whether to release two specific categories of immigrants: (1) those subject to the mandatory provision under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1) against whom immigration officials have issued a detainer and (2) those with final removal orders and subject to mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(2). The injunction is stayed pending appeal in all other respects.

On September 30, 2021, DHS completed its review of its policies and practices concerning immigration enforcement and issued a new memorandum establishing its revised enforcement priorities. The new guidance is set to become effective on November 29, 2021, thereby superseding the challenged interim priorities. In light of this development, the government filed a motion for abeyance on October 6, 2021, arguing that the case would likely become moot before the court reaches a decision on merits. The government requested that the court hold the case in abeyance until the new priorities go into effect, and also that the court stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of the motion.

Texas and Louisiana filed a response opposing the motion for abeyance as well as a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel had erred by misconstruing the relevant INA provisions and also by failing to evaluate whether the challenged memos violated the APA. The Fifth Circuit granted appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on February 11, 2022. In the district court proceedings, the States filed an amended complaint, alleging that DHS’s September 30 memorandum “suffers from the same legal infirmities” as its earlier memos. They also filed a motion to postpone the effective date of the recent memorandum, or, in the alternative, to preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.

The district court case went to trial on February 23, 2022. After the bench trial and post-trial briefing, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order on June 10, 2022, finding the plaintiff states have proven their first four counts by a preponderance of the evidence, and finding that the states did not prove Count V with regard to lack of consultation of the individual states. The final judgment vacated the September 30, 2021, memorandum. The government filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit on June 13, 2022. The Fifth Circuit denied a motion for stay pending appeal, and an application for a stay of judgment was filed with the Supreme Court on July 8, 2022. The Supreme Court denied the application for stay but construed the application as a petition for certiorari before judgment and granted the petition on July 21, 2022. The Fifth Circuit appeal was placed in abeyance pending the Supreme Court case.

On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court decided that the states lacked standing to challenge deportation priorities, and in an 8-1 decision said that no precedent existed to support a federal court ordering the Executive Branch to alter arrest policies in order to make more arrests.

Documents:

Counsel: Brian M. Boynton, Jennifer B. Lowery, Sarah E. Harrington, H. Thomas Byron III, Michael Shih, and Sean Janda | U.S. Dep’t of Justice

Contact: Department of Justice

Press:

Uriel J. Garcia, Supreme Court rejects Texas effort to force Biden administration to change deportation policy, The Texas Tribune, Jun. 23, 2023.

Ortega, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Ortega, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:21-cv-11250-FDS (D. Mass, filed Aug. 2, 2021)

On August 2, 2021, the Boston College Civil Rights Clinic and Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on behalf of Neisa Ortega and her 14-year-old daughter. On multiple occasions over the course of a year, Ms. Ortega and her daughter were separated for hours without explanation and Ms. Ortega subjected to repeated invasive body searches and sexual violations at the hands of CBP officers while travelling through Logan Airport in Boston.

The complaint alleges that CBP subjected Ms. Ortega to illegal and unconstitutional treatment upon her returns from family visits to the Dominican Republic. Beginning in April 2019, CBP officers assaulted, degraded, and humiliated Ms. Ortega on three separate occasions through invasive body cavity searches that contravened CBP’s internal guidelines prohibiting officers from conducting vaginal cavity searches. During these body cavity searches, CBP officers separated Ms. Ortega from her daughter for hours, during which time neither was given information as to the other’s whereabouts. Ms. Ortega and her daughter have been traumatized by their separation from each other, and Ms. Ortega still lives with the trauma of being physically abused and sexually violated. 

On November 5, 2020, Ms. Ortega filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL); CRCL summarily closed the complaint on March 30, 2021. On January 19, 2021, Ms. Ortega filed an administrative claim with CBP on behalf of herself and her daughter under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA); CBP likewise denied the claim in full on June 17, 2021. Having exhausted administrative remedies under the FTCA, Ms. Ortega filed this lawsuit claiming Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the FTCA.

On October 15, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, along with their answer to the complaint, claiming the United States has not waived sovereign immunity to the claims set for by Plaintiffs. On July 14, 2022, the court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in part. On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the institutional Defendants answered on August 3, 2022. On September 19, 2022, the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.  On January 13, 2023, the court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss, and a decision is pending.

On February 23, 2023, the court granted the motion to dismiss on all claims seeking money damages, finding that such claims against the officers in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity, and claims against the officers in their individual capacities is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. But the court denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory and injunctive claims because Defendants had not addressed those in their motion to dismiss. The parties then entered discovery. On June 28, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and the case was dismissed.

Documents:

Counsel: Boston College Civil Rights Clinic; Lawyers for Civil Rights

Contact: Arielle Sharma, Lawyers for Civil Rights | asharma@lawyersforcivilrights.org; Reena Parikh, Boston College Civil Rights Clinic | reena.parikh@bc.edu