Category Archives: Confiscation of Property

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 and challenging the failure to respond to his FOIA request.

Documents:

Counsel: Matthew Borowski

Contact: Matthew Borowski | (716) 330-1503

Bautista v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Bautista v. Mayorkas, No. 3:22-cv-1185 (S.D. Cal., filed Dec. 8, 2022)

Plaintiff, Mr. Bautista, filed a complaint against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking the return of his vehicle. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff’s wife, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, met a friend in Tijuana, Mexico to give her a ride to her job in San Diego. While there, the wife loaned her car to her friend while the wife went to the store. Without the wife’s knowledge, her friend picked up two people who did not have legal status in the United States and concealed them in the trunk. When the wife and friend were stopped at the San Ysidro checkpoint, the wife was made aware of the two individuals. The wife was released without criminal charge because her friend was operating the vehicle when it was seized.

That same day, CBP seized the vehicle. The wife received a Notice of Seizure on November 9, 2021, indicating that the CBP was commencing forfeiture action against the vehicle and provided guidance on how to proceed. On November 19, 2021, the wife filed a petition for return with CBP. Following receipt of notice of seizure, Plaintiff and his wife both filed petitions for return of the seized vehicle with CBP. CBP did not return the vehicle.

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Southern District of California. On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from disposing of his 2021 Nissan Sentra. After full briefing, on October 11, 2022, the court denied the ex parte motion for preliminary injunction as moot because Defendants declared they would hold onto the vehicle until judgment is entered in the case. Subsequently, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000 divests the court of jurisdiction. The district court granted Defendants’ motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the claimant’s challenge to merits of agency’s determination. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint on December 8, 2022.

Documents:

Counsel: Jason E. Ankeny, Jason E. Ankeny P.S.; Kirsten Zittlau, Zittlau Law

Letters Protesting CBP’s Practice of Confiscating Sikh Individuals’ Turbans During Asylum Processing

Posted on by

On August 1, 2022, the ACLU of Arizona, along with the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, filed a letter with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Chris Magnus asking for an investigation and cessation of the Yuma Border Patrol Sector’s practice of confiscating religious headwear from Sikh individuals seeking asylum. The letter argued that such confiscations violate individuals’ religious freedom rights, federal law, and CBP’s own non-discrimination policy.

The ACLU of Arizona, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Sikh Coalition, along with over 160 other organizations sent a second letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on August 22, 2022.  The letter requested DHS investigation on the broader property confiscation issue to include all religious articles of faith, personal belongings, and access to religious-compliant meals.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona | ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Contact: Vanessa Pineda, vpineda@acluaz.org | Noah Schramm, nschramm@acluaz.org

Press:

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


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.

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.
 

Kazazi v. CBP

Posted on by

Kazazi et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., No. 1:18-MC-51 (N.D. Ohio, filed May 31, 2018)

This lawsuit challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) unlawful seizure of Plaintiffs’ life savings. On October 24, 2017, while one of the Plaintiffs, Rustem Kazazi, a U.S. citizen, was in route to Albania, CBP seized the $58,100 that he was carrying to purchase a retirement home in Albania and assist family members in need. CBP neither arrested nor charged Mr. Kazazi or his family members with any crime. Later, CBP sought to justify the seizure by alleging that the money was involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation—an unfounded allegation that CBP did not record when it confiscated the money nor one that CBP is willing to defend in court.

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA) requires the government to return seized property or begin civil forfeiture or criminal proceedings within 90 days of the government’s notice of the owner’s suit. CBP’s 90 days expired on April 17, 2018, and it did not fulfill any of the CAFRA requirements within that time period. As a result, CBP became legally obligated to return the property promptly to Plaintiffs. Given that CBP failed to do so, Plaintiffs filed suit on May 31, 2018.

After they did, CBP immediately capitulated and returned about 99% of the money it had seized. The parties later resolved their dispute concerning the additional $770 seized and filed a stipulated dismissal on November 19, 2018. On March 1, 2019, the court awarded $43,280.13 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Petitioners.

Press Release:

Counsel: BakerHostetler LLP | Institute for Justice

Contact: Andrew H. Ward | Institute for Justice | ahward@ij.org

Nwaorie v. CBP, et al.

Posted on by

Nwaorie v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No: 4:18-cv-1406 (S.D. Tex., filed May 3, 2018)

On May 3, 2018, the Institute for Justice filed a class-action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) policy or practice of demanding that owners of seized property sign “hold harmless” agreements for the return of their property, and thereby waive certain constitutional and statutory rights.

On October 31, 2017, CBP seized approximately $40,000 cash from the named Plaintiff, Anthonia Nwaorie, a U.S. citizen, while she was trying to board an international flight to Nigeria. Ms. Nwaorie intended to use more than $30,000 of the funds she had saved up from her work as a nurse to start a medical clinic in Nigeria for women and children.

In December 2017, Ms. Nwaorie, in compliance with the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), submitted a claim, requesting judicial forfeiture proceedings. When CBP failed to file a forfeiture complaint within 90 days, it became statutorily required to return the seized property.

However, instead of doing so, in April 2018, CBP mailed Ms. Nwaorie a letter, which conditioned the return of her seized cash on her signing a hold harmless agreement. If she did not sign the agreement to waive her statutory and constitutional rights and to indemnify the government for any claims brought by others related to the seized property, CBP threatened to initiate forfeiture proceedings against her. After filing the lawsuit, CBP finally sent her a check in the amount confiscated.

On July 23, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that they are moot and barred by sovereign immunity. On August 27, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ motion. Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on September 4, and Plaintiff filed a surreply on October 3. As of October 2018, the motion is pending.

In May 2019, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity barred the claims, and alternatively, the government’s return of Ms. Nwaorie’s money rendered her claims moot. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of Nwaorie’s constitutional claims, finding that CBP had a rational basis to subject her to additional searches because of the large amount of money she was carrying.

The plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate’s memorandum and recommendations. • Unfortunately, the district court judge affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed the case in August 2019.

Press Releases:

Counsel: Institute for Justice

Contacts: 

Dan Alban | Institute for Justice | dalban@ij.org

Anya Bidwell | Institute for Justice | abidwell@ij.org

Serrano v. CBP

Posted on by

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., Nos. 2:17-cv-00048 (W.D. Tex., filed Sept. 6, 2017) and 18-50977 (5th Cir., filed Nov. 21, 2018)

On September 6, 2017, the Institute for Justice brought a class action suit against Customs and Border Protection over the agency’s practice of engaging in civil forfeiture of vehicles at ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border. The plaintiff, Gerardo Serrano, was detained in 2015 when crossing into Mexico at the Eagle Pass, Texas port of entry. After CBP officers found a small amount of pistol ammunition in his truck, they seized the vehicle. CBP held his truck for over two years without ever filing a civil forfeiture action in court against him, despite requiring him to post thousands of dollars for a bond purportedly to allow him to challenge the seizure. Because the agency never filed a forfeiture action, Mr. Serrano was given no opportunity to have his day in court and challenge CBP’s seizure.

His complaint alleges that CBP seizes hundreds of vehicles owned by American citizens each year and refuses to hold prompt post-seizure hearings at which the owners can challenge the seizure. The class action suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring CBP to hold prompt post-seizure hearings, as well as compensation for Mr. Serrano. In October 2017, CBP returned Mr. Serrano’s truck without subjecting it to a forfeiture action. On December 13, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the suit. The parties completed briefing on January 19, 2018.

On July 23, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he advised granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

On September 28, 2018, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and issued an order denying class certification and granting all motions to dismiss. Mr. Serrano appealed the district court decision to the Fifth Circuit on November 21, 2018.

In April 2019, the plaintiff filed his opening brief with the Fifth Circuit. Several amicus briefs were filed in support. The government’s answering brief was filed in August 2019. As of October 2019, those briefs are still pending. The government filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding Cantu v. Moody 933 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2019) on January 28, 2020. The court heard oral argument on February 4, 2020. On February 26, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez v. Mesa.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on September 16, 2020, holding (1) that CBP’s seizures of property without prompt judicial hearings on remission do not violate the Due Process Clause and (2) that Serrano failed to state a Bivens claim, as his complaint did not plausibly allege that CBP agents violated clearly establish law by seizing his truck and keeping it for 23 months without providing him with a post-seizure hearing.

On December 1, 2020, Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. On March 2021, Respondent filed a brief in opposition and Petitioners filed their reply. On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the cert petition.

Fifth Circuit Pleadings:

Supreme Court:

Counsel: Anya Bidwell & Robert Everett Johnson | Institute for Justice

Merchant v. Mayorkas (formerly Alasaad v. Nielsen)

Posted on by

Merchant v. Mayorkas (formerly Alasaad et al. v. Nielsen et al., No. 1:17-cv-11730-DJC  (D. Mass., filed Sept. 13, 2017), Nos. 20-1077, 20-1081 (1st Cir., filed Jan. 28, 2020), No. 20-1505 (Sup. Ct., filed Apr. 23, 2021)

On September 13, 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with the ACLU and the ACLU of Massachusetts, brought suit against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), challenging those agencies’ practices of seizing travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant or individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. The organizations filed on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who had smartphones and other electronic devices seized when they arrived at the U.S. border. Many of the plaintiffs had their devices confiscated for extended periods of time. Plaintiffs seek the return of their devices, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the government to seek a warrant or have probable cause that a crime was committed prior to seizing a traveler’s cellphone. On December 15, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On May 9, 2018, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the government’s digital device search policies substantially burden travelers’ First Amendment rights.

Defendants filed an answer on June 1, 2018. Since then, the parties have been proceeding through the discovery process. In Spring 2019, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, with plaintiffs arguing that CBP’s policy authorizing warrantless, suspicionless searches of electronic devices violates the First and Fourth Amendments and are seeking an injunction. Oral argument was held in July 2019. In November 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court allowed in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying the request for injunctive relief but allowing the request for declaratory relief. The district court then entered a judgment stating that border authorities may only search a traveler’s electronic device if they have reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband. Defendants appealed the order, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed in January of 2020. Briefing on the cross-appeals was ongoing through July, and in August 2020, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, the Brennan Center for Justice, Constitutional Accountability Center, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Knight First Amendment Institute, and a number of other civil rights, immigration, privacy, and free speech organizations filed briefs as amicus curiae.

On February 9, 2021, the First Circuit issued its decision, holding that neither a warrant nor reasonable suspicion are required for CBP agents to conduct a basic search of electronic devices, and that neither a warrant nor probable cause is required to conduct an advanced search. It also held that CBP agents can retain an electronic device after a traveler crosses the border.

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to clarify what level of suspicion (i.e., probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or none) is required to search a traveler’s electronic devices, and the scope of that search. The petition further asks the Supreme Court to impose a minimum requirement of reasonable suspicion for any such search conducted at the border. The Constitutional Accountability Center, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Brennan Center for Justice, and TechFreedom submitted amicus briefs in support of the Plaintiff-Petitioners. On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

Documents:

Counsel:  Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts

Arizona Interior Enforcement Complaint

Posted on by

Arizona Interior Enforcement Complaint

In June 2016, the ACLU of Arizona filed a complaint on behalf of ten individuals with U.S. Department of Homeland Security oversight agencies and the Department of Justice demanding investigations into abuses arising from Border Patrol interior operations.

Most of the incidents described in the ACLU’s complaint arose in the course of Border Patrol checkpoint and “roving patrol” stops.  Several describe agents wrongfully detaining innocent residents for days in filthy, frigid, and overcrowded detention facilities.  Although these individuals were not charged with any crime or immigration violation, their property was confiscated and some had to pay thousands of dollars to recover a vehicle.

In other cases, residents describe facing constant surveillance and harassment on their own property, including frequent incursions by low-flying Border Patrol helicopters.

A copy of the ACLU complaint to CBP and DOJ is available here.

A district court case was filed but was dismissed on February 15, 2018.

Contact:  Mitra Ebadolahi| ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties| mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org