Category Archives: FOIA

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology v. CBP

Posted on by

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, et al., v. CBP, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01732 (D.D.C., filed June 2, 2025)

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, and Americans for Immigrant Justice submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to defendants Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking records related to the agencies’ policies and practices on the collection and use of noncitizen DNA. The agencies failed to make a determination on the FOIA requests and failed to produce the responsive records within the time prescribed by FOIA, leading plaintiffs to file suit on June 2, 2025.

The lawsuit comes amid a widespread immigration crackdown by the administration and increased surveillance efforts. Plaintiff organizations allege that the agencies have not been transparent about their rapidly-expanding program of genetic data collection from migrants, including children. The suit expresses mounting concerns about both the scale and lack of oversight of DNA collection practices.

Documents:

Counsel: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Amelia Dagen ǀ Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ amelia@amicacenter.org
Stevie Glaberson ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ stephanie.glaberson@georgetown.edu

Press:

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. CBP, et. al.

Posted on by

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:24-cv-02430 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 24, 2024) and No. 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C., docketed Nov. 5, 2024)

Three immigration attorneys and two individual plaintiffs are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to make a determination on each plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the 20 or, at most, 30 business days mandated by FOIA. Two plaintiffs had FOIA requests pending for over a year and a half at the time the complaint was filed. Because CBP engages in a nationwide pattern and practice of failing to make a determination on individual FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe, plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated FOIA requestors who must wait for prolonged periods for determinations on their requests.

In addition to class certification, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering CBP to respond to FOIA requests for an individual’s records that have been pending for more than 30 business days without a determination and ordering CBP to make timely determinations as required by FOIA. Significant delays in FOIA productions often mean that immigrants and their attorneys are unable to know crucial information for immigration cases, such as when the individual traveled, if the individual was subject to any inspections, if the individual was ever deported, or any other meaningful action that could impact their ability to make an effective defense and to apply for status.

On July 15, 2024, defendants filed a motion to transfer or dismiss the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 2 clarifying why jurisdiction and venue in that district were proper. However, on November 4, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS and transferring the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the FOIA claim against Defendant DHS on January 31, which was granted by the D.C. District Court on June 18, 2025, and the FOIA claim reinstated.

On September 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the D.C. District Court. Defendants oppose the motion and have requested extensions of time to answer.

Documents:

Counsel:

National Immigration Litigation Alliance ǀ Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ǀ Van Der Hout LLP

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

American Immigration Council v. ICE

Posted on by

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00975 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 5, 2024)

The American Immigration Council (AIC) filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking to compel the agencies to release records relating to implementation of Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM), a border management program announced in May 2023.

Under FERM, ICE places heads of households of asylum-seeking families detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.-Mexico border under surveillance with ankle monitors and under curfew. The alternative to detention program only applies to certain nationalities and is active only in certain cities throughout the country.

ICE has said that the FERM program ensures families show up at credible fear interviews, which serve as asylum screening interviews, but advocates have seen that families enrolled in the program face rapid removals. Complaints suggest that families enrolled in the FERM program often lack legal representation during their credible fear interviews. If the families fail the credible fear interview, ICE moves to remove them without the opportunity of ever seeing an immigration judge to assess their claims.

Since its inception, ICE has continued to expand the FERM program. Initially, ICE announced that the FERM program would be active in four cities. As of December 2023, the program was active in 45 cities nation-wide. 

AIC and the American Immigration Lawyers Association originally filed requests under FOIA with ICE and CBP on November 21, 2023, to find out more about the program. The requests sought more specific information on the criteria the agencies use to enroll families in the FERM program, including the list of nationalities who may be subject to FERM and the cities where it operates. The organizations also requested the information given to families about the program, including information about access to legal representation. The requests also asked the agencies to produce demographic data on the families placed in FERM. 

Neither ICE nor CBP responded to the initial request, and AIC filed this lawsuit to compel disclosure. CBP filed an answer, and productions are now ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: American Immigration Council

Contact: Raul A. Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Press: Council Files Lawsuit to Get Records about Program that Monitors Families Seeking Asylum, American Immigration Council, Apr. 5, 2024.

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 3:24-cv-01601 (N.D. Cal., filed Mar. 14, 2024)

Since at least late 2022, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has forced thousands of migrants to await processing for asylum or other relief in dangerous and squalid open-air detention sites along the California-Mexico border without reliable access to food, water, shelter, warmth, sanitation, or medical care.Initially located near San Ysidro, CBP has expanded its use of outdoor detention to locations near Jacumba and reports indicate CBP has added new locations in the Otay Mountain Wilderness.

Al Otro Lado submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – one in October 2023 and a second, joined by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), in December 2023, seeking records regarding CBP’s activities at these detention sites – what CBP calls “gathering sites.” The FOIAs seek to uncover CBP’s policies and practices surrounding the detention sites, including their supervision and monitoring of the sites. When CBP failed to respond to either request, CGRS and Al Otro Lado filed suit under FOIA to compel the production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado & Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Edith Sangueza | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies | sanguezaedith@uclawsf.edu

Osorio v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Osorio v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-03779 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2023)

Plaintiff Lianet Alvarez Osorio learned that her mother, Idania, had died while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody from a CBP press release issued two weeks after her mother’s passing. Ms. Osorio knew that her mother would be arriving at the border at Eagle Pass, Texas, and processed by CBP on January 2, 2023. The next day, she learned from another woman that her mother had been suffering from chest pains while in CBP custody. For the next two weeks Ms. Osorio frantically sought information about her mother’s whereabouts, only to have a family member call her with news of a press release announcing the death of a woman who matched her mother’s description. Contrary to CBP policy, nobody from CBP personally notified Ms. Osorio. Nor has CBP provided Ms. Osorio with more information about the circumstances of her mother’s death beyond what was included in the press release.

On March 8, 2023, Ms. Osorio filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking records regarding her mother’s death, including any CBP investigation, and information regarding the circumstances of the press release. When CBP failed to timely respond, Ms. Osorio filed suit on December 20, 2023, and subsequently amended her complaint on February 6, 2024.  In her amended complaint, Ms. Osorio alleges that a recent whistleblower complaint to Congress alleging serious mismanagement, understaffing, and incompetence by Loyal Source Government Services – the medical contractor to CBP border facilities – raised more questions about her mother’s death and heightened the need for transparency.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado

Contact: Andrew Fels | Al Otro Lado | andrew@alotrolado.org

National Immigration Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

National Immigration Project, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00641 (D.D.C. filed March 6, 2024)

Following media reports that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio, Texas are disproportionately targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries for prosecution, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking data regarding the individuals prosecuted for certain offenses in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Del Rio).

In August 2023, The L.A. Times first reported that federal prosecutors in Del Rio, Texas were charging people from Muslim-majority countries with illegal entry (8 U.S.C § 1325), illegal reentry (8 U.S.C § 1326), and the obscure offense of failing to properly report at entry (19 U.S.C. § 1459) at high rates, even though they make up a very small percentage of the people crossing the U.S.-Texas border.

On January 5, 2024, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates submitted their FOIA request to the Department of Justice and CBP – the agency generally responsible for referring people apprehended at the border for federal prosecution. The request seeks three categories of records: (1) records of the number of people prosecuted in Del Rio for the three relevant offenses, including their national origin; (2) records regarding the number of referrals made by CBP to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio for the relevant offenses, including national origin information; and (3) records showing the number of arrests by the Del Rio Sector of CBP, including national origin information.

When CBP and the Department of Justice failed to respond within the 30-day deadline set by FOIA, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed suit on March 6, 2024, seeking to compel production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: National Immigration Project; Muslim Advocates

Contact: Khaled Alrabe | National Immigration Project | khaled@nipnlg.org

American Immigration Council v. CBP

Posted on by

American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 3:23-cv-5270 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 16, 2023)

In early 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented a new policy requiring asylum seekers approaching ports of entry (POEs) along the southern border to first schedule an appointment through the CBP One mobile application. Under the CBP One Turnback Policy, CBP officers turn away most asylum seekers who have not made an appointment through CBP One, thereby endangering asylum seekers who must remain in potentially dangerous conditions and risk losing their asylum eligibility.

On July 11, 2023, the American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies sent Defendants a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, seeking to understand CBP’s policies regarding asylum seekers who approach POEs without a CBP One appointment, including the number of migrants impacted and CBP’s cooperation with authorities in Mexico. Plaintiffs requested expedited processing because of the urgency of the situation. Plaintiffs also believe that this policy directly conflicts with the federal court ruling in Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Mayorkas, 619 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (S.D. Cal. 2022), which held that refusing to inspect asylum seekers arriving to the United States—as officers do to those without a CBP One appointment—is unlawful. CBP did not respond to the request. On October 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court under FOIA to obtain the responsive documents. The parties have negotiated a proposed schedule for Defendants to produce the requested records. The parties are now engaged in settlement conversations, with a status update on settlement due to the court by October 1, 2024.

Documents:

Council: American Immigration Council ǀ Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Raul Pinto | American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org
Neela Chakravartula | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies ǀ neela@uclawsf.edu

Press

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Documents:

Counsel: American Oversight

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

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, et al., v. DHS, et al., No. 1:23-cv-10479 (D. Mass, filed Mar. 2, 2023)

On December 14, 2021, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) and Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) submitted a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking information about how CBP adjudicates humanitarian parole requests. Immigration law authorizes CBP and other agencies to parole noncitizens into the United States for “humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” As the government sets up more obstacles to legal entry—such as the former bar on entry pursuant to Title 42 and other limits on processing asylum seekers at ports of entry—humanitarian parole is often the only vehicle to seek temporary protection in the United States.

CBP has provided little information about how it adjudicates these urgent requests. Since 2017, FIRRP has been providing legal services to asylum seekers in Nogales, Sonora, just across the border from the Nogales Port of Entry into Nogales, Arizona. For their most vulnerable clients, FIRRP submits humanitarian parole applications, but the overwhelming majority of these clients have received boilerplate denials or no response at all. FIRRP and LCR submitted a FOIA request seeking CBP’s policies and procedures for processing these requests and data regarding processing times and outcomes.

After CBP failed to provide any responsive records for over a year, on March 2, 2023, FIRRP and LCR filed a lawsuit under FOIA to compel CBP to respond. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request, with production to be completed by November 3, 2023. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request. On March 19, 2024, the court stayed the case while the parties continue to cooperatively attempt to satisfy the FOIA request.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers for Civil Rights | Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Marian Albert | Lawyers for Civil Rights | (617) 482-1145

NYLAG v. DHS

Posted on by

New York Legal Assistance Group, Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:22-cv-05928 (S.D.N.Y., filed Jul. 12, 2022)

New York Legal Assistance Group, Inc. (NYLAG), a not-for-profit civil legal services organization in New York, New York, filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to produce responsive records to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to the deployment of federal law enforcement personnel in New York City during protests related to the killing of George Floyd in 2020.

In June 2020, at a New York City protest against police brutality, a protestor was violently arrested on the Upper West Side by an officer identified as an agent for ICE or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). After the identification of the officer, organizations like NYLAG raised concerns questioning the authority of the federal government to deploy federal agents to monitor local protests and surveil immigrant protestors.

NYLAG submitted an administrative FOIA request on September 29, 2020, requesting records from May 25, 2020, through the date of filing the request. Following their administrative request, NYLAG received some communications from DHS, ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Secret Service (USSS), and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), indicating that responsive records existed and were identified. However, after nearly two years, the agencies failed to produce to NYLAG any of the documents they identified as responsive to the FOIA request, prompting NYLAG to file suit in July 2022. On September 16, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. 

Defendants’ production of documents responsive to the FOIA request is ongoing, and they continue to meet and confer with NYLAG to narrow NYLAG’s scope of objections to the production.

Counsel: New York Legal Assistance Group | Cooley LLP

Contact: Danielle Tarantolo | NYLAG | (212) 613-5000
Marc Suskin | Cooley LLP | (212) 479-6000

Related Links: https://nylag.org/nylagvdhs/