Tag Archives: Closed Cases

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

Reyes v. United States, DOE CBP Officers 1-30

Posted on by

Reyes v. United States, DOE CBP Officers 1-30, No. 3:20-cv-01752 (S.D. Cal., filed Sept. 8, 2020)

On August 2, 2018, Marco Reyes was waiting in his car to cross into the United States at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in California. Due to an incident in another vehicle lane, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer knocked at Reyes’ car window and asked him to step out of the car. Reyes, who suffered from significant hearing loss from military service, did not immediately hear the officer or comply with his commands. When Reyes realized the officer was speaking to him, he immediately got out of the car and stood behind his vehicle. The CBP officer then began to yell profanities at Reyes and bumped him with his chest, accusing him of not immediately following directions. When Reyes raised his hand to keep the officer from bumping into him, the officer accused him of assault and called for back-up assistance. A larger group of CBP officers arrived, pushed Reyes to the ground, and proceeded to beat him up while he was on the ground, injuring his shoulder and arm and breaking several ribs. After beating Reyes up, the officers arrested him for assault on a federal officer. The U.S. Attorney’s office declined to pursue prosecution of Reyes.

On September 8, 2020, Reyes filed this action, alleging violations of his rights under California’s Bane Act, the federal Rehabilitation Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. On February 16, 2021, the district court dismissed Reyes’ Bane Act claims and Rehabilitation Act claims without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint. The court also dismissed on consent the FTCA claims against the individual CBP officers.

Reyes proceeded to file two amended complaints. The case settled and was dismissed pursuant to a joint motion to dismiss on January 11, 2022.

Documents:

Counsel: McKenzie Scott, P.C.
Contact: Timothy Scott | tscott@mckenziescott.com

FOIA: Black Alliance for Just Immigration et al. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection

Posted on by

FOIA: Black Alliance for Just Immigration et al. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, No. 1:20-cv-05198 (E.D.N.Y., filed Oct. 28, 2020)

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by Minnesota police officers, triggering mass protests in cities across the United States calling for racial justice and police reform. These protests were met with heightened police presence as local law enforcement agencies throughout the country deployed additional officers to protests and gatherings. In early June 2020, media outlets began reporting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel and aerial surveillance, along with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and federal agency personnel, had been deployed to the protests. A leaked CBP document later revealed that requests from law enforcement agencies across the country resulted in 326.5 hours of federal aviation assets deployed and 2,174 agency personnel.

After then-President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13933, “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statutes and Combating Recent Criminal Violence,” DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) began taking steps to implement the directive, including by creating roving teams of federal law enforcement officers to disperse to protests. These deployments only served to exacerbate tensions and violence, drawing criticism from elected officials – especially given CBP’s track record of abusive policing tactics and use of excessive force.

Following these deployments, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records of requests for assistance to CBP by other entities regarding the deployment of CBP personnel to U.S. cities; policies, protocols, and directives outlining CBP’s legal authority to police and surveil protests; communications sent or received by CBP personnel relating to the deployments; and data regarding the total number of CBP personnel deployed, individuals apprehended or arrested by CBP, and the statutory basis for CBP’s enforcement action.

When CBP failed to respond to the request, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction ordering Defendant to conduct a search for responsive records and timely produce those records to Plaintiffs, as well as a declaration that Defendant’s conduct violated the FOIA. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed its answer. Defendant produced responsive records and agreed to settle for attorney fees and costs in the amount of $37,500. On January 10, 2023, the case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulated dismissal.

Documents:
● FOIA Request
● Complaint
● Answer

Counsel: Immigrant Legal Defense; American Immigration Council; ACLU Foundation of Texas

Contact:
Claudia Valenzuela | Immigrant Legal Defense | claudia@ild.org
Shaw Drake | ACLU Foundation of Texas |

Press:
● U.S. Watched George Floyd Protests in 15 Cities Using Aerial Surveillance

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


Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents

Posted on by

Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents, et al., No. 20-01339 (6th Cir., filed Apr 22, 2020); No. 2:17-cv-12969 (E.D. Mich,, filed Sept. 10, 2017)

In 2015, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stopped Anas Elhady, a naturalized citizen living in Michigan who was returning to the United States from Canada. CBP detained him for six hours at the Ambassador Bridge Facility, where officers left him in a freezing cold cell without his outerwear.

Mr. Elhady sued several CBP officers in September 2017, seeking monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On February 10, 2020, the district court granted motions for summary judgment for all of the defendants except one, Officer Blake Bradley. Bradley appealed to the Sixth Circuit. On November 19, 2021, the court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and held that this case presented a new Bivens context under Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 741 (2020), because it implicated national security and raised questions reserved for the political branches. The court of appeals rejected Mr. Elhady’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue on interlocutory appeal and that Bradley had waived the issue by failing to raise the availability of Bivens on appeal. The appeals court maintained that they held jurisdiction over the Bivens issue on interlocutory appeal because it was necessary to evaluate the defense of qualified immunity. On January 25, 2022, the Sixth Circuit denied Mr. Elhady’s petition for rehearing en banc. Mr. Elhady filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on May 25, 2022. On October 13, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. 

Documents:
● Complaint
● Second Amended Complaint
● Motion to Dismiss
● Summary Judgment Order
● Defendant-Appellant’s Opening Brief
● Plaintiff-Appellee’s Opposition Brief
● Defendant-Appellant’s Supplemental Brief
● Plaintiff-Appellee’s Supplemental Brief
● Sixth Circuit Decision

Counsel:
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Contact:
Justin Sadowsky | jsadowsky@cair.com
Lena Masri | lmasri@cair.com
Gadeir Abbas | gabbas@cair.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

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al.

Posted on by

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al., No. 1:21-cv-11571-IT (D. Mass., filed Sept. 24, 2021)

Plaintiffs Jane Doe and her two 10-year-old sons are citizens of Haiti who entered the United States in September 2021 to seek asylum. They were among the thousands of Haitians forced to remain for days under the Del Rio International Bridge. Later, Plaintiffs were transported to San Antonio, Texas to be processed for expulsion pursuant to Title 42. As of September 24, 2021, they remained in CBP custody, and their expulsion under Title 42 was believed to be imminent.

Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that the U.S. government’s Title 42 expulsion policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Title 42, the Administrative Procedure Act, the U.S. Constitution (equal protection and due process), and the United States’ nonrefoulement duty under international law. Plaintiffs request, among other things, that the court enjoin their expulsion under Title 42 and order Defendants to process their asylum claims in accordance with the INA.

As of November 2021, the government released the clients into removal proceedings and paroled them. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed this case.

Documents:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint

Counsel: Amy Maldonado | Law Office of Amy Maldonado

Bridget Cambria | Cambria & Kline, P.C.

Susan B. Church | Demissie & Church

Contact: Amy Maldonado | 517-803-2870 | amy@amaldonadolaw.com

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.

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

Lewis v. Unknown Agents of the Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Lewis v. Unknown Agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:19-cv-00600 (S.D. Cal., filed Apr. 1, 2019)

Sams v. Unknown Agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:19-cv-00612 (S.D. Cal., filed Apr. 2, 2019)

These lawsuits arise from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s detention of two individuals who were experiencing withdrawal from opiates and alcohol and were denied medical treatment. The plaintiffs bring claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of their Fifth Amendment Rights.

Mr. Lewis, a U.S. citizen and military veteran, was arrested by DHS at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in February 2019. He alleges that he told the arresting officers of his history of substance abuse, prompting laughter. He began experiencing the symptoms of withdrawal, and instead of being given medical treatment, was transferred back-and-forth between the San Diego Metropolitan Correction Center and DHS custody. Mr. Lewis spent four days in DHS custody experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms, unable to move or eat, all the while requesting medical attention which was never given.

The facts of Ms. Sam’s case are similar. In January 2019, DHS officers interrogated and detained her. Despite advising officers of her substance abuse history, she was placed in a small holding cell. She remained in DHS custody for four days, during which time she experienced grave symptoms of withdrawal and repeatedly requested medical attention. Her requests were ignored.

In April 2020, both cases settled for an undisclosed amount.

Counsel: Brody McBride, Singleton Law Firm, APC