The LAC, along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, is seeking to preserve federal court review of damages actions brought by noncitizens in immigration custody. In damages actions brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the government has argued that INA § 242(g) bars the court’s review of damages claims brought against federal immigration officers because they involve the “commencement” of removal proceedings. They also have argued that a Bivens action is not the appropriate remedy in the context of removal proceedings. The LAC argues that Bivens is an appropriate and available remedy for constitutional violations committed by federal immigration officers, and that the government’s argument that the Constitution does not protect arriving noncitizens, even when those noncitizens are LPRs, is fatally flawed.
Tell us about your cases! The LAC would like to hear about cases in which the government argues that the court does not have jurisdiction over Bivens/FTCA damages suits in the immigration context. Please contact [email protected] [1] to let us know what has happened in your clients' cases.
CASE
Felix Garcia v. The United States of America, et al, No. 10 CV 5610 (E.D.N.Y. amici brief filed April 19, 2012). The LAC and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild filed an amici brief urging the court to find it has jurisdiction over a damages suit brought by an LPR against CBP and ICE. The plaintiff was wrongfully detained for seven days, physically abused, and denied medical attention by federal immigration officers
RESOURCES
LAC Practice Advisory: Whom to Sue and Whom to Serve in Immigration-Related District Court Litigation [2] (May 13, 2010). This practice advisory addresses who is, or who may be, the proper respondent-defendant and recipient for service of process in immigration-related litigation in district court.