A man identified as A.M. has filed a lawsuit against federal authorities after being arrested while attending his immigration hearing in San Diego. The case has raised significant questions regarding the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the procedures used in such arrests.
A.M., who fled Morocco due to torture and persecution over his human rights advocacy, arrived in the United States seeking asylum. On June 3, after his case was dismissed, he encountered ICE agents outside the courtroom. In his declaration supporting the request for a preliminary injunction, A.M. described the event as alarming and surreal.
“There were five or six men who cornered me as soon as I stepped out of the courtroom and immediately started to handcuff me. They did not tell me why they were stopping me. I did not understand what was happening or why I was receiving this treatment,” he stated.
After being detained, A.M. was separated from his attorney and transported to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. He faced expedited removal proceedings, a process intended to hasten his deportation. His attorney, Emily Howe, revealed that A.M. experienced a diabetic coma while in custody, leading him to fear for his life.
“I gave up and thought I was dead,” he said in his declaration. “I said I needed to return in a box instead of being sent to the Moroccan occupations who would imprison, injure, torture, and beat me to death.”
As A.M. detailed his horrifying experience, he emphasized his compliance with U.S. laws, stating, “I am a law-abiding person. I reported to all my court dates. I have not been accused or convicted of any crime.” His chilling account illustrates the trauma that those fleeing persecution can face even after arriving in the United States.
The lawsuit targets several high-profile figures, including Otay Mesa Detention Center warden Christopher LaRose and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. In court, Judge Jinsook Ohta acknowledged the complexity of the case and the need for additional information about ICE’s decision-making processes.
During a hearing on Wednesday, Judge Ohta underscored the importance of understanding how ICE goes about determining who to arrest. She questioned the U.S. attorneys on how they utilize various databases and what their deliberative process entails.
Despite the judge’s concerns, the U.S. attorneys declined to comment on the lawsuit or the ongoing arrests conducted by ICE.
Howe, the lone attorney representing A.M., expressed her frustrations during the hearing. “It’s been one attorney up against five attorneys in the U.S. government. So it’s very much been endeavoring to keep this alive and pursuing protections for the most vulnerable,” she said.
In her pursuit of justice, Howe has reached out to multiple national organizations, civil rights attorneys, and class action firms for additional support. She expressed her intention to uncover what enables the government to detain vulnerable individuals.
“We’re seeking to find out what emboldens or empowers the government to be depriving people of their basic liberty,” Howe asserted. She also raised a critical question about the existence of established quotas for arrests and how these could potentially conflict with constitutional rights.
“Our understanding is that there have been quotas established. How does that possibly comply with the U.S. Constitution and our basic rights here in the United States?” she queried.
The next hearing in A.M.’s case is set for September 4, when the court will further explore ICE’s arrest process and the implications of this troubling situation for asylum seekers across the country.
image source from：nbcsandiego
