Border Patrol “Hieleras” - Background and Legal Action
What is a hielera?
Hielera is the Spanish word for “ice box,” and the term commonly used to describe Border Patrol’s notorious “holding cells” because of the bone-chilling temperatures at which the cells are maintained. Though the cells are designed for short-term detention where individuals are supposed to be held for only a matter of hours, in practice, Border Patrol agents hold individuals in hieleras for days, even weeks.
In addition to extreme temperatures, hieleras are commonly characterized by harsh, overcrowded, and unsanitary conditions. Detained individuals are denied the opportunity to bathe, access to beds, basic hygiene supplies and adequate food, water, and medical attention. As a matter of policy, agents strip detainees of outer layers of clothing while also denying blankets, bedding, or other means of shelter from the frigid temperatures. Detainees must try to sleep on cold, concrete floors, and are denied communication with the outside world—held virtually incommunicado— for days on end.
These alarming conditions are described with great consistency in lawsuits, complaints, and non-governmental and governmental reports, as well as the more than seventy-five declarations of former detainees collected by Plaintiffs’ counsel in Doe v. Johnson, some of which are excerpted here.
Who is detained in Border Patrol hieleras?
Border Patrol hieleras are used to detain men, women, and children, including toddlers and infants, who are suspected of being in the United States without authorization. Individuals arrive traumatized by the difficult journey to the United States. They often are exhausted, thirsty, hungry, and sick, with dehydration, heat stroke, diarrhea, bleeding and blistered feet, and other health conditions requiring medication and medical attention, which Border Patrol routinely fails to provide. In this condition, they are often coerced by agents into signing documents they do not understand.
Where are hieleras located?
Most Border Patrol Stations are equipped with holding cells. Additionally, other facilities maintained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—of which the Border Patrol is a division—have holding cells, including Ports of Entry and Forward Operating Bases. In the Tucson Sector, where Doe v. Johnson was filed, there are eight Border Patrol stations, one sub-station, five Ports of Entry and five Forward Operating Bases, all equipped with holding cells. Tucson Sector detainees are held in brutal conditions in these CBP facilities throughout southern Arizona, prior to transfer to another agency, removal, or release.
Is it really “short-term” detention, as Border Patrol says?
In most cases, no. Although Border Patrol often claims that individuals are detained for brief periods of time and CBP guidance states that individuals should not be detained in holding cells for more than twelve hours, CBP records indicate that detainees are regularly held for 24 hours or in some cases, much longer.
CBP records provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request indicate that from January through June 2013, approximately 58,000 Tucson Sector detainees, or 80 percent of the total detainee population, were in Border Patrol custody for 24 hours or longer; 7,839 individuals—just under 11 percent—were detained for more than 72 hours. One individual was detained for 2,544.5 hours, over 15 weeks.
Despite the fact that most detainees are held overnight and many are held for several days, hieleras are neither designed nor equipped for extended detention, and certainly not for sleeping, as hieleras have no beds.
How do we know about the problem?
Reports by academics and human rights organizations, based on thousands of interviews with former CBP detainees, as well as numerous civil rights lawsuits, complaints, and media reports have consistently described harsh conditions in these facilities, including denial of food, water, and medical care; overcrowding; severe temperatures; and physical abuse. As well-documented as these problems are, Border Patrol severely restricts outside access to its facilities, which effectively prevents conditions from being even more widely publicized.
Doesn’t Border Patrol already have detention standards in place?
Yes, but Border Patrol’s detention standards are inadequate and are rarely followed in practice. Scores of declarations by individuals held in the hieleras make clear that Border Patrol routinely violates its own standards, including those addressing provision of food, water, hygiene products, showers, medical care, and phone access, maximum holding cell occupancy, and duration of detention.
Is the agency aware that detention conditions are this bad?
Yes. Though officials often downplay the extent of these deficiencies, DHS has acknowledged “recurring problems” in Border Patrol holding cells. In a July 2014 press interview regarding a complaint filed on behalf of children abused and neglected in Border Patrol hieleras, CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske stated that the children’s complaints about facility conditions were “absolutely spot on.”
Why hasn’t Border Patrol or DHS addressed these problems?
The agency seems to believe that holding people in harsh and punitive conditions will deter immigration, even though many of those immigrating are asylum seekers fleeing danger and violence or are individuals seeking to reunite with their families. Many former detainees, including children, describe agents telling them, “If you don’t like it, don’t come back.”
Border Patrol perpetuates a culture of abuse and impunity. CBP classifies all civil rights violations, including detention-related complaints, as low-priority “non-mission-compromising corruption,” which does not have to be reported to Congress. The former head of CBP Internal Affairs described Border Patrol’s view of itself as a “paramilitary border security force” that operates outside “constitutional constraints” and rejects outside scrutiny. The same official described CBP as an agency “rife with cover-ups and corruption” where officials have “distorted facts to try to hide any missteps,” including abuse of individuals in CBP custody “that should have resulted in discipline,” but did not.
Is Congress aware of the problem?
Yes, many members of Congress are aware of the problem, but Congress has failed to act. In June 2013, Senator Barbara Boxer added an amendment to a Senate immigration reform bill, S.B. 744, requiring improved CBP detention standards, including holding cell capacity limits, adequate climate control, and access to medical care, among other reforms. In December 2013, Senator Boxer re-introduced the same legislation as the Humane Short Term Custody Act, noting, “CBP has written ‘detention standards’ for short term custody, but there is evidence to suggest that these standards are not consistently followed.” In September 2013, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard introduced the Protect Family Values at the Border Act, which included similar reforms related to CBP detention conditions. To date, none of these legislative proposals have become law.
The Lawsuit: Doe v. Johnson
What kind of lawsuit is this?
On June 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against DHS officials challenging conditions in Border Patrol holding cells. The complaint alleges that the detention conditions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The challenged conditions include overcrowding, extreme cold, unsanitary conditions, denial of sleep, lack of medical screening and care, and deprivation of food and water.
The lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who are now or will in the future be confined in a Tucson sector CBP detention facility for one or more nights.
What’s at stake?
There is no justification for holding anyone in brutal and unsafe conditions in facilities that are neither designed nor equipped for overnight or prolonged detention. CBP’s short-term detention policies and practices serve no legitimate purpose, violate the U.S. Constitution, and offend American values.
What remedy are the Plaintiffs seeking?
Plaintiffs seek to compel Border Patrol to bring its detention facilities in line with Constitutional standards, including limiting the time a person may be detained in hold cells to a few hours, providing adequate food, water, and medical care, beds and bedding, access to showers and hygiene supplies, and maintaining appropriate capacity limits and temperature controls, among other reforms.
Will this case impact CBP facilities in other states?
Not directly. The lawsuit seeks to vindicate the rights only of individuals held in the Tucson Sector. Tucson Sector accounted for roughly twenty percent of FY 2014 border apprehensions, so the proposed class covers tens of thousands of people. Nonetheless, Border Patrol should acknowledge that the same problems that exist in Tucson Sector are common elsewhere and raise the same safety and liability concerns. It should use this opportunity to ensure that all CBP detention facilities adhere to consistent policies and practices nationwide—policies and practices that do not violate the constitutional rights of detainees.
Where can I learn more?
- Unconstitutional Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities Challenged in Class Action Lawsuit
- Former Detainees Describe Horrific Conditions in CBP Detention
- Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Arizona's Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show
- Press Release
- Listen to the press teleconference on the lawsuit here.
Hold CBP Accountable
actions taken across the country in an ongoing effort to establish accountability and transparency of one of the fastest growing agencies in the United States.
Administrative Relief Resource Center
Learn how individuals can prepare for administrative relief, find legal assistance and community education resource, and ways that you can help immigrants and immigrant-serving organizations.
- District Court Rules Grant of TPS Is an Admission for Adjustment of Status Purposes
- First Circuit Joins Other Courts in Holding That Immigrants Can Pursue Cases From Outside the United States
- Seventh Circuit Decision Expands Availability of Hardship Waivers to Lawful Permanent Residents
- ICE Agrees to Release Thousands of Previously-Withheld Records
- Court Says ICE Failed to Satisfy FOIA Requirements in Council’s Suit to Compel Disclosure of Records on Access to Counsel
- Eleventh Circuit Holds That Filing Limitations on Motions to Reopen Are Subject to Equitable Tolling
- Letter to DHS Outlines Problematic Practices That Undermine Due Process Protections for Asylum Seekers
- Transfers of Detained Families Traumatizes Mothers and Children and Interferes with Access to Lawyers
- Unrepresented, Unaccompanied Children Ordered Deported After Just One Hearing
- Can State Agencies License The Detention of Immigrant Families?
- Temporary Restraining Order Against Texas Family Detention Centers Issued
- Supreme Court Considering Whether Misdemeanor Results in Automatic Deportation
- Obama Administration Goes to the Supreme Court in DACA and DAPA Lawsuit
- Visa Bulletin Change Fails to Deliver
- Visa Bulletin “Do-Over” Undercuts Visa Modernization
- First Step in Visa Modernization: Making the Wait More Palatable
- Five Families Released After Prolonged Detention
- Restrictionists Continue to Attack H-4 Work Authorization
- Government Ordered to Promptly Release Children From Family Detention
- Court Issues Decision in Washtech, Case Challenging Training for U.S.-Educated Noncitizens
- Annual Review of State-Level Immigration Policy Still Trending Pro-Immigrant
- The Government Doubles Down on Locking Up Immigrant Mothers and Children
- Insider Speaks Out Alongside Formerly Detained Mothers Seeking Protection in the U.S.
- Court Finds Federal Officers Can be Sued for Mistreatment of Immigrants in Detention
- Judge’s Order in Flores Should Signal the End of Family Detention
- White House Report on Improving Our Legal Immigration System: Too Little Too Late?
- Some 3-Year Work Permits Being Recalled by USCIS
- Appellate Court Hears Oral Argument in Texas v. United States
- U.S. Settles With 4-Year-Old U.S. Citizen They Wrongfully Deported
- Members of Congress Report on Texas Family Detention Center Visits
- Supreme Court Finds Conviction for Possession of a Sock Was Not a Deportable Offense
- Court Rejects Restrictionists’ Attempts to Derail Work Authorization for H-4 Spouses
- Immigration Appeals Court Reverses Position on Deportation Waivers
- Why DAPA Applications Were Not Accepted by USCIS on May 19, 2015
- Reports: Detention Doesn’t Deter Migrants and Refugees From Coming to United States
- Arpaio Faces Skeptical Judges In Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Immigration Action
- Supreme Court to Decide Whether It’s Okay to Deprive a Person of His Day In Immigration Court
- No Justice For Family of Mexican Child Killed By U.S. Border Patrol Agent
- The Court Decision on Deferred Action Everyone Should Be Talking About
- Faith Leaders Visit Immigrant Detention Center as Mothers Begin Hunger Strike
- Immigration Agency Issues Long-Awaited Guidance on L-1B Visa Petitions
- Government Claims Children in Family Detention Centers Are Not Entitled to Protections
- Documenting Ongoing Border Patrol Abuses
- Immigration Action Provides Certain H-4 Spouses Work Authorization
- New Immigration Enforcement Policy Remains In Effect Despite Texas Lawsuit
- Supreme Court Hears Argument on Whether Government Must Justify Its Visa Denial
- The Detention of Children and Their Families is Still Unjust and Still Against the Law
- Unrepresented Children Still Being Fast-Tracked Through Immigration Hearings
- When is Possession of a Sock a Deportable Offense?
- U.S. Education of Foreign Students is Under Attack
- Do the President’s New Immigration Policies Really Mark the End of Secure Communities?
- How New Guidance Improves a Waiver Program to Limit Family Separations
- Five Things to Know About Deportation Relief for Some Immigrant Parents
- How Many Immigrants Could Be Eligible for Relief and Not Know It?
- Civil Rights Complaint Documents Government’s Failure to Properly Screen Asylum Seekers
- Third Federal Court Rejects Government Interpretation of ‘Admission’ into U.S.
- How USCIS Tried to Keep Out a Skilled Brazilian Steakhouse Worker
- How Can a Three Year Old Represent Himself in Court?
- Report Discloses Deportation of Central American Asylum Seekers
- Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Case of U.S. Citizen Girl Who Was Deported
- Inspector General Falls Short in Documenting Border Detention Conditions
- Why Groups Are Suing the Government over Rushed Deportation Process for Mothers and Children
- Courts Continue to Reject Arizona Style Laws, Even as House Embraces SAFE Act
- Here Are Some of the Stories of Women Held at Artesia
- Why We are Suing the Government on Behalf of All Children Facing Deportation
- District Court Decides Some TPS Beneficiaries May Finally Become Lawful Permanent Residents
- SCOTUS Decides Immigrants Can “Age-Out” of Visa Petitions
- The DACA Renewal Process: Everything You Need to Know
- CBP Releases Report Critical of Agency, Issues Updated Use of Force Policy
- Summary Removal Procedures and Their Role in Rising Deportations
- New Data Show More Than Half a Million Immigrants Granted DACA
- Drop in Court-Ordered Deportations Means Little to Overall Deportation Numbers
- USCIS Releases Information About DACA Renewal Process
- Circuit Court Ruling Affirms Detainers Not Mandatory
- New Directive Clarifies Existing Use of Force Policy at CBP
- Customs and Border Protection Conceals Scathing Audit of Border Patrol’s Use of Force Policy
- What the DACA Renewal Process Should Look Like
- Petition Challenges DHS on Enforcement Priorities
- The Washington Post Exposes Sorry State of Immigration Courts
- Miranda-like Warning for Immigrants Argued in Ninth Circuit
- Why Is There a Disparity in DACA Application Rates Among Different Nationalities?
- Supreme Court Considers Restrictive Interpretation of Child Status Protection Act
- The Punishment Should Fit the Crime for Immigrants, Too
- Keeping CBP In Line With Proposed Reforms
- Understanding DACA's Education Requirement
- Supreme Court to Interpret Child Status Protection Act
- New York City Pilots Free Legal Representation in Immigration Court