DIG DEEPER 

• Council updates CBP One fact sheet as CBP expands the app’s use

  On January 5, the Biden administration unveiled several policy changes to address the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and announced the expansion of CBP One as the primary method for individuals seeking to enter the country to submit their biometric information prior to their arrival at ports of entry. CBP One is a mobile phone app that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched in October 2020 to make certain agency functions accessible via mobile devices. In January, the Council updated its fact sheet about CBP One. 

  The fact sheet outlines the app’s expansion. CBP One is mandatory for people applying for the new humanitarian parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. CBP also is strongly pushing applicants seeking exemptions to expulsions under Title 42 to apply for processing using the app.   

  While acknowledging the need for more efficient border processing, the fact sheet raised concerns with some of the tools deployed by CBP One. The app requires users to utilize facial recognition technology and submit GPS location to CBP in order to access some of the app’s capabilities. With information about CBP One often buried in dense government documents, the updated fact sheet provides information to the public about the app and its inherent risks.
    
  Read more: DHS Fails to Address Concerns about CBP One as the Agency Expands the App’s Use

 NOTEWORTHY 

• Second Circuit Issues Resounding Win in Data Case Against ICE

  On January 26, 2023, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the ACLU in a closely watched case that implicates the public’s ability to access agency data about individuals in immigration agency databases through FOIA. 

  In a FOIA request, the ACLU pursued data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about removals, detentions, apprehensions, risk classification assessments, and bond management of individuals. 

  The ACLU requested “unique identifiers” necessary to link records of enforcement activity to the individuals subject to the enforcement activity. The ACLU requested these unique ID numbers because ICE redacts individuals’ Alien Numbers, or A-numbers under FOIA. ICE, however, refused to provide these unique IDs. As a result, the ACLU could not analyze each person’s interactions with the agency across different agency datasets. The district court agreed ICE was not required to provide unique IDs and ruled against the ACLU.
   
  The Second Circuit disagreed and reversed the district court decision. The court focused on the fact that ICE uses A-Numbers as the “key” or “code” to pull information about individuals from various databases. It held that FOIA’s "broad disclosure policy" requires the agency to use a different code in order to provide the public access to information in agency databases in the same manner it is available to the agency. In this case, the court held that Unique IDs consisting of "any combinations of numbers, letters, or symbols” that would allow the public to access records would serve this purpose and would not constitute the creation of a “new record.” 

  The case may have far-reaching consequences for immigration agencies that have long collected information in databases in a way that bars meaningful access to information about individual immigrants.

  The Council and partners filed an amicus brief in support of the ACLU.

  Read more: Demanding ICE Provide Essential Data

The American Immigration Council works to hold the government accountable on immigration issues. We harness freedom of information requests, litigation, and advocacy to expose wrongdoing and promote transparency within immigration agencies.

Make a donation today.

         

Immigration Impact | ImmigrationCouncil.org | unsubscribe
1331 G St. NW Suite 200, Washington, D.C., xxxxxx