OUTSOURCING

RESPONSIBILITY

THE HUMAN COST OF PRIVATIZED IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN OTERO COUNTY
January 2011

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
Regional Center for Border Rights

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY
The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements	

1

INTRODUCTION	

3

BACKGROUND	

6

Outsourcing Immigration Detention		
Management and Training Corporation	
Otero County Processing Center:
	 A Microcosm of Privatized Detention Facilities	

7
8
9

FINDINGS	

13

I. ACCESS TO JUSTICE	
Detainee Transfers Inhibit Access to Justice	
Transfer Impedes Access to Counsel	
Changes in Court Jurisdiction Threaten Equal Treatment	
Isolation Causes Immigrants to Abandon Cases	
Conditions During Transfer Raise Safety Concerns	
Physical and Mental Health are Compromised During Transfer	
Mandatory Detention and Due Process Violations	
Changes in Parole Policy Improve For Asylum Seekers	
Immigrants with Final Removal Orders Remain in
	 Detention for Prolonged Periods	
Immigration Court Proceedings Limit Due Process	
Access to Legal Materials is Limited	

15
15
16
17
17
18
19
20
21

II. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT	
Equal Access to Religious Practice is Questioned	
Immigrants Report that Religious Dietary Needs are Not Met	
Access to Recreation is Limited	
Visitation Policy is Restrictive	
Detained Immigrants Face Challenges Communicating with
	 Family, Friends, and Attorneys	
Pod Conditions are Inadequate	
Food Services are Deficient	
Detained Immigrants Report Abusive and Discriminatory
	 Treatment by Correctional Officers	

21
22
24
27
27
29
30
32
32
32
34
35

Immigrants Report Arbitrary Placement in Segregation	
Immigrants Report Being Subjected to Invasive
	 Searches and Unnecessary Lockdowns	

38
39

III. MEDICAL & MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT	
Allegations of Inadequate Medical Treatment: Physicians Network Association	
Immigrants Report Lack of Adequate Medical Treatment	
Immigrants Report Mechanisms to Access Medical Care Delay Treatment	
Immigrants Report that Continuity of Care is Compromised by Detention	
Detained Persons Report Insufficient Dental Care	
Mental Health Care	

43
44
44
46
48
50
51

IV. EFFECTS ON FAMILY & COMMUNITY	

55

V. OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, & ICE REFORM EFFORTS	
Grievance Procedures Fail to Provide Resolution for Detained Immigrants	
Facility Inspections and Reviews Fail to Ensure Adequate Oversight	
ICE Makes Efforts to Improve Oversight and Accountability	

59
60
61
62

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS	

65

CONCLUSION	

67

RECOMMENDATIONS	
To DHS, ICE and DOJ	
To Members of the U.S. Congress	

69
69
71

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Emily P. Carey, program coordinator with the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, was the
primary investigator and author of the report.
The report was edited by Micah McCoy and Vicki B. Gaubeca of the ACLU-NM.
The ACLU-NM would like to express gratitude to Melissa Bertolo who volunteered countless hours of research
and investigative assistance; Jeremy Snyder and Michael Kiehne for research support; Brendan K. Egan, staff
attorney with Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP for pro bono legal support
to the written portion of the project; the ACLU Washington Legislative Office; Brian Erickson, Border Servant
Corps volunteer with the ACLU-NM for reviewing the report; Laura Rotolo with the ACLU of Massachusetts for
answering endless questions from the author; and to all of the colleagues in New Mexico and beyond who
offered suggestions and support. Also, this report would not have been possible without the support of a grant
from the Pro Hac Vice Fund of the New Mexico Bar Foundation.
Special thanks to all of the legal advocates and family members of immigrant detainees who contributed their
experiences to this report. Most importantly, the ACLU-NM is grateful to all of the detained immigrants willing
to share their stories.

1

INTRODUCTION

“We are human beings. The public must know what is going on here.”
	

O

–Javed E., immigrant formerly detained at the Otero County Processing Center1

n June 23, 2008, the Otero County
Processing Center opened its doors in
the rural border community of Chaparral,
Otero County, New Mexico. Owned by Otero
County and operated by the private prison
contractor Management and Training Corporation
(MTC), the facility has the capacity to house up to
1, 086 immigrants through an exclusive contract
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). As one of the only organizations in New
Mexico monitoring civil liberties, the American
Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU-NM)
began receiving phone calls from attorneys and
immigrant advocates across the country within
days of the start of facility operations. Most of the
immigrants in the facility are Mexican and Central
American nationals apprehended in the area,

while others have been transferred from cities
like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Miami
and originated from countries all over the world.
The ACLU of New Mexico started to assist
immigrants held by ICE far beyond the sixmonth limit established by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Zadvydas v. Davis after they had been
ordered removed by an immigration judge. In
the course of this work, advocates, detainees,
and family members of detainees approached
ACLU representatives with other concerns
about the facility including racial and religious
discrimination,
inadequate
medical
and
mental health care treatment, arbitrary use of
segregation, and intimidation and humiliation
tactics. The ACLU monitored for patterns of

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

3

civil and human rights violations and sought
resolution in individual cases where abuse was
egregious to protect the health and well being
of detained immigrants. Local ICE officials were
responsive in most of these cases.
This report stems from interviews with more than
200 immigrants detained at the Otero County
Processing Center from the time the facility
became operational. Outside the boundaries
of New Mexico, Otero became known in the
advocacy communities as “The Hub” because of
all of the immigrants arriving from out of state.
In New Mexico, however, local, state, and federal
elected officials, the general public, and even
some immigrant advocates were not aware of the
facility’s existence. For many, the Otero County
Processing Center represents a national trend
in immigration detention that relies on facilities
built in remote locations, lacking legal and
community resources for informal oversight, and
managed by private, for-profit corporations. This
report was conceived out of the desire to learn
more about what happens inside the walls of the
facility and to raise awareness in New Mexico
of the role our state now plays in this matter of
national concern.
During the interview process, Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet
Napolitano and DHS ICE Assistant Secretary John
Morton announced their intention to reform
immigration detention. ACLU-NM applauded the
agency on this effort, but felt it was important to
continue the interviews with the additional goal
of providing findings and recommendations to
inform detention reform efforts. The troubling
use of private for-profit prison contractors to
operate ICE facilities, and the resulting oversight
and accountability problems became evident
during the course of interviews.
This report represents the experiences and voices
of immigrants detained at the Otero County
Processing Center from September 2009 through
July 2010. These interviews were conducted
during a time of transition for ICE. Even as
ACLU-NM sat down to write, the landscape of
immigration detention was constantly shifting
and changing. Several changes have been
noted in Findings, Section V, but the list is
not comprehensive and several initiatives are
ongoing or may recently have been implemented.
ACLU-NM views the voices in this report as
indicative of why immigration detention reform
was and is necessary, and the continued steps
that are needed to ensure humane treatment

4

of immigrants in detention. The efforts of ICE
leadership merit recognition, but much work
remains to ensure that the findings enclosed in
this report are not repeated.
Though this report focuses on the Otero County
Processing Center, it aims to shed light on the
civil and human rights violations that often occur
when the federal government cedes responsibility
for civil immigration detention to private prison
management companies. Advocates throughout
the country echo similar concerns with privately
contracted immigration facilities in their areas.
In a report issued to the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants, Judy
Greene and Sunita Patel write:
“We must never forget, however, that
this ‘market’ results in commodification
of immigrant bodies. Detention for
dollars puts perverse financial incentives
into place. …This insidious incentive
cuts directly across concerns about
compliance with detention standards
that were created to foster a decent,
humane custodial environment for the
rapidly-growing number of people who
are subjected to detention.”2

Methodology
In September of 2009, ACLU-NM staff formalized
their interview process by developing and
utilizing a questionnaire. The questionnaire
consisted of more than 100 questions on various
topics, including access to justice, conditions
of confinement, and procedures for seeking
resolution to concerns. ACLU-NM completed 42
of these in-depth interviews by July 1, 2010, and
stayed in contact with several of the interviewees
throughout the duration of their detention.
Aggregate information was also compiled from
informal interviews and mail correspondence
with the more than 200 detained immigrants
with whom ACLU representatives came into
contact since the summer of 2008. In several
cases, ACLU staff reviewed medical records,
case documents, grievance forms and other
documents related to individual cases. The ACLU
interviewed legal advocates and family members
of several detained immigrants.
In addition, ACLU-NM utilized the state Inspection
of Public Records Act to request records from
Otero County. The county did not provide any

responsive documents, stating that they “do not
run the facility or have access to their records.”3
However, ACLU-NM ultimately employed the
federal Freedom of Information Act to obtain
hundreds of pages of documents related to the
Otero County Processing Center from ICE.

About the ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a
nationwide, nonprofit, non-partisan organization
dedicated to protecting the civil liberties and
human rights of all persons living within the
boundary of our nation. Founded in 1920, the
ACLU is the largest civil liberties organization in
the country, with offices in all 50 states, Puerto
Rico and Washington, D.C., and more than
500,000 members.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
(ACLU-NM) was founded in 1962 as an affiliate
of the national ACLU. ACLU-NM is dedicated to
protecting the civil rights and legal freedoms
of all New Mexicans that are guaranteed by
the United States Constitution and the Bill of
Rights with particular emphasis on freedom of
religion, speech, press, association, assemblage,
and the right to vote, due process of law and
equal protection of law. ACLU-NM protects and
defends these rights through legal action in the
courts, policy advocacy, and comprehensive
communications and public education programs.
ACLU-NM has two offices: the central office in
Albuquerque and the Regional Center for Border
Rights (RCBR) in Las Cruces. The Regional Center
for Border Rights works in conjunction with
ACLU southwest state affiliates and immigrant
rights advocates to address civil and human
rights violations that stem from border-related
immigration policies. The Regional Center for
Border Rights began operation in June of 2007.

(Endnotes)
1.  ACLU interview with Javed E. (pseudonym), April 2010.
2.  Greene, Judy and Patel, Sunita. (no date). The Immigrant
Gold Rush: The Profit Motive Behind Immigration Detention.
Submitted to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Migrants. Retrieved from: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/viewdocument/44-unsr-profit-motives.html
3.  Otero County initial response letter to the ACLU Request to
Inspect Public Records, May 10, 2010. On file with the author.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

5

BACKGROUND

LEFT: Border fence
between the
United States and
Mexico

“I ran away from my country, from war….I know why I came. If I wanted
war, I would have stayed.”
- Omar B., asylum seeker formerly detained at the Otero County Processing Center1

I

n the years following the events of September
11, 2001, the United States rapidly expanded
its immigration detention and removal
operations, particularly in the U.S.-Mexico Border
region. In FY 2009, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) detained more than 380,000 people
in more than 350 facilities across the country
at a cost of more than $1.77 billion.2 In 1995,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the
branch of the Department of Homeland Security
charged with detention and removal operations,
had bed capacity to detain 7,500 immigrants.3 In
FY 2003, the number of immigration detention
beds available on any given day grew to 19,444
and is now at more than 33,000.4

ICE apprehends and detains individuals on
violations of federal civil immigration law.
These individuals are not serving sentences
for criminal convictions nor awaiting trial in
criminal proceedings. Immigrants in detention
include youths, the elderly, men, women,
families, torture survivors, victims of trafficking
and of other crimes, legal permanent residents,
the developmentally delayed, individuals with
significant health concerns, and other vulnerable
populations. ICE apprehends immigrants for
any number of reasons including: student or
visitor visa overstays, asylum seekers who arrive
at a port of entry, and those who work without
proper authorization. Others are detained and
subjected to deportation based on changes made

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

7

to immigration law in 1996 that, according to
many legal experts, severely limited due process
and expanded the categories of deportable
crimes. For example, a long-time legal permanent
resident can now be subject to deportation for
offenses committed years ago for which he or she
never served jail time. Individuals in ICE custody
are in civil detention, yet the current detention
system reflects an increasingly privatized penal
model rife with problems.
On October 6, 2009, DHS Secretary Janet
Napolitano and ICE Assistant Secretary John
Morton announced a plan to overhaul the
immigration detention system. ICE wrote,
“Recognizing that the purpose of immigration
detention is not punitive and the importance of
providing our detainees with quality care, ICE
is engaged in a broad detention reform effort.”5
A series of immediate reforms and one-year
bench marks were established. A discussion of
progress to date can be found in Findings, Section
V of this report. As part of the reform efforts,
ICE stated its intent to centralize
over facility contracts and
“This facility is control
review existing contracts to make
not a detention decisions about modifications
or terminations. To their credit,
center; it’s a ICE has reduced the number of
facilities from the 350
business.” authorized
in FY 2009 to 270 as of January
2010 and has been actively
– Hafez E., detained
working to reduce that number
at Otero County
further.6 Reform measures do not,
7
however, include a plan to move
Processing Center
away from the privatization of
immigration detention.

Outsourcing Immigration Detention	
Immigrants are detained in a convoluted web
of federal detention facilities, as well as local
and county jails. ICE has increasingly relied on
private contractors, such as Management and
Training Corporation (MTC), GEO Group, Inc.
and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),
to manage their detention facilities. Of the
authorized facilities, only a small percentage are
government owned and operated or dedicated
contract detention facilities owned and operated
by private contractors. The vast majority are
intergovernmental service agreements in which

8

a local government owns the facility and either
operates the facility themselves or contracts
with a private contractor for facility operation.
The exact percentage of ICE detainees held
in facilities managed by private contractors is
unknown, however, an analysis conducted by
the Migration Policy Institute of data obtained
through a Freedom of Information Act Request
by the Associated Press indicated that, on a
snapshot day of January 25, 2009, when ICE was
still utilizing 286 facilities, at least 12 of the 17
facilities that had a daily population of more than
500 detainees were privately operated. These
12 facilities accounted for nearly 50 percent of
the detained population on that date.8 Several
facilities with an average daily population of fewer
than 500 detainees had also been privatized. This
outsourcing of immigration detention to private
industry muddies transparency and dilutes
accountability. Tom Barry, director of the Center
for International Policy TransBorder Project
states, “The complicated character of America’s
new private/public prison complex – which brings
together federal agencies with local governments
and a welter of private contractors and
subcontractors – has led to a lack of clarity about
who is primarily responsible for the humane care
of imprisoned immigrants.”9
Immigration detention represents a new,
profitable market for private corrections
companies. In the 1990s, the private prison
industry faced a decline in revenues. Overspeculation and decreased reliance of local
governments on private industry to house their
prison populations left empty beds.10 Changes
in immigration laws which expanded mandatory
detention, matched with more aggressive
immigration enforcement and an increased
detention budget, created a new demand for ICE
detention space.11 Private industry was poised
and ready to meet this demand. Private prison
expert Michele Deitch is quoted by Copley News
Service saying, “The private prison industry was
on the verge of bankruptcy in the late 1990s, until
the feds bailed them out with the immigrationdetention contracts.”12 In 2001, following the
events of September 11, Steve Logan, then CEO
of the private prison company Cornell Industries,
announced to investors, “I think it’s clear that with
the events of Sept. 11, there’s a heightened focus
on detention, both on the borders and within the
U.S. [and] more people get caught. So that’s a
positive for our business. The federal business is

the best business for us.”13
And they are profiting. Forty percent of CCA’s
$1.7 billion revenue in 2009 was generated by
immigration detention.14 In 2007, GEO Group, Inc.
attributed 27 percent of its revenue to ICE, the U.S.
Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Prisons; for
a total of $1.2 billion.15 Even while ICE leadership
moves to increase alternatives to detention, new
enforcement programs focused on local and
federal law enforcement collaborations—such as
Secure Communities and the 287 (g) program—
promise to keep the immigration detention
industry booming.16
Prison developers now approach local communities
to bid for Intergovernmental Service Agreements
(IGSA) with ICE. Local governments leverage the
costs of private industry by publicly financing
construction through industrial revenue bonds. In
return, prison developers promise to create jobs
in the community and pay a portion of the profit
back to the local government. Otero County, not
unlike many small rural communities throughout
the United States with high unemployment and
a depressed economy, saw prison development
as a much-needed economic opportunity. In the
past, however, these types of agreements have left
communities like Otero County deep in debt while
the private companies profit.17
Otero County issued more than $62 million in
bonds to pay for the construction of the Otero
County Processing Center.18 The county has an
Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA)
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
exclusively house immigrants in ICE custody. The
county, in turn, subcontracts for management and
operation of the facility with Management and
Training Corporation (MTC), a Utah-based private
prison contractor. MTC further subcontracts
for provision of medical services with a private
correctional healthcare company, Physicians
Network Association.

Management and Training Corporation
MTC is perhaps best known for the connection
between MTC Executive Lane McCotter and the
Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq where the Department
of Justice tasked McCotter with reconstructing
Iraq’s prisons.19 He left before reports of

prisoner abuse made international news, but
was responsible for reopening Abu Ghraib and
training the guards.20 McCotter previously gained
notoriety in Utah where he served as Director
of the Utah Department of Corrections. In 1997,
under McCotter’s watch, a mentally ill inmate
died after being strapped naked to a chair for 16
hours by Utah prison staff.21 An article published
in The Nation quotes then ACLU of Utah Director
Carol Gnade, “Lane McCotter’s administration
here had a horrifying record on human rights.”22
MTC has also gained notoriety in New Mexico.
MTC managed the Santa Fe County Adult
Detention Facility (SFCADF) from October 2001
to April 2005 along with subcontractor Physicians
Network Association (PNA), which administered
medical and mental health care services (PNA
ended its contract in 2004).23 In 2002, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) inspected the Santa
Fe County Adult Detention Center. In a scathing
report released three months before MTC
Executive Lane McCotter was sent to re-open Abu
Ghraib, DOJ investigators highlighted a number
of deficiencies in violation of inmate civil rights.
They wrote:
“As described more fully below, we
conclude that certain conditions at
the [Santa Fe County Adult] Detention
Center violate the constitutional rights of
inmates. We find that persons confined
suffer harm or the risk of serious harm
from deficiencies in the facility’s provision
of medical and mental health care,
suicide prevention, protection of inmates
from harm, fire safety, and sanitation.
In addition, the facility fails to provide
inmates sufficient access to the courts to
seek redress for grievances.” 24
As a result of this report, Santa Fe County signed
a memorandum of agreement with the federal
government to improve the facility’s conditions.
Despite the agreement, in 2005, inmates at
SFCADF sued MTC, the Santa Fe County Board
of Commissioners, and other defendants for
conducting illegal strip searches of pre-trial
detainees without reasonable suspicion. The
case resulted in an $8.5 million settlement in
favor of the inmates.25 In June of 2004, inmate
Dickie Ortega was beaten to death by other
inmates after facility staff placed him in a pod
known to be under gang control and after Ortega

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

9

had previously been beaten at the same facility.
The family filed suit in 2006 claiming deliberate
indifference to the protection and security of
Mr. Ortega.26 In 2006, ACLU-NM settled civil
rights claims against MTC (and other named
defendants) over allegations that a jail guard
raped female inmates at the McKinley County Jail
in New Mexico, another MTC-managed facility.27
MTC came under fire again in 2006 after a female
inmate at SFCADF was allegedly raped by male
inmates due to facility negligence and then
subjected to an unwarranted strip search upon
return from the hospital.28

Otero County Processing Center: A Microcosm
of Privatized Detention Facilities
Management and Training Corporation’s poor
track record in New Mexico did not deter the
Otero County Commissioners from signing a
contract with them to manage operations at the
county’s newest detention facility and allowing
them to once again partner with Physicians
Network Association.
The Otero County Processing Center is located in
the unincorporated rural colonia29 of Chaparral in
a remote area of the high desert approximately a
half-hour drive from El Paso, an hour drive from
Las Cruces, New Mexico, and across the street
from the McGregor Range military base. The area
has a high prevalence of poverty, a lack of basic
infrastructure, and a dearth of legal and other
community resources.
In the fall of 2008, immigrants at the detention
center began filing complaints with the ACLUNM Regional Center for Border Rights alleging
due process violations and inhumane conditions.
Beginning in September of 2009, ACLU-NM staff
conducted a series of in-depth interviews with
detained immigrants to better understand the
conditions in which they are held. Despite ICE’s
announcement of detention reform, the ACLU
continued its efforts to assess the daily reality of
immigrants living in a privately operated facility
with complex contractual structures. As ICE
continues to restructure immigration detention,
we hope that the findings and recommendations
of this report will encourage dialogue on the use
of private contractors to manage and operate
ICE facilities and on the effects these contractual

10

structures have on transparency, oversight and
accountability, and ultimately on the civil and
human rights of the immigrants for whom the
agency is responsible.

(Endnotes)
1.  ACLU interview with Omar B. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
2.  Schriro, Dr. Dora. (2009, Oct. 6) Department of Homeland
Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Immigration
Detention Overview and Recommendations. Retrieved from:
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detentionrpt.pdf
3.  Schriro, Dr. Dora. Immigration Detention Overview and
Recommendations.
4.  Detention Watch Network web site. About Detention,
Detention Watch Network. Retrieved from: http://
detentionwatchnetwork.org/aboutdetention and Department of
Homeland Security. Office of the Inspector General: Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Polices and Procedures Related to
Detainee Transfers. OIG-10-13. November 2009. Retrieved from:
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_10-13_Nov09.pdf
5.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Detention and
Policy Reforms. Retrieved from: http://www.ice.gov/detentionreform/
6.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Detention Reform
Accomplishments. Retrieved from: http://www.ice.gov/detentionreform/detention-reform.htm
7.  ACLU interview with Hafez E. (pseudonym), April 2010.
8.  Kerwin, Donald and Lin, Serena. (2009, September 10)
Immigrant Detention: Can ICE Meet Its Legal Imperatives and
Case Management Responsibilities? Migration Policy Institute.
Retrieved from: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/
detentionreportSept1009.pdf
9.  Barry, Tom (2009, February 23). Medical Claims and
Malpractice in Correctional Healthcare. Americas Program Report.
Retrieved from: http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/1651
10.  Berestein, Leslie (2008, May 4). Detention Dollars: Tougher
Immigration Laws Turn the Ailing Private Prison Sector into a
Revenue Maker. San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from: http://
legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080504-9999lz1b4dollars.html
11.  Detention Watch Network, History of Immigration Detention.
Retrieved from: http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/
node/2381
12.  Berestein, Leslie. (2008, May 11). “Private Prison Industry”
Experiences Boom. Copley News Service. Retrieved from: http://
www.infowars.com/private-prison-industry-experiences-boom/
13.  Ali, Sam, Visconti, Luke, and Frankel, Barbara. (2010, October
15). The Prison Industrial Complex: Biased, Predatory and
Growing. Diversity Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.diversityinc.
com/article/8063/The-Prison-Industrial-Complex-Biased-Predatoryand-Growing/

14.  Raghunathan, Suman. (2010, May 27). Private Prison Firm
Exploiting Broken Immigration System. Progressive States Network,
blogpost. Retrieved from: http://www.progressivestates.org/
node/25179
15.  Berestein, Leslie. (2008, May 4). Detention Dollars.
16.  Secure Communities is an ICE initiative intended to focus on
the identification and removal of “high risk criminal aliens” through
technology and information sharing between law enforcement
agencies. The 287(g) program allows for the cross designation of
local law enforcement officers with certain federal immigration
officer authority. For more information on these programs as well
as a discussion of the concerns, go to: www.uncoverthetruth.org
and www.ice.gov.
17.  Reichbach, Matthew. (2009, October 10). Private prison
developer behind Montana fiasco involved in construction of
NM private prisons. The New Mexico Independent. Retrieved
from: http://newmexicoindependent.com/39009/private-prisondeveloper-behind-montana-fiasco-involved-in-construction-ofnm-private-prisons; Elliot, Justin. (2009, October 12). Behind
Montana Jail Fiasco: How Private Prison Developers Prey
on Desperate Towns. TPMuckraker. Retrieved from: http://
tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/behind_hardin_
jail_fiasco_private_prison_salesmen_prey_on_desperate_towns.
php?ref=fpblt; and Greene, Judith. (2001). Bailing Out Private
Jails. The American Prospect (2001, September 9). Retrieved from:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=bailing_out_private_
jails

http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/132/
cases/679/716/management-and-training-corp-martinez_
complaint.pdf
27.  The lawsuit claimed Detention Officer Brian Orr committed
sexual abuse and cruel and unusual punishment and that the
jail’s acting warden, the McKinley County commissioners and
Management and Training Corporation, were negligent for failing
to properly train and supervise Orr. In a January 2007 criminal
trial, Orr was found not guilty of sexual abuse; ACLU of NM (2006,
January 25). Press Release: ACLU of New Mexico Files Lawsuit
Over Jail Guard’s Sexual Abuse of Female Prisoners. Retrieved
from: http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/132/
cases/678/715/management-and-training-corp-sexual-assault_
pr.pdf
28.  Sanchez v. Management and Training Corp., et al. Case
1:06-cv-00912-BRB-RHS, Case complaint, retrieved from:
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/132/
cases/680/717/management-and-training-corp-sachez_complaint.
pdf
29.  A colonia has been defined by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development as an unincorporated community
within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border characterized by
lack of infrastructure such as potable water, adequate sewage
systems, and safe housing. Source: Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Community Development Block Grants
– Colonias, retrieved from: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/
communitydevelopment/programs/colonias/cdbgcolonias.cfm

18.  Gibel, Bryan. (2008, March 17). Immigration advocates say
prison expansion will only compound problems. Santa Fe New
Mexican. Retrieved from: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/
Local%20News/otero-county-More-detainees--more-complaints
19.  Frosch, Dan. (2004, May 12). Exporting America’s Prison
Problems. The Nation. Retrieved from: http://www.thenation.com/
article/exporting-americas-prison-problems
20.  In 2003, American soldiers and intelligence officers were
accused of “systematic and illegal abuse of detainees” at the Abu
Ghraib facility in Iraq, including beating detainees, threatening
detainees with rape, and sodomizing a detainee with objects.
Source: Hersh, Seymour M. (2004, May 10). Torture at Abu Ghraib.
The New Yorker. Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/
archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact; Butterfield, Fox.(2004, May
8). Mistreatment of Prisoners is Called Routine in U.S. New York
Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/
national/08PRIS.html
21.  Hersh. Torture at Abu Ghraib; Butterfield. Mistreatment of
Prisoners.
22.  Frosch. Exporting America’s Prison Problems.
23.  Physicians Network Association. About PNA. Retrieved from:
http://www.pnamedical.net/about.php
24.  Department of Justice, Letter to Mr. Jack Sullivan, Santa Fe
County Commission Chairman (2003, March 6) regarding the Santa
Fe County Adult Detention Center.
25.  Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg &
Bienvenu LLP. (2006, July 6). Press Release: Settlement Reached
in Santa FE County Strip Search Class Actions. Leyba, et al. v.
Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners, et al. Retrieved from:
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/132/
cases/674/709/management-and-training-corp-strip-search_pr.pdf
26.  Martinez v. Management and Training Corp., et al.
Case 2:06-cv-00567-RB-ACT Case Complaint. Retrieved from:

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

11

FINDINGS

14

ACCESS TO
JUSTICE

I

PHOTO: CLYDE ROBINSON

“In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S. Ct. 1428 (1967), When the government,
with plenary power to exclude, agrees to allow an alien lawful residence, it is
unconscionable for the government to unilaterally terminate that agreement without
affording an indigent resident alien assistance of appointed counsel. Expulsion is such
a lasting punishment that meaningful due process can require no less.”
- Joseph Q. (pseudonym) in a letter to ACLU1
Detainee Transfers Inhibit Access to Justice
In recent years, ICE has increased the practice
of transferring immigrants to a detention facility
far away from the location of arrest. Between
1999 and 2008, ICE carried out 1.4 million
detainee transfers.2 The effects of transfer
on an individual’s access to justice as well as
emotional health can be devastating. The Otero
County Processing Center (Otero) receives a large
number of detainees from around the United
States. The first detainees to arrive at Otero in
June 2008 were previously detained at the Mira
Loma Detention Facility in Lancaster, California.

Shortly thereafter, a group of individuals from a
Cambodian community in Lowell, Massachusetts,
arrived following their arrest by ICE.
Otero continues to receive immigrants from
geographically far-flung places such as New
York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, and
Southern California. Currently, the largest number
of transferred detainees originates from the Los
Angeles area. ICE policy requires consideration of
a specific set of criteria when deciding whether
or not to transfer an individual. These criteria
include individuals’ existing legal representation,
special medical needs, and security.3 Despite the

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

15

fact that the standards specify, “the determining
factor in deciding whether or not to transfer a
detainee is whether the transfer is required for
operational needs, for example, to eliminate
overcrowding,” or “to meet the specialized needs
of the detainee,”4 immigrants transferred to
Otero stated that their transfers were inconsistent
with ICE policy. For example, some immigrants
reported that they had attorneys and scheduled
court hearings at their previous locations. Others
were told they were being transferred for medical
reasons, only to find that Otero could not meet
their medical needs. All but one of the 42
detained immigrants who participated in an indepth interview with the ACLU were transferred
to Otero from the east and west coasts.
Human Rights Watch published a report entitled,
Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants
to Remote Detention Centers in the United States,
which highlights the negative effects of transfer
on individuals. This report, in conjunction with
non-governmental organization consultation
with ICE, led to a commitment by ICE to work
towards reducing the number of transfers and
revising policy guidance on transfers.5 The ACLUNM Regional Center for Border Rights looks
forward to the anticipated changes in policy and
practice that will reduce the concerns raised in
the following findings.

Transfer Impedes Access to Counsel
Individuals in immigration proceedings have
the right to an attorney but are not provided an
attorney at the cost of the U.S. government. For
many immigrants, it is difficult or impossible to
hire a private attorney. Many must rely on nonprofit service providers for representation or
assistance in finding a private attorney who will
take their case at no cost. Immigrants at Otero
face additional barriers to seeking representation.
The facility is remote, and although it is located
in the state of New Mexico, immigrants in Otero
are either taken to court in El Paso, Texas, or have
hearings via video conferencing. There is not a
single low-cost or free legal service agency with
the capacity to provide individual representation
to detainees at Otero.
The Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services
(DMRS), an El Paso based non-profit legal service

16

provider, participates in the Legal Orientation
Program (LOP) and provides presentations at the
facility four days a week. The LOP was developed
to inform immigrants in detention about their
rights, the immigration court process, and
detention.6 This program results in increased
court efficiency and provides effective pro se
information to detainees, but it cannot replace
individual representation. The Removal Defense
Unit of DMRS cannot provide free individual
representation for Otero detainees because
funding sources limit work for residents of Texas.
Las Americas, the only non-profit legal service
agency providing assistance for asylum seekers
in the area, also lacks the capacity to take cases
from Otero. Immigrants who scrape up enough
money to hire private counsel find that very few
local attorneys are willing to represent them.
Many attorneys in the region do not want to travel
to Otero. Others turn down cases due to high
interpretation costs for languages not common
to the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Immigrants transferred to Otero from urban
centers like Los Angeles find options for legal
assistance drastically diminished. Some endeavor
to find a lawyer in the location of their arrest
in the hope of having their case moved back to
that area. However, attempts to change the court
venue are largely unsuccessful. Immigrants are
then faced with the high cost of paying travel
expenses and telephone charges if they retain
out-of-state attorneys. Otero currently does not
allow free telephonic legal appointments, forcing
detained immigrants to use expensive phone
cards to contact their attorney on a public pay
phone. Communication difficulties often result
in termination of the attorney-client relationship.
Transfer can also prolong immigrants’ detention
by interrupting court proceedings and access
to witnesses, paperwork, and other important
evidence.
•• Raul was transferred six times prior to arriving
at Otero. After being moved between several
facilities in California, he thought he would
stay at the Mira Loma Detention Center in
Lancaster, so he sought legal representation
after a month’s detention there. Even though
he had an attorney and a court hearing
in seven days, ICE transferred Raul to the
Otero County Processing Center. His court
hearing was delayed nearly two months. At
the time of our interview, six days before his

rescheduled court hearing, Raul had not yet
been able to communicate with his attorney
or his family.7

Changes in Court Jurisdiction Threaten
Equal Treatment
There are 12 federal circuit courts of appeals
throughout the United States. Interpretation of
immigration law varies greatly between the circuit
courts and can mean the difference between
a favorable outcome and deportation. Human
Rights Watch explains:
This is a very important issue for noncitizens facing deportation, because
if their convictions are considered
“aggravated felonies” under immigration
law, they will be placed into summary
deportation procedures. In these
summary procedures, a non-citizen
cannot ask a judge to consider canceling
the deportation even if he can show that
his crime was relatively minor or his
connections to the United States (such
as family relationships) are strong. If a
detainee is transferred to the jurisdiction
of a court that considers his criminal
conviction (for which he has already
served his criminal punishment) an
aggravated felony, there is little he can
do to defend against his banishment from
the United States.8
The Otero County Processing Center is physically
located in the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit
Federal Court of Appeals. However, immigrants
detained at Otero are subject to interpretation
and application of the law under the Fifth Circuit
Federal Court of Appeals because the nearest
immigration court is located in El Paso, Texas.
According to many legal advocates, existing case
law in the Fifth Circuit is adverse towards noncitizens. For the many immigrants transferred from
jurisdictions with more favorable interpretations
of the law, this can be devastating.
•• Gustavo was a legal permanent resident
for more than 35 years. He is married to a
United States citizen and has U.S. citizen
children. In a letter to the ACLU he wrote, “…
one misdemeanor …and one violation of the

moral and health code in [my state of origin]
adds to an aggravated felony on Federal
Immigration law in the state of Texas, and
order me deported for life, regardless I’ve
been with LPR status for [the] last 35 years,
and have no state felonies convictions, and
have no convictions in the state of Texas, have
an American wife, have American children
still living with us at home, regardless, I
have always worked and pay taxes, and
never received public assistance…” Gustavo
reported that he paid a small fine and never
served jail time for his offense.9
•• Brian was a legal permanent resident married
to a United States citizen and the father of
two children. He was in immigration custody
for more than a year. Brian believed his
case was jeopardized by his transfer from
California to New Mexico. “In Los Angeles,
I (and others) was told that we were being
transferred to New Mexico in Chaparral, NM,
because there was no bed space in California.
I do not believe that that was true. After
arriving to Chaparral, NM, I encountered
detainees who had already been housed
in Lancaster, California, for months before
being transferred. If it was an issue of space,
new detainees would have been transferred.
I believe only certain detainees were
transferred because their conviction would
make them removable in the 5th District…..
In the 9th District where I reside I would not
be removable or detainable. For the same
conviction, in the 5th District I am considered
both. Although they are different districts,
they are nonetheless Federal Districts. In my
opinion, I believe there is a basis for a claim
of violation of the ‘equal protection’ clause,
since those individuals, myself included, with
the same conviction are treated differently in
different districts.”10

Isolation Causes Immigrants to Abandon Cases
Many individuals expressed that separation
from family, friends, and other support systems
was detrimental to their emotional health and
affected decisions about whether or not to keep
fighting their cases. It is financially unfeasible for
most family members to travel to visit their loved
one or to appear as witnesses for court hearings.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

17

At Otero it is particularly difficult because the
facility is not in close proximity to the airport.
In addition to flight, hotel, and food costs, a car
rental is necessary.
•• James came to the United States as a visitor
from Europe in 1985. He worked at a café in
Los Angeles frequented by movie stars and
other famous people and was a well-known
and loved character at the café. ICE took
him into custody for overstaying his visa. He
was transferred from Los Angeles to Santa
Ana, California, and then to New Mexico. He

“We cannot help but think that the reason they
brought us over here was to break us down…I feel
disconnected from everything. I feel completely
isolated. I am tired from my hands to my feet.”
– Javier M., transferred from California to New Mexico11

“I don’t know why they brought me here. What I
think, I think they brought us here because they
know it’s difficult. They send us here so we can
be deported.”
– Chiumbo M., a detained asylum seeker transferred to New
Mexico12

stated, “They drag me from home, bring me
out here. I have to hire a local lawyer. Crimes
are treated differently. A misdemeanor in
California is now judged under the Fifth
Circuit as felonies.” James experienced health
problems at the facility including coughing up
blood and exacerbation of his depression.
“I feel depressed, homesick and deterred. I
have to call home collect and it’s expensive.
People stop answering.” James asked to be
deported because he did not want to spend
another day in detention. “They should
expedite it quick instead of treating me like a
package or a piece of inventory to take space
and make money.” Six months later he was
returned to his country of origin.13
Detainees are responsible for informing their
loved ones of their new location. However,
the transfer process can happen very quickly.

18

Detainees are often not given the opportunity
to contact family prior to their transfer and do
not have access to a phone until after arrival
and completion of processing in the new facility.
Families often do not know where their loved one
is for days or if they are safe and well.
•• On the day that he was to be released from
prison in Florida, Dominic was taken into
ICE custody and transferred to New Mexico.
“My family thought I was coming home. I
thought I had to go to immigration for about
a week or so. I didn’t know it would be this
long.” Dominic was in immigration custody
for more than two years with a claim to U.S.
citizenship.14
When asked if there was one recommendation
that could be made to ICE or congressional
representatives, a daughter of a detainee at Otero
responded, “If there is anything they could do to
make the process simpler. If someone is picked
up they should be tried in their own state. He was
transferred so many times and it would be better
if they would tell us. The process is a strain.”15
On July 23, 2010, ICE launched an Online
Detainee Locator System. The system is a publicly
accessible internet-based tool to assist families,
attorneys, and other interested parties in locating
immigrants who are or recently have been in
ICE custody.16 Some improvements are needed,
but this is a welcome step towards alleviating
concerns for people previously unable to find a
loved one lost in the system.

Conditions During Transfer Raise
Safety Concerns
Immigrants taken into custody by ICE are often
confused, frightened, and uncertain about what
is happening. Most are given little notice before
they are transferred to a new location. Others
are released from a local jail or federal prison
expecting to be with their families, only to find
ICE officers waiting for them. Still others are
completely surprised by the circumstances of
their arrest. Several people reported that their
initial anxiety was exacerbated by inhumane
conditions during transport.
•• Rangsei was an infant when his family came
to the United States as refugees. Like many

Cambodian families, his family resettled in
Massachusetts. As a young adult, he was
convicted of a misdemeanor but never served
jail time. Years later, Rangsei had a good job,
owned his car and home, and provided for
his wife and children. One evening as he ate
dinner with his family, there was a knock at
the door. A uniformed officer asked Rangsei
to step outside to ask him a few questions
about an accident that occurred in the
neighborhood. He agreed. When he stepped
outside, the policeman immediately placed
handcuffs on his wrists as local police and
immigration officers surrounded his home.
They first took him to the local police station
where ICE took custody and moved him
and several others to a number of different
detention facilities until finally they relocated
him to the Otero County Processing Center.
Throughout this journey, Rangsei wore
handcuffs on his wrists, a chain around his
waist and shackles on his feet, and at no point
was permitted to contact his family. Rangsei
later learned that he and several others from
the community were apprehended under the
auspices of Operation Community Shield, a
program leveraging collaboration between
local, state, and federal law enforcement
agencies to break up transnational gangs.
Rangsei claimed that he was not and had
never been involved with a gang. He spent
several months in detention fighting his case
and missed the birth of his child.17
Individuals transported by bus or plane from
one facility to another were shackled and
handcuffed. People were terrified that they
would die in the event of an accident because
of the restraints. Another common concern was
inadequate nutrition during long travel days. A
person brought from Connecticut to New Mexico
reported that the bathroom facilities on the
bus were not working so no one could use the
bathroom for more than three and half hours.
Several people stated that the handcuffs made it
impossible to use the bathroom at all.
•• Miguel was living in Massachusetts when ICE
arrested him. He met with his immigration
attorney, but two hours later he was told to
pack up his things. He was not told where he
was going. “I was told I would come back to
[Massachusetts], but at 4 or 5 in the morning,
we were put on buses for York, Pennsylvania.

We arrived at 6 or 7 at night and were shackled
the entire time. For the bus ride between
[Masschusetts] and York we were shackled
for more than 9 hours. We were fed peanut
butter and jelly the whole way, nothing else,
just water.” 18

Physical and Mental Health are Compromised
During Transfer
The 2008 Performance Based National Detention
Standards instruct the sending facility’s medical
staff to prepare a “Transfer Summary” for the
immigrant. Part of the summary should include
instructions for medications or other medically
relevant information necessary while en route to
the receiving facility.19
Despite this standard, detained immigrants
report gaps in medical and mental health care as
they are shifted from facility to facility. Several
individuals were subject to traumatic experiences
during transfer because of their inability to obtain
necessary medications or accommodations for
medical issues. Of the 42 detained immigrants
with whom structured interviews were conducted,
15 were taking prescription medications prior to
their transfer and all 15 reported interruptions
in medication during transfer. Overall, detainees
reported that they did not receive medication
for chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood
pressure, and HIV. Detained immigrants also
reported disruptions in important mental health
medication.
•• Javier H. is an older immigrant diagnosed
with bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia.
He stated that during the transfer from
California to New Mexico he did not receive
his medications. Javier was taking three
medications to control his symptoms. He
reported that because he went an entire week
without medication, he could only remember
that he was moved frequently on a series of
buses and a plane. When asked about how
his lack of medication affected him, Javier
responded that “many bad things happened.”
The experience was so traumatizing that
Javier did not want to talk about the details
of what occurred.20

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

19

•• Gustavo spent one night at Varick Street
facility in New York (now closed) en route to
New Mexico by way of York, Pennsylvania.
At Varick he shared a holding room with
several individuals scheduled to transfer
with him. Among them was a man with a
stomach tube that was very ill. The man’s
requests for treatment were ignored. The
man then fell over. The other immigrants in
the holding room began furiously knocking
on the window to get help for the ill person.
The officers looked in but did not respond.
The man subsequently was not transferred
with Gustavo. Gustavo didn’t know what
happened or if the man ever received help.21
•• Christoffer, 45, was reportedly arrested
for overstaying his Visitor’s Visa. Lacking
insurance, he managed his chronic back pain
by taking care not to remain in the same
position for too long and shifting his weight
as necessary. Christoffer’s pain became
excruciating at Otero. He attributed this to
the plane ride from California to El Paso en
route to Otero in which he was shackled
and not allowed to move. He had requested
to be moved to a seat where he could shift
weight from the area of pain. He was told by
a correctional officer, “Shut up or I’ll put a
dirty sock in your mouth.”22

Mandatory Detention and Due
Process Violations
ICE claims that on average a non-citizen remains
in custody for 30 days.23 At Otero the average
length of stay in the first contract year, July 2008
through June 2009, was 36 days, but from July
2009 through May of 2009 this number jumped
to 69 days.24 However, the average length of
stay varies greatly between individuals. Noncitizens fighting their cases before an immigration
judge can spend a significant amount of time in
detention. Those who lose their cases and appeal,
particularly if they are mandatorily detained, will
spend an even longer time in detention. As of
the writing of this report, the 42 individuals with
whom ACLU-NM conducted structured interviews
stayed an average of 11.5 months in Otero.
Among these 42 individuals, the shortest length
of stay was two months and the longest was 43
months. Sixteen of those interviewed were still

20

in custody at the time of writing, including one
individual who has been detained for more than
3½ years and another for more than 2 years.
Many of these people held legal permanent
residency but were subject to mandatory
detention for minor offenses committed years
ago. Many never served jail time for these
offenses. In 1996, Congress greatly expanded
the categories for which an immigrant would be
subject to mandatory detention while undergoing
immigration proceedings, including non-violent
misdemeanor convictions.25 With few exceptions
based on decisions in a few federal circuits,
mandatorily detained immigrants do not have
the opportunity to ask a judge to be released on
bond, or to request that ICE consider other criteria
such as length of time since the offense, family
hardship, or serious medical conditions to make
a determination about whether or not detention
is necessary. This denial of an individual custody
review and the ability to have each case reviewed
on its individual merits impairs due process.
•	 At the age of seven, Ishmael came to
the United States as a legal permanent
resident. Despite living in the U.S.
legally for more than 24 years, he was
subject to mandatory detention for a
credit card fraud charge. He had no prior
engagement with law enforcement.
ICE detained Ishmael for years as he
fought deportation. Ishmael’s physical
and emotional health deteriorated
rapidly during his detention at Otero. He
developed high blood pressure, began
taking medication for depression, and
his teeth started to fall out. The strain
on his family exacerbated his emotional
deterioration. He explained: “This has
taken a toll on my mother’s health. She
is distraught; worried about being a
witness, that something she will say will
cause me to stay longer. She thinks that I
did something big. She keeps asking me to
tell her the truth. She thinks I was denied
bond because of some big crime.”24
Immigration courts are overwhelmed with
high caseloads and limited resources. Court
hearings are often calendared months apart
to accommodate the large number of cases.
However, in some circumstances, delays in
immigration court proceedings are avoidable.

Several detained immigrants reported that the
government’s attorney arrived unprepared for
court and the judge postponed the hearing.
Detained immigrants also report that courts
sometimes lose important documents.
•• Guillermo, 28, a legal permanent resident,
appeared in court several times over the
course of seven months. At his final hearing,
the court was to decide whether to permit
him to remain in the United States or order
his deportation to the country he left when
he was a child. He arrived in court and
the Immigration Judge announced that
Guillermo’s paperwork had been lost and
would need to be re-submitted. Guillermo
struggled to recover important documents
allegedly thrown out by correctional officers
during a dormitory search. Two weeks later he
appeared in court and again the hearing was
delayed, this time because the government
was not prepared. He was forced to remain in
detention several more months waiting for a
final hearing. 27
•• Chiumbo, an asylum seeker, endured more
than two years of immigration detention.
After an immigration judge ordered his
removal, Chiumbo successfully appealed the
ruling and the case was remanded back to the
judge to be heard again. The court subjected
Chiumbo to delay after delay, claiming that
they were not ready to hear his case. He
remained in detention for the nine months it
took the court to reexamine his case. He then
faced several more months of detention after
submitting a second appeal. Chiumbo stated
that his prolonged detention negatively
affected his relationship with his wife and
children, whom he had not seen during the
entire duration of his detention.28

Changes in Parole Policy Improve for
Asylum Seekers
On January 5, 2010, new ICE guidance concerning
parole of arriving asylum seekers went into
effect.29 Previously, all “arriving aliens,” including
asylum seekers who expressed fear of persecution
upon return to their home countries at a port
of entry to the United States, were mandatorily
taken into detention and held throughout the

duration of their immigration proceedings. Under
the new policy, asylum seekers who are found to
have “credible fear” by asylum officers are eligible
for parole. Although certain adjustments need
to be made in implementation, several eligible
individuals at the Otero County Processing Center
have already been paroled and released to family,
friends, or other community supports.

Immigrants with Final Removal Orders Remain
in Detention for Prolonged Periods
In 2001, in the case of Zadvydas v. Davis, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that two immigrants, who
had been ordered deported, retained a liberty
interest strong enough to raise due process
challenges concerning their indefinite—and
possibly permanent—detention resulting from the
government’s inability to carry out the deportation
order. The Zadvydas ruling stated, “Once removal
is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued
detention is no longer authorized.”30 The Court
determined that six months from the final order of
removal was a presumptively reasonable period of
detention, after which an immigrant may file a Writ
of Habeas Corpus in federal court seeking review of
his/her detention.
To ensure compliance with Zadvydas, ICE
developed a post-order custody review process
which requires that, in the failure to obtain travel
documents within 90 days of an individual’s final
order of removal, a custody review must be
conducted.31 During this review, the reviewing
officer evaluates certain criteria to determine
whether the individual will remain in detention
or whether he or she will be released on an order
of supervision. Such criteria include the likelihood
that travel documents will be procured in the
near future, flight risk, and whether the individual
poses a significant threat to community safety. If
ICE determines to continue custody, they must
conduct another review prior to reaching 180
days of custody past the order of removal. If
ICE fails to remove a detained immigrant within
the 180-day period, barring rare exceptions, the
individual has a right to file habeas.
ACLU-NM began providing assistance to
individuals who remained detained at the Otero
County Processing Center past their order
of removal shortly after the facility became

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

21

operational in June of 2008. At that time, there
were several individuals who remained in ICE
custody well beyond the statutory period allowed
by Zadvydas.
•• By the time ACLU-NM filed a Writ of Habeas
Corpus challenging his detention, Tashi
(pseudonym) had already been in detention
six months beyond the presumptive sixmonth removal period, a full year past the
date he was ordered removed. ICE attempted
to send Tashi, a Tibetan national, to China, a
country where he had never been and would
surely face persecution. Four days after the
Habeas was filed, Tashi was released from
detention and allowed to return to his family.

While Zadvydas allows the government a sixmonth presumptive removal period, ICE does
have the discretion to release individuals who are
not removable in the foreseeable future as soon
as this becomes apparent. For example, some
non-citizens come from countries that do not
have diplomatic relations with the United States
(e.g., Cuba, Somalia), have limited repatriation
agreements (Vietnamese nationals who entered
the U.S. prior to July 1995, Cambodia), or have
recently suffered natural disasters where DHS
has decided to temporarily suspend repatriation
(e.g., Haiti). Most individuals who fall into these
categories are held at least for the initial 90day removal period and several have received

r

J

,.:SOI\.-{.t () 0~::> d.-~\-C"\ v\ ~ .e.S . \\0-",e.. 6-e. e. \~ -I- lu.. uJ3 "-, 0. \0
he.. seJ 00(" Y\R-X~ C.C~~\:- d.o..\..<-S A. de ~ '(\J\.O\,\~S \CA+~C, Th.-ej '-" ~'i\-e. do -e.:s n c> ~ c.o..,~ 1}\0 D\..)~ 0<.) ("" 7'
Pi C--QL, "'-s, h...... deVI. \ e.:
Q096
00~ qU~/~'~lCL\tio~1S.IL.C"c (A\-L cJo+ c~' . AeJ~\\'\e-6 wh
\'\O\l/.e... ~;.e.e.n O\J«'\"""~ dep~\<..~
5" c\.L'AcJ- G iU0Vl}l1'S: OfjD J CU1~..r

or

UI). ;,.

~s-\- i \,\ b<.:.v:"\ ~ e. ~"'-~~J uJ~v.., -; C;'\\ \- \=~ '-~":':'~

'\,., ~;:_ ~

hcY'A-C

J~-e

- Letter to the ACLU from Miguel R. (pseudonym)

•• Yaozu (pseudonym) is a monolingual
Mandarin-speaking native of China. Despite
spending 11 months in detention after his final
removal order, the government continued
to detain Yaozu and fight his habeas claim
for months even though as his length of
detention increased, the foreseeability of his
removal decreased. With continued pressure
from the ACLU, ICE eventually released Yaozu.
ACLU-NM continues to encounter individuals who
are unlikely to be removed in the foreseeable
future but remain in detention. Recently, the
number of individuals held past the six-month
statutory limitation at Otero has been greatly
reduced, and the process appears to be more
streamlined. However, ACLU-NM presents
recommendations at the end of this report for
improving the process further.

22

decisions to continue custody, even though ICE
itself recognizes that the individual cannot be
removed. In one case, ICE admitted in the written
decision to continue custody of a Cuban national
that removal was not likely. Given that Zadvydas
also held that immigration detention was for the
sole purpose of effectuating removal and any
other purpose is unconstitutional,32 continuing
to detain those whose removal will not be
effectuated, in most instances, is a violation of
constitutional rights.

Immigration Court Proceedings Limit
Due Process
Until recently, Otero staff drove detained
immigrants to the courtrooms at the El Paso
Processing Center for their immigration court

appearances.
There are four immigration
judges in the El Paso immigration courts, one of
whom is assigned the majority of the cases for
individuals detained at Otero. Otero now has
video conferencing capabilities for immigration
court. According to legal advocates, the primary
immigration judge for Otero sits in a courtroom
in El Paso while the immigrant sits in a courtroom
at the Otero facility in front of a television screen.
Non-citizens assigned to the other immigration
judges continue to be transported to El Paso for
in-person court appearances.
Texas Appleseed,33 a network of public interest law
centers working to promote social and economic
justice, recently published a report that highlights
the disadvantages of video conferencing.34
Attorneys must choose between being present
with their client or being present in the courtroom
with the judge and government counsel. If the
attorney chooses to be in the courtroom, private
attorney-client communication is rendered
impossible. Individuals appearing on their own
behalf are unable to present additional evidence
or paperwork in the court. Pro se petitioners
have limited opportunity to make the multiple
copies of necessary court documents and then
must rely on the mail room at the detention
facility to send documents on time. They are not
able to review the evidence presented by the
government’s attorney in the courtroom, though
the government attorney has the advantage of
reviewing information provided by the detained
immigrant.
Technical difficulties arise with videoconferencing.
The first participants in video conferencing at
Otero reported interruptions in transmission
during their hearings. One of these initial
participants reported, “At the last court there was
a bad signal and they had to keep calling back to
the court in El Paso.” Video transmission obscures
the emotions and reactions of the immigrant,
which is particularly detrimental in the final
decision-making hearings of asylum seekers. In a
report entitled, Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint
to Reform America’s Immigration Courts, Texas
Appleseed writes: “The judge cannot read the
person’s body language or demeanor, which can
provide the richest information as to whether the
immigrant is lying or telling the truth. Even more
importantly, videoconferencing dehumanizes the
immigrants.” The report goes on to quote the
Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of

Rusu v. INS, “Virtual reality is rarely a substitute
for actual presence and …even in an age of
advancing technology, watching an event on the
screen remains less than the complete equivalent
of actually attending it.” 35
Poor translation also leads to damaging
outcomes. This is particularly true for asylum
seekers whose entire case rests on the
credibility of their statements. Contradictions
to those statements at a later point in the court
proceedings can be misinterpreted. ACLU-NM
met with individuals who reported that they did
not receive interpretation services at immigration
hearings, including a Somali asylum seeker and
an immigrant from Costa Rica.
•	 Khalid fled civil war in his home country,
embarking on a journey to the United States
that would last months. He approached
immigration officials at the U.S.-Mexico
border, stating that he was seeking asylum.
Khalid explains that he had seen television
programs of the United States from home
and knew only criminals to be placed in
handcuffs in jails. He held up his wrists and
mimed handcuffs, “I was unaware. They
jailed me.” ICE detained Khalid in New
Mexico where an asylum officer found him
to have credible fear. Khalid described the
challenges of finding legal assistance, “The
problem is Otero,” he states, “No one will
come help us. A refugee is a person who fled
his country to flee fighting. No one will help
us.” In court, Khalid was exasperated because
the immigration judge did not believe that
his tribe was a minority tribe, subject to
persecution by the larger tribes in his country.
His attorney reportedly said nothing in court,
even when directly addressed by the judge.
“I did not understand the role of an attorney
when I came here. My friends told me that
the lawyer is there to defend me. She did
not. She charged $2,500 up front.” Khalid
ultimately lost his asylum case because he was
not able to produce the evidence required by
the judge. The judge asked for video footage
of the incidents described by Khalid, as well
as a birth certificate or passport. “I was not a
reporter. I was not working for agencies. I did
not have this information. I cried as I spoke to
him.” Khalid spent more than nine months in
detention. He did not appeal his case stating,
“If God has written me for asylum I will get

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

23

it. Everything is by the condition of Allah.” He
was later released on order of supervision
because his country does not have diplomatic
relations with the United States. 36

Access to Legal Materials is Limited
Immigrants detained at the Otero County
Processing Center expressed frustration with
the inadequacy of the facility’s law library. In
total, 28 of the 42 people who completed an indepth interview with ACLU specifically spoke of
the inadequacies. Only two people stated that
the library helped them build their immigration
case. Individuals report that the library lacks
materials in languages other than English, has no

wait an entire rotation to look up information
for his case or type his application.37
•	 “We don’t have a law library,” explained
Abukar, an asylum seeker, “There are only
books from the 1960s and 1970s. Many times
we have asked ICE for information regarding
country reports to assist with asylum cases
but cannot get this information.”38
•	 Gustavo received a Notice to Appear, a
charging document for appearing before the
immigration court needed to prepare for
his case. “I was told to go to the ‘so-called
[law] library’” he stated, “It was my biggest
disappointment.” He asked the officer in the
library for assistance navigating the program

~o, '-\-\\e. de...\-(A\.V\e.e...s. \AJ\I.D_/G\.,e- de.-C<.y\d, '(\C\ ~\.~~,-\"S<JL!e.s./ J-~ Io..w
Ji b\G\'5 \S ~~ ~",l c\o~s~.\- ~,()~\.Ae... ~~c\c.\~\'\~ !C\Uj ,eloJed
iW,-I-e.c-\(},.\S. / JU'j ?ul. 0-. cl-<-~o..·,,,,-... z L0M u.-'Jo..S ',0\ 1\.A'j cb"'lv-I\\ ~l
'S WlJ" C;C(' s\ .~~\~ e.Xp{o..\ (\iYl.~.J.o Cl {/O fl.c..-I- k IV-e.d..ed 10 use.J L Ii 6\o.n~ to J,G ,'SO\'\..JJl... '/\A.C0<- ~.e.~ec,-,(J, 01.\vo\.) I.:- \-,,; <; co..'3e..
'-

.•

,...

; •

\;

....,..- '" _

/ -r- _ r_

- Letter to the ACLU from Miguel R. (pseudonym)

legal books, and only limited software and access
to resources on the four computers. During the
time ACLU-NM conducted these interviews, for
example, the Lexis Nexis program to access legal
resources on the computer remained down for
more than a month.
•	 Abel explained that only five people are
allowed to go to the library at a time. If all 50
people in the pod needed to use the library,
he would have to wait his turn in the rotation
once every 10 days. Abel explained that
this could cause a person to miss important
court filing deadlines. People were forced
to bargain with one another if they had an
approaching deadline and needed a closer
time slot. Abel further explained that even if a
person gained access to the library, they were
not guaranteed a computer and could have to

24

on the computer. The officer allegedly did
not know how to use the program. Gustavo
couldn’t find any legal books in the library,
and found that available books were old
“from the 1940s, 50s, 60s.” Gustavo stated
that there were no immigration or criminal
legal books and that Lexis Nexis was restricted
and difficult to use for people unfamiliar with
the system. “I couldn’t get legal access at a
crucial time.”39
Time limits, as well as access restrictions, encumber
immigrants’ efforts to prepare their cases.
Immigrants reported that information cannot be
saved on the computers; therefore, if a person
cannot finish his work or access the printer, the
work is lost. Individuals need several copies of their
application packets for court and are dependent on
the library to obtain these copies in a timely manner.

Many immigrants are not familiar with the U.S.
courts and are forced to navigate this complex
system in a language other than their native
tongue. All of this must be accomplished without
the assistance of an attorney. When access to
the law library and legal materials is limited,
individuals potentially face a deprivation of due
process and access to justice.

18.  ACLU interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
19.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2008 Performance
Based National Detention Standards. Part 7, Standard 41, Transfer
of Detainees. Retrieved from: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/
detention-standards/pdf/transfer_of_detainees.pdf
20.  ACLU interview with Javier H. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
21.  ACLU interview with Gustavo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
22.  ACLU interview with Christoffer K.(pseudonym) April 2010.
23.  Schriro. Immigration Detention Overview and
Recommendations.

(Endnotes)
1.  ACLU correspondence with Joseph Q. (Pseudonym), July 2009.
2.  Human Rights Watch (December 2009). Locked Up Far Away:
The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Centers in the
United States. Retrieved from: http://www.hrw.org/node/86789
3.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2008 Performance
Based National Detention Standards, Part 7 Administration and
Management, 41 Transfer of Detainees. Retrieved from: http://
www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008/
4.  ICE. 2008 Performance Based National Detention Standards,
Part 7.
5.  Letter from Phyllis Coven, Acting Director for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention Policy and Planning
to Alison Parker, Deputy Director, U.S. Program of Human Rights
Watch. (2010, February 22). Retrieved from the Human Rights
Watch website: http://www.hrw.org/node/89408
6.  Vera Institute of Justice, Projects: Legal Orientation Program.
Retrieved from: http://www.vera.org/project/legal-orientationprogram
7.  ACLU interview with Raul X. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
8.  Human Rights Watch. Locked Up Far Away.
9.  ACLU correspondence with Gustavo F. (pseudonym) Jan. 2010.
10.  ACLU correspondence with Brian S. (pseudonym), May 2010.
11.  ACLU interview with Javier M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
12.  ACLU interview with Chiumbo M. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
13.  ACLU interview with James B. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.
14.  ACLU interview with Dominic A. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.
15.  ACLU telephonic communication with Sarah F. (pseudonym)
April 2010.

24.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement Contract Performance
Monitoring Instrument, Contract Years July 2008 through June
2009 and July 2009 through June 2010. Obtained through the
Freedom of Information Act, on file with author.
25.  American Civil Liberties Union. (July 2009). Issue Brief:
Prolonged Immigration Detention of Individuals Who are
Challenging Removal. Retrieved from: http://www.aclu.org/files/
images/asset_upload_file766_40474.pdf
26.  ACLU interviews with Ishmael M. (pseudonym) from Dec.
2008 to Sept. 2010.
27.  ACLU interview with Guillermo M. (pseudonym), March 2010.
28.  ACLU interviews with Chiumbo M. (pseudonym) Jan. 2010 to
Sept. 2010.
29.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Directive No:
11002.1 Parole of Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of
Persecution or Torture. Effective Date: January 4, 2010. Retrieved
from: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/pdf/11002.1-hd-parole_of_
arriving_aliens_found_credible_fear.pdf
30.  See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
31.  DHS, Memorandum for Officers in Charge
regarding Post Order Custody Reviews Responsibilities
and Guidance, (2007, September 17). Retrieved from:
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dro_policy_memos/
rdercustodyreviewsresponsibilitiesandguidancesep172007.pdf
32.  See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S., 699-700 (2001).
33.  More information about Texas Appleseed can be found on
their web site: www.texasappleseed.net
34.  Texas Appleseed and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP. Justice for Immigration’s Hidden Population. Retrieved
from: http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_
docman&task=doc_download&gid=313; Texas Appleseed.
(May 2009). Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint to Reform
America’s Immigration Courts. Retrieved from: http://www.
texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_
download&gid=159&Itemid=

16.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2010, July 23).
Press Release: “ICE Announces Launch of Online Detainee Locator
System.” Retrieved from: http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1
007/100723washingtondc.htm. For information and brochures
in multiple languages go to http://www.ice.gov/news/library/
factsheets/odls.htm

35.  Texas Appleseed.(May 2009). Assembly Line Injustice:
Blueprint to Reform America’s Immigration Courts. Retrieved
from: http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_
docman&task=doc_download&gid=159&Itemid=

17.  ACLU interview with Rangsei C. (pseudonym), August 2008.

37.  ACLU interview with Abel S. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.

36.  ACLU interview with Khalid M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

25

38.  ACLU interview with Abukar A. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
39.  ACLU interview with Gustavo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

26

CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT

II

“Sometimes I wonder if I’m still living in America or I’m living in some
foreign county.”
- Chiumbo M. (pseudonym), a detained asylum seeker1

Equal Access to Religious Practice is Questioned
The struggle for equal treatment of religious
groups at the Otero County Processing Center
has been onerous. Progress has been made,
but improvements are still needed. Several
ICE facilities have agreements with non-profit,
faith-based organizations to provide chaplaincy
services. Groups such as Jesuit Refugee Service
and Church World Service, have full-time
representatives organizing services for immigrants
of many different religious backgrounds. The
non-profit model provides a neutral space for
immigrants who find themselves turning to
their faith for hope while detained. As JRS/USA
explains, “[Chaplains] help detainees deal with

the emotional and spiritual factors associated with
separation from family, loss of economic stability,
and pending legal decisions. They encourage men
and women to strengthen their religious beliefs
and attitudes as they struggle to cope with the
despair and uncertainty of detention.”2
The Otero County Processing Center chaplain,
in contrast, is an MTC employee. Several of the
immigrants felt that the chaplain did not respond
to requests for religious services. The chaplain
recruited religious leaders from outside of
the facility to provide services for certain faith
groups, but also reportedly performs several
of the services himself. Transgender and gay
detainees who attended the chaplain’s services

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

27

........-......~ ~
~_----I---4I',

(nuS ( ~ rn of ~t.

__r : _ .__

n() f ~ II ~ w Ld ~tJ -PI~tJ

tv) .

-¥kA~O_~-.s_+-,L~~_~~.e~ ,r it? pr~
------+-4-1'" ,W~---ki.L.~--f11 {, II
'Vi-fe.., .(Ij't~ O~ w.lk_· ~_.~
----I--~L1f~~':i__~-41~!_~~O~V ~"\,~ ()_uL?Y~je~__
_

~_IRCAG~

----:----.. \Nt.-~~~J~-i

'.

.

lV«Ll7n e

t-,~II.! .,.. £J:...~re~I::

_

---:--_ _~.-~f' r~-'L~\f)S~_J,,~V.t,._rJ?4""~ ~ ..... ~_hcv1_:~__
-_------f.-~~. ~ Q~~~_A~~ \vtSfe.J we h~eJ.~_~l~ __ ~~__
,
_I --- ~
-~-". ,t-- ~:f~~-------rt
-.---~~':j_ . .~~
~_~_~
,,~___ __OCL~_1t;L~ __~4!?'~__ ¥J__
------f---L~~~'ldY ~VV --rit?1~ . --r; ~k vS ay ~vm ~ "

___~-_f)-v-~I?-~',

~d WkL~YI·S"{- W~ G-M~W_L---..~_

___~~ld ~~_u~--.D~m_ s_~M' "-I.JM~~ "';"e-.f)Jt!ll~
_ _--+-W\......~~-flrA,1 ~ ~~a.f -M(!,;"'(J ~J -rk..:.=-_
~ffl~~~ ~~~~ vS

_ _ _ _+ .

_ _ _+-~J

-C""

ltV. S,.cI~

,..f-"ovbf~~r~{;Y

------4-~_W~

DUV

()vr

P(Oj

,

frl)~-.~
pv~r vJ~·Ctty)~ ~~~k~'_l
_
CAl·a

I

_ _ _~~W-4P---=-y....:::...o-=--'-~~t"'~----------__r_---

Letter to the ACLU from a Muslim detainee.

were allegedly subject to discriminatory sermons
based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
One detainee reported that the chaplain
stated, “I don’t want to point any fingers, but
homosexuality and transexuality is bad. You think
you are pleasing God, but you are not.”3
Muslim immigrants report the greatest concern
with access to religious services. They report
challenges recruiting Muslim religious leaders,
known as Imams, to provide Friday services due to
the remoteness of the facility. Generally, Muslim
immigrants choose one of their own to serve in
the role of Imam. Friday services are conducted
in the multi-purpose room where other religious
groups have their services. Monday prayer was
previously conducted in the cafeteria. Muslim
detainees, who conduct a process of ablution
(religious cleansing) prior to prayer, found this
particularly disturbing. In mail correspondence

28

with the ACLU, a Muslim immigrant reported
that the Muslims were praying on the dirty
kitchen floor without prayer rugs.4 When they
complained about the conditions for the Monday
services, these were purportedly cancelled.5
Friday services were fraught with problems
as well. Muslim immigrants complained that
correctional officers consistently interrupted their
services for population count. A Muslim detainee
stated, “Muslim prayer is always interrupted by
the COs. They take advantage of their authority.” 6
Ramadan is the Islamic month of fasting in which
Muslims do not eat or drink between sunrise and
sundown. The facility accommodates the needs
of Muslim detainees by providing meals before
sunrise and after sunset to those individuals
registered as Muslim and on the “Special Diet”7
list. During Ramadan, two detainees were taken

off the Muslim list as punishment for stealing
bread from the cafeteria. Since they were taken
off the list, they had to eat at 5:00 pm with the
general population, but sundown—when the
Muslims break the fast—was at 7:30 pm, reported
a Muslim immigrant. When he complained about
the treatment of Muslims, an officer responded,
“You choose your religion.”8
Idrissa, an African immigrant, is a devout Muslim
who strictly adheres to the Salat, or prayer, five
times a day. He believes that conducting the Salat
in an unclean area and/or interruption of the
prayer causes it to be invalid. Idrissa reported
facing significant challenges to his devotion in the
dormitory, including a number of times in which he
claimed his prayers were intentionally interrupted
by correctional officers. On one occasion, he
protested the interruption and was allegedly
sent to the Special Housing Unit (segregation) for
35 days. He reported further interruption to his
prayer while in the SHU because he was allegedly
denied the ability to shower for several days and
could not pray without conducting the ablution.9
Idrissa reported that officers working in the
Special Housing Unit harassed him, calling him
“Taliban” and “Bin Laden.”10

Immigrants Report that Religious Dietary Needs
are Not Met
The Performance Based National Detention
Standards established by ICE require facilities
“to provide detainees requesting a religious
diet a reasonable and equitable opportunity to
observe their religious dietary practice within the
constraints of budget limitations and the security
and orderly running of the facility by offering a
Common Fare Menu.” The standards further
explain:
“Common fare” refers to a no-flesh protein
option whenever an entrée containing flesh is
offered as part of a meal. Likewise, a “common
fare” meal offers vegetables, starches, and other
foods that are not seasoned with flesh. This diet
is designed as the “common ground” from which
modifications can be made to accommodate the
religious diets of various faiths.11
The Otero County Processing Center provides a
common fare menu, referred to by the immigrants

as the “special diet.” A Kosher kitchen is on-site
for preparation of Kosher foods in accordance
with Jewish religious diet standards. Immigrants
who practice Islam prefer a Halal12 diet, however,
their religion allows for the consumption of
Kosher foods if Halal is unavailable.
When Otero first opened, immigrants from several
faiths raised concerns of inadequate access
to a religiously appropriate diet. Rastafarian
immigrants alleged arbitrary suspension from
the religious meal program. Muslim immigrants
went through long periods of time without a
religious diet. A non-citizen Muslim who arrived
at Otero in October 2009, several months after
the facility opened, stated that there were no
religiously assigned diets at the facility. However,
the few Jewish detainees housed at Otero were
able to obtain Kosher food. Immigrants met with
the chaplain on several occasions to discuss Halal

“The last I can remember was that we all bleed
the same red dye, and have basic humanitarian
needs. How could all creed and race have an
equal place if justice does not prevail? ...I am
just one voice on the inside that yearns to be
treated with morals and dignity at Otero County
Processing Center. I assure you that there are
many more souls among me that are ill treated
and afraid to come out of the shadows.”
–Keron, a detained asylum seeker in written correspondence
with ACLU13

options. They provided cost information for Halal
food, which they believed was provided by the ICE
Processing Center in El Paso. 14 For a period of time
these individuals were allowed to participate in
the Kosher meal plan. Following an audit, Muslim
immigrants were allegedly told the Kosher meals
had run out and were returned to the regular
diet, despite the fact that Jewish detainees
reportedly continued to receive Kosher meals.
A detainee from Lebanon severely restricted his
diet and ate very little because he did not want to
break his religious beliefs. At one point, according
to detainee reports, Muslims in the facility held a
hunger strike to demand an appropriate religious

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

29

diet. Two of the key leaders of the hunger strike
were allegedly placed in segregation.
Calvin, a Rastafarian immigrant wrote, “Myself
and other detainees are constantly been [sic]
denied our religious rights and meals by MTC
administration and when we tried to complain
to staff members, we are being harassed and
threatened with segregation time. As it is written
in the U.S. Constitution, the practice of one’s
religion is not a privilege. It is a right guaranteed
by the United States Constitution.”15
Over time, Otero placed nearly all immigrants
indicating religious dietary needs on the common
fare meal program. Jewish detainees received
Kosher food at most meals until recent months
when immigrants reported that Kosher meals
were reduced to only three times per week.
The Performance Based National
Detention Standards state that,
“My rights as
“To the extent practicable,
a hot flesh-food entrée shall
a human being
be available to accommodate
are challenged
detainees’
religious
dietary
needs.
Hot
entrees
shall
be
every day.”
offered three times a week.” MTC
appears to have interpreted this
–Joel in a letter to the
16
standard to mean that hot meals
U.S. President
need only be served three times a
week and adjusted Kosher meals
accordingly. 17

30

Access to Recreation is Limited
Detained immigrants reported a lack of
educational and recreational programming.
Several
immigrants
reported
increased
depression over time. With little to keep their
minds occupied, detained immigrants become
anxious about their legal cases and pass the time
thinking about partners, children, and other
family members waiting for them on the outside.
Those who fled persecution in their home
countries and could not bring their families with
them, constantly worry about the safety of their
loved ones. One detained immigrant said, “I’m
unable to sleep because all I think about is being
sent back to [my country]. I can’t go back there.
They think it’s a game. But it’s my life. I will die if I
am sent back there.”20
Several detained immigrants described the
uncertainty of the length of their detention as
unbearable. In the criminal justice setting, a
person knows the length of their sentence and
has a release date. This allows the individual to
psychologically prepare him or herself to serve
their sentence. With an indeterminate number
of court hearings scheduled far apart, delays of
travel documents and deportation, individuals
in immigration detention don’t know if or when
their detention will end. The following represent
responses provided by individuals when asked to
describe a “typical” day in detention:

Abel, a Jewish immigrant, stated, “There are
days we cannot eat because we are not sure if it
is Kosher. Yesterday they served Salisbury steak
and we weren’t sure.” Abel reportedly asked
MTC staff for information showing that the food
was Kosher. Rather than providing him with this
information, MTC staff allegedly told Abel that he
had an option to not eat.18

•• “Get up, eat breakfast, lie down. Get up,
watch T.V., have count, eat lunch, lie down.
Count. I get sick of T.V. so tend to focus on
my case for a few. Dinner. Come back. Count.
Maybe take a shower. Redundancy. If you
are not careful or a person of strong mind,
you can lose your mind in here.”21 –Damon,
detained for more than a year

Concerns regarding the origin of the food in the
common fare meal program, along with poor
quantity led many immigrants to abandon their
religious diets. Detained immigrants consistently
reported a common fare plate comprised of
sardines and rice, or a large scoop of peanut
butter with four slices of bread and a scoop of rice.
“When we have sardines,” stated one detained
immigrant during an interview, “sometimes you
don’t even get a sardine, just the juice from the
can.”19

••

“You wake up at 4:30 am to ‘chow.’ You
wait until your dorm gets called. Even if the
food [is] not good you are grateful for the
breakfast. [You] head back to the dorm to
shower. You are finished around 7:00 am. You
go back to sleep. At 7:30 am there is count.
There is one T.V. in Spanish and one in English.
There are some games like dominos, checkers,
chess, cards. You try to get through the day by
trying to get tired so you can sleep.”22 –James,
length of detention unknown

Drawing by Gustavo F. (pseudonym), immigrant detained at Otero.

•• “We are locked up for 22-23 hours a day.
We have rec (recreation) for one hour, go
to chow. It’s boring. There is nothing to do
except watch T.V.”23 –Miguel, detained by ICE
for ten months.
Immigrants detained at the Otero County
Processing Center have one hour of “outdoor”
recreation per day. To get to the recreation area,
immigrants walk through a hallway door and
into a concrete courtyard. People commonly
referred to the recreation space as a “cage” or
a “little concrete box.” One person stated, “It is
no recreation. [You] can’t look forward, there are
walls, walls all around and a net above you. You are
supposed to be in a yard where you can touch the
grass, watch a bug walk by.”24 Exercise equipment
is not available. Handball and soccer are the
only two activities available and teams must

rotate to accommodate the number of people.
Immigrants with physical disabilities unable
to play sports choose not to go to recreation.
They reported a lack of accommodations for
people with disabilities and feared injury. Many
detained immigrants were frustrated by a lack
of flexibility in the yard schedule. For example,
detained immigrants in dormitories scheduled for
outdoor recreation early in the morning reported
being subject to the cold and the dark in winter,
while those scheduled for recreation mid-day in
the summer found the heat unbearable. Some
stated that the walk from the dormitory to the
visitation area (in a separate building) for the
ACLU interview was the first time they had ever
been outside.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

31

Visitation Policy is Restrictive
The ability to visit with family and friends
contributes to a detained immigrant’s emotional
well-being and willingness to see legal claims
through to the end. Immigrants with family
members living nearby are allowed one half-hour
visit per week. Physical contact with loved ones is
not allowed, and the visitation space is a bank of
stools on either side of a hard clear plastic barrier.
People have to speak loudly to be heard. There is
no privacy. Otero only permits friends and family
to visit on days that correspond with their loved
one’s last name also restricting opportunities for
visitation.
The large number of immigrants transferred from
out of state means family members and friends
must travel long distances to be with their loved
ones. The Otero facility is 35 minutes by car
from the closest airport in El Paso, Texas, and
is inaccessible by public transportation. Family
members who can afford to pay expensive airfare
to El Paso must also rent a vehicle or pay costly
taxi fees. It is difficult to find, even for those who
are familiar with the region. According to facility
staff, an immigrant may request a special visit
from the warden for family members who travel
a certain distance to visit. Special visits rarely
exceed one hour in length, and may not exceed
more than one visit per week. An immigrant from
England reported that his brother flew to Los
Angeles from London, rented a vehicle and drove
to New Mexico. He was only granted two onehour visits on separate days. Most families, faced
with attorney costs and the loss of one principal
income earner in the family, cannot afford to
make the journey.

Detained Immigrants Face Challenges
Communicating with Family, Friends, and
Attorneys
Telephone Communication
Individuals detained at the Otero County
Processing Center reported that they must
set up a phone account with a correctional
service phone company. The cost of purchasing
minutes is not as high as in other ICE facilities;
however, for those without access to funds, the
only option available is to call collect. Collect

32

calls are extremely expensive and burdensome.
Detained immigrants reported that friends
stopped answering their phone calls. The cost of
phone calls creates barriers to communication
with attorneys as well. Immigrants mentioned
problems calling toll free numbers, including
numbers for reporting concerns in the facility
to the Office of the Inspector General and other
entities. Detained immigrants reported regular
phone outages and delays to servicing when
broken. According to some, a recent change
in telephone service provider has improved
connection issues.
Mail Service
A person’s entire immigration case depends
on submitting applications and other evidence
to court in a timely manner. According to the
MTC Otero County Processing Center Detainee
Handbook, indigent detainees are permitted to
mail a “reasonable amount of correspondence
related to a legal matter” at government
expense.25 Individuals with money in their
accounts for commissary must purchase their
own postage. Incoming and outgoing legal
correspondence marked as such must be opened
and sealed respectively in the presence of the
immigrant. A number of detained immigrants
reported that mail clearly marked “Legal Mail”
was not opened in their presence. One person
stated, “Legal mail is supposed to be opened in
front of us, but some of the guys who are involved
in the lawsuit [against the facility] have their legal
mail not opened in front of them. They [MTC
staff] put tape back over the envelope and then
tear the top in front of them. When officers have
been challenged about this, they just laugh in the
detainee’s face.”26

Pod Conditions are Inadequate
The Otero County Processing Center has 20
dormitories, or pods, each with the capacity to
house 50 detainees. Each pod has high ceilings
and is equipped with bunk beds in one corner of
the room, two tables, two mounted televisions,
and a low walled bathroom with four toilets and
four showers. Each pod also contains an officer’s
desk, a small medical room, and four pay phones.

Statements regarding the cleanliness of the pods
vary. The immigrants are responsible for keeping
the dormitory clean. Each pod develops a set of
rules and standards for ensuring that cleaning
takes place. Several people stated that they were
not provided with enough supplies, often forcing
them to use their own limited supply of soap and
shampoo to clean.
Construction on the Otero County Processing
Center was not yet complete when ICE moved
the first group of immigrants into the facility.
The facility was prone to flooding when it rained.
Immigrants described water coming into the
dorms and correctional officers working to sweep
the water away. Nearly a year later, in preparation
for an inspection by the American Correctional
Association, roof work was finally completed to
mitigate this problem.
Ventilation and Environmental Safety
Detained immigrants also questioned whether
the interior of the facility had been finished. Many
people referred to exposed fiberglass insulation
in the ceiling and attributed the prevalence of
upper respiratory illness to particles of fiberglass
and dust floating around the pod. One immigrant
described, “There is dust everywhere…it feels like
barbed wire in your throat…People are coughing
and sneezing blood and dust.”27 “I work in
construction,” stated another person, “so I know
how bad it is to breathe [fiberglass] and it can be
itchy.”28 Several immigrants described a layer of
residue on surfaces in the pod. Several complaints
filed with the Department of Homeland Security
Joint Intake Center referred to this issue.
Investigators administratively closed these cases
without action.29
Temperature
Detained immigrants consistently reported
feeling extremely cold in all seasons with the
exception of when temperatures rose due to
malfunctioning air conditioning units. Several
immigrants believed that the cold temperatures,
even in the summer, were making them ill.
Another was convinced that the air conditioning
was used intentionally to punish detainees. He
claimed that correctional officers would turn up
the air conditioning if a detainee “mouthed off.” 30

Lighting
The pods have high ceilings and lack windows to
bring natural light into the dormitory. Immigrants
described the lights as “too bright,”“blinding,” and
“football stadium lighting.” This bright florescent
lighting affects the mental health of immigrants.
One immigrant reported, “There is not enough
real nature [sic] light to give you a sense of reality.
There is a false perception of light.”31 Another
said, “The lights on all day make you feel really
bad.”32 Lights are turned out at night. However,
the bank of lights over the bathrooms remains
on. Those with bunks closest to the bathroom
area reported inability to sleep.
Access to Sanitary Bathrooms
The Otero County Processing Center was built
specifically to house civil immigration detainees.
Yet, the facility was heavily modeled on traditional
penal institutions, including bathrooms with
low walls and a lack of privacy. A wide range of
immigrants highlighted showering and using the
bathrooms as a source of stress. One person
reported feeling uncomfortable that female
correctional officers could see into the bathroom
and shower area. Certain religious groups
struggled with “exposing oneself” in contradiction
to their beliefs.33
The immigrants in each pod maintain order and
cleanliness with a strict set of rules. One detained
immigrant explained that in his dormitory two
toilets were reserved for bowel movements and
two for urination. Dishes were not washed in the
sinks designated for hand washing, but could be
washed in the sinks used for the cleaning mops.
Unfortunately, despite their efforts to keep the
bathroom clean, fungal infections are reportedly
common. Several immigrants reported and
demonstrated fungal infections on their toes, but
also indicated a high incidence of infections on
feet, hands, and genitals. Asked about hygiene
and sanitation, an individual responded, “Yes, of
course. I have a rash in my private areas. Everyone
is always scratching. People have athlete’s foot. In
the showers, the first one has a pool of water and
it doesn’t drain properly so no one can use it.”34
According to the detainees, they were previously
able to obtain additional toiletries such as
soap, shampoo or toilet paper when necessary.
They report that currently, hygiene products

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

33

o.

~~-~
"

~

17

\

.~
;;:-5) ./

",

~

"

f2:M3

7

_\ 0

\

'

'-

~. _ 1 ' - /'" ---....,,\,

•.

r.;,
(,",-,frl'

.l

..

...

-"- ----

~ \"\

;l~···
.

Drawing by Gustavo F. (pseudonym), immigrant detained at Otero.

are distributed once a week and include a tiny
bottle of shampoo, a tiny soap, a small tube of
toothpaste, toothbrush, and two rolls of toilet
paper. Razors are managed by the correctional
officers. Deodorant, shaving cream, and other
items must be purchased from the commissary. If
an individual runs out of an item, that too must be
purchased from commissary. “God forbid if you
get diarrhea. You have to beg another detainee
for toilet paper. Or you have to use newspaper
or legal papers,” said one detainee.35 The shift in
distribution of toilet paper from an “as needed”
basis to once a week caused panic, because toilet
paper has multiple purposes and goes quickly.
“Toilet paper is not enough. Today is Tuesday
and by tomorrow I will run out. The Somalis
all share and put items together.”36 Another
detainee described, “It’s awful. We have no
access to napkins so we have to use toilet paper
for everything. By the middle of the week we

34

run out. People are stealing from one another.”37
According to reports, if correctional officers
find more than the allotted amount of provided
toiletries, even in cases where a portion was left
over from the week before, it is taken away.

Food Services are Deficient
Poor quality and quantity of food are consistent
complaints at the Otero County Processing
Center. Many immigrants go hungry because of
small portions and must rely on goods bought
from the commissary to curb hunger. In total,
29 of the 40 immigrants who responded to a
question about changes in weight stated that
they had lost weight. Only one person reported
a weight gain. Reported weight loss ranged from
a loss of 5 pounds to 50 pounds, depending on

length of stay, with an average loss of 22 pounds.
“I feel really bad for the people who don’t have
money or family support because they are
starving,” reflected an immigrant. “Some of the
detainees sneak back in line to try to get another
tray. If it wasn’t for commissary, I would have
lost more weight.”38 Several of the people the
ACLU interviewed had lost significant amounts of
weight and continued to lose weight throughout
the duration of their detention. One individual
speculated, “Sometimes I think they give us food
we won’t eat so we will buy commissary so they
can make money.” He continued, “The food here
you just eat to live. The food is so nasty but if you
complain they threaten you with the SHU.”39
Complaints regarding religious meals are the most
common. Another common concern reported
is lack of access to a medically appropriate diet
for those with diabetes or other chronic health
conditions. The 2008 Performance Based National
Detention Standards state that detention centers
must provide therapeutic meals for “detainees
with certain conditions—chronic or temporary;
medical, dental, and/or psychological” if
prescribed and authorized by medical staff. A
provision also exists for a supplemental meal
or snack for certain individuals as prescribed.40
Immigrants detained in Otero have alleged
that MTC staff have said that diets for medical
purposes are not provided.
Andres managed his diabetes through diet for
many years. At Otero, he struggled because of the
high sugar and carbohydrate diet at the facility,
characterized by pancakes and syrup in the
morning and meals with large portions of bread
and sugary drinks. Andres reported that the
doctor gave him permission to choose between
the regular and religious diet trays during meal
time based on his health needs and the lack of a
medical diet option. However, an officer allegedly
took his permission away and he has not been
able to reinstate it.41
Eduardo, an HIV-positive detainee, submitted
several requests for supplemental snacks to take
with his medication to curb the side effects. He
reported that he never received approval.42
Roberto has documented gastrointestinal
problems, which cause pain and require
management with medication. He was provided
with a special bland diet prior to his transfer to

Otero. Despite several requests, Roberto reported
that Otero would not provide him with a bland
diet. He stated having to relinquish food on several
occasions to avoid painful consequences.43

Detained Immigrants Report Abusive and
Discriminatory Treatment by Correctional
Officers
Correctional officers at the Otero County
Processing Center exert a great deal of control
over the immigrants in the facility. Immigrants
report that everything—from the mood of the
officer to personal bias—affects treatment of
particular detainees or groups of detainees. While
some immigrants noted that certain officers
treated them with respect, the overwhelming

“They try and treat you like children. They take
away your dignity and pride. Kids looking after
grown men.”
- James B.44

“It is a culture of harassment and intimidation.”
– Gustavo F.45

majority agree that most officers exhibit a general
lack of respect, using intimidation and threats of
segregation to maintain rule over them. Most
interview participants said that they refused to
submit grievance forms or complaints exposing
officer behavior because they feared retaliation.
Immigrants felt that correctional officers provoked
detainees to elicit a reaction, and then punished
them for that reaction. Racially and ethnically
charged language appears to be common, and in
more than one case, physical abuse was reported.
Omar, an asylum seeker, felt correctional officers
discriminated against Muslim detainees. “I
ran from my country, from war. I don’t need
discrimination. I know why I came. If I wanted
war, I would have stayed.” He was allegedly
placed in segregation on several occasions after a
correctional officer provoked him. 46

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

35

Hernan was detained for 15 months. In a letter
to the ACLU he wrote, “I don’t think it is fair
that ICE/INS destroy [sic] our lives. They make
us feel as low as possible and, they, destroy our
families. We have no rights apparently we can’t
speak without a problem because the officers
here bring their outside problems into the job,
and we end up paying for things we did not do.
The officers they tell us that we should not be or
get depressed, but they do everything possible
to make us depressed and try always insult or
discriminated [sic] like we are trash.”47
One morning at breakfast, Carl discovered his
name was no longer on the list of detainees eligible
to receive the common fare meal tray. He raised
his concern to the officer in the chow hall who
allegedly called him a “nigger” and threatened to
poison his food. Carl called over a sergeant who
confirmed that his name should be on the list.
The original officer approached Carl’s table after
he had his food and reportedly stated, “Go ahead
and eat your dog food nigger.”48 According to Joel,
a correctional officer addressed him saying, “Shut
the fuck up. Go sit your black ass down and beat
the Congo drums.” When he complained to a
higher level official he was reportedly told, “You
have no rights. You are immigrants.”49
Another detained immigrant, Miguel, reports
he was told by an officer, “You are not fucking
American, if you don’t want to be here sign the
fuck out and go to your fucking country.”50
In a letter to the ACLU Keron wrote, “At one period
of time a detainee had words with an officer and
as punishment was forced to walk the hallways
in his underwear, being humiliated by laughing
and gawking staff members. I immediately said,
‘Please why can’t you cover the young man’ but
was replied to with the remark ‘Do you want to
take his place’.”51
Kennard explained that on rare days when the
food is “decent,” detainees will ask the officer
in charge in the chow hall if they can clean
tables or perform some other work for an extra
tray. One day the food was “decent,” so he
approached an officer. According to Kennard, the
officer responded in an “inappropriate manner,”
stating “I will drop you right here. Get the fuck
out of my face.” Provoked, Kennard challenged
the officer. Several other officers approached. A
Lieutenant allegedly threatened to send Kennard

36

to segregation, but Kennard responded that he
had not done anything. He reported that he was
grabbed by the arm and, when Kennard told the
officer to let go, six or seven officers reportedly
slammed him to the ground. He was kicked in the
ribs and another officer stepped on his foot while
yet another placed handcuffs on him. He stated
that he had bruises on his arm, a footprint on his
ribs, and was bleeding on his foot. He reports he
was taken to segregation where he remained for
15 days.52
Detained immigrants often sensed that
correctional officers treated certain groups
of detainees with less respect than others.
Non-Latino black detainees, and particularly
black Muslims, reported inequality in their
treatment from correctional officers. Several
individuals also felt that racial, ethnic, and
religious tensions between detainees were a
direct result of correctional officer behavior and
treatment. “If there is discrimination among the
detainees, it is instigated by the COs.”53 Four of
the individuals interviewed specifically reported
that when disagreements arise in the dormitory,
the correctional officers side with the Latino
detainees. Questioned about an officer’s response
to incidents between detainees, one individual
responded, “Depends on the race. Hispanic
officers will turn a blind eye to abuses of nonHispanics, and when it escalates they will place
blame on the non-Hispanic detainee.”54 Another
black immigrant also reported that officers made
“African monkey noises” when they saw him and
frequently called him “nigger.”55
The gay and transgender population in Otero
reports being subject to extreme forms of
discrimination from both detainees and
correctional officers.
Santiago, a gay asylum seeker, reported that
correctional officers encouraged harassment
of gay detainees. “I expect to be discriminated
against by the other detainees. But what
really gets me is when the officers encourage
it and start it. They are adults and should be
professional.” He went on to explain that on his
way to meet with the ACLU representative, a
transgender individual was also being escorted
to the visitation area by an officer. “The officer
held his hands out to the side and walked funny
to make fun of us.”56

Margarita, a transgender asylum seeker, reported
that she was sent to stay in the Special Housing
Unit when she first arrived to the Otero County
Processing Center. She was forced to walk
everywhere in handcuffs. She did not understand
why she was in segregation and finally spoke to a
supervisor. The supervisor allegedly told her that
she was in the SHU because of her prior charges
for prostitution, therefore making it a threat for
her to be in the general population. Offended by
the assumptions and stereotypes implicit in the
supervisor’s statement, Margarita submitted a
complaint to ICE and was eventually moved to
the general population, though she continued to
report discrimination from both MTC staff and
other individuals in her dormitory.57
Lilia borrowed a hair band from another
transgender woman at the facility to keep the
hair out of her face during recreation. When she
was leaving the recreation area she returned it to
her friend. A female correctional officer noticed
the missing hair band and asked Lilia about it. Lilia
replied that she returned it to the friend who lent
it to her, using the feminine term “amiga.” The
correctional officer reportedly responded that
there were no “amigas” here, “Everyone is a man,
there are only ‘amigos’.” The officer repeated
this again in front of all of the other detainees,
humiliating her. Lilia also stated that when she
was searched, female officers tugged and pulled
her hair. Officers would hear discriminatory
comments aimed at her and do nothing to stop
the abuse. According to Lilia, a correctional officer
encouraged her to submit a complaint when she
experienced officer misbehavior, but she was so
frightened of retaliation she chose not to submit
complaints.58
MTC’s alleged failure to protect gay and
transgender detainees reportedly results in sexual
assault and sexual harassment by other detained
individuals. In one incident reported to ACLUNM, a correctional officer was the perpetrator.
When gay and transgender immigrants do report
incidents, instead of taking disciplinary action
against the perpetrators, the victims of the abuse
report being moved to a different dormitory.
Several immigrants reported that starting over
in a new pod was very stressful and anxiety
provoking. It meant having to learn a new set
of detainee created pod “rules” and quickly
ascertain who posed a danger. An immigrant who
does not identify as gay or transgender reflected

on the “weird” treatment of the gay detainees
in his dormitory. He explained that detainees in
his dormitory had created separate rules for gay
detainees. For example, gay detainees had to
shower at a separate time from the rest of the
population to “avoid any problems.”59 In some
of the dormitories gay detainees are assigned a
specific toilet by others in the dormitory.
Groups of immigrants in the dormitories
reportedly complained to MTC staff about
having a gay, transgender, or HIV positive
detainee in the dorm. In several of these cases,
MTC staff tacitly endorsed the discrimination
by removing the gay, transgender, or HIV
positive individual to another dormitory
where renewed harassment was likely. Some
individuals reported being offered the option
of “protective custody” in the Special Housing
Unit. This would subject them to the same
conditions and restrictions as those who are
placed in the SHU for disciplinary reasons.
Detained immigrants report several other
concerns regarding correctional officer
behavior. These range from officers talking
with one another on the facility phones all day
and ignoring the needs of the immigrants, to
having intimate relationships with detainees.
Many detained immigrants also felt it unfair
that that the entire pod was punished for
the behavior or actions of one individual. “I
would like these people to be fair and deal
with people on an individual basis and not
as a group. If one person does something,
penalize that individual, not all,” said an
immigrant detained in Otero, “I came here
by myself. I would like to be dealt with by
myself.” 60
The lack of consistency between correctional
officers increases anxiety. Immigrants
who believed they understood and were
following the “rules,” would find that
the “rules” were constantly shifting. One
immigrant attributed this to inadequate
officer training. “ The inexperienced officers
often make up rules as they go along and
cause problems with the detainee’s daily
routines. When problems arise they are
quick to make up stories and cause problems
for the detainees. They lack experience and
courtesy, and professionalism.” 61

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

37

Immigrants Report Arbitrary Placement in
Segregation
The Special Housing Unit (SHU), otherwise known
as segregation, “el pozo” (the well), or “el hoyo”
(the hole), is a constant threat reportedly held
over immigrants at the Otero County Processing
Center. The SHU is utilized for disciplinary
purposes, but often doubles as a space for those
who want to be in protective custody because
they fear harm in the general population. The
SHU is also allegedly utilized to house individuals
with mental illness. Despite standards that
differentiate between administrative and
disciplinary segregation, those placed into
segregation for administrative purposes report
the same treatment as those who are placed
into segregation for disciplinary reasons. They
report that the few privileges which do exist are
restricted. All movement within the facility is

“Segregation is a weapon used to frighten
people for anything.”
- Gustavo F.62

“Sometimes they call us animals…You are not
supposed to be here cause you are [an] animal.
If you talk to them, ‘why did you say that?’ They
will take you to the SHU. And they will tell you,
‘we can make you disappear and nobody will
know anything about you.’”
- Omar, an asylum seeker, in a letter to the ACLU63

conducted in handcuffs. Individuals are confined
to a small cell for 23 hours a day and must receive
meals in the cell. Immigrants who experienced
the SHU described the space as “a tiny dirty
room” and a “small cell, just big enough to fit a
bunk, a toilet and sink.” Immigrants reported
limited access to showers and clean laundry
while in the SHU. Several immigrants chose not
to shower because it required stripping down to
their underwear and walking to the shower area
in handcuffs. For transgender immigrants, this
was particularly traumatic.
An asylum seeker was placed in the Special
Housing Unit for seven days for allegedly fighting

38

with another detainee. He stated that the “lights
[are] on all day” and that he was on the “verge
of going crazy.” “We’re not in prison,” he states,
“You treat a dog better.”64
Omar, another asylum seeker reports he was
sent to the SHU for 15 days after having a loud
conversation with his cousin that was perceived
as an argument. He stated that he had no access
to the law library, did not go to the “yard” for
two days, and did not shower for three days. He
also reported that while in the SHU he was not
allowed access to religious services. Yet he said of
the correctional officers, “We pray for them, even
if they don’t talk [about] us good [sic].”65
Gustavo, a long-time legal permanent resident
picked up for a petty misdemeanor decades ago
for which he never served time, reports being
placed in the SHU for 48 hours. According to
Gustavo, the accusations that led to him being
placed in the SHU were dropped and he was
returned to the general population. He described
the cells as humid and small, with a toilet and a
table. Meals are brought to a hole in the door and
left there for two minutes and then taken away.
He explained that if you are sleeping when the
meal comes you don’t eat. “If you want a shower
you have to call the CO and let them know. Then
you have to put your hands through the hole to
be handcuffed while you are stripped to your
underwear then move against the wall when
the officer enters to escort you to the shower.
When I saw that, I said, ‘I am not going to take
a shower while I am here.’” He reported lack of
access to the library. “You are detained there
without rights.” Gustavo also reported that each
cell in the SHU has an intercom through which
the correctional officers allegedly play music and
call detainees names. His experience in the SHU
was so traumatic that he requested mental health
services when he was returned to the general
population.66
When the ACLU first began meeting with
immigrants in Otero, several of those who
had spent time in the SHU described “bright
fluorescent lights” that were constantly turned
on, even at night. Immigrants stated that the lights
affected their mental health and ability to sleep.
ACLU-NM wrote a letter to the warden expressing
concern that bright lighting 24 hours a day, 7
days a week—which deprived one of sleep and
affected mental well-being—was tantamount to

cruel and unusual punishment. Though ACLU-NM
never received an official response, immigrants
subsequently placed in the SHU report that MTC
staff now dim the lights at night.
Immigrants reported that MTC staff often
arbitrarily place people in the SHU. Even
individuals who felt they had meticulously
attempted to follow the rules would find
themselves placed in the SHU. According to the
MTC detainee handbook, an individual accused
of an infraction must have a disciplinary hearing.
He is allowed to call upon witnesses and produce
evidence to prove his innocence. Immigrants
sentenced to time in the SHU consistently
reported “hearings” where it seemed a decision
had already been made before the immigrant
could produce evidence. Immigrants were
unaware of a process for appealing a decision.
One detained immigrant remarked, “Everything
leads to the SHU. If you talk back to an officer,
for example, if the officer says ‘move’ and the
response is, ‘I can’t move fast enough’ you will
go to the SHU.” 67 Another detained immigrant
explained, “People are put into segregation for
small situations.” He explained that, for example,
he asked to be placed on the religious diet when
he first arrived to Otero. One day, staff gave him
a meal that was not religiously appropriate, so he
refused to eat it. He reports that in response, the
officer told him, “You eat what I give you or I put
you in the hole for refusing.”68
During a tour of the facility, the warden admitted
to the ACLU representative that he relied on
the use of segregation as a disciplinary measure
more than he did when working for the Bureau
of Prisons because there were fewer privileges
that could be taken away as an alternative form
of discipline.
“There’s no standard for why someone is taken to
segregation,” said Edward, a detained immigrant
in Otero. He related two incidents of others in his
dormitory allegedly sent to the SHU for minor
infractions or no reason at all. Reportedly, one
detained immigrant refused medication during
“pill call” because he wanted to wait to take it with
food at meal time. He was sent to segregation.
Another was purportedly sent to segregation for
taking an extra toothbrush.69
“If the COs tell you to be quiet or to go to sleep
and you do not, they will send you to ‘el hoyo’,”

Hernan explained. He reported that another
detainee in his pod had extra shampoo left over
from the prior week. This was not allowed. All of
his shampoo and soap was taken away from him.
The other detainees in the pod felt bad and gave
him a portion of their own soap and shampoo
to get him through the week. The detainee was
reading his bible on his bunk when a correctional
officer passed by and saw the replenished supply
of toiletries. The officer reportedly took the items
away. The detainee referred to the Detainee
Handbook to assert his innocence. The detainee
reported that, in response, the officer sent him to
segregation.70
An ACLU-NM representative met with Jeffrey,
a detained immigrant with communication
difficulties. He explained that he was sent to
the SHU for 15 days for “stealing” an apple that
another detainee had willingly given to him in the
chow hall.71

“I personally thank my [religious faith] for being
healthy but it does affect me to see other peoples
[sic] plight, I may not have a paper that says that
I’m an American Citizen, but let me tell you this is
not the America I came to love and believe, on the
verbal abuse, the humiliating strip searches, the
impunity on which they are constantly carried…”
– Gustavo F., in a letter to the ACLU72
Immigrants Report Being Subjected to Invasive
Searches and Unnecessary Lockdowns
Detained immigrants reported that searches of
both body and property are routine in the Otero
County Processing Center. During searches,
MTC staff often confiscates important legal
documents, medications, items purchased from
commissary, photos, religious materials, and
other items allowed by special permission. One
immigrant had to resubmit court paperwork
after the court lost his file. He kept a complete
copy of his application to the court, but MTC staff
allegedly confiscated it during a dormitory search
and never returned it. This was devastating to
the immigrant given the time and resources it
had already taken him to obtain evidence and
conduct research with limited resources and

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

39

library time. Muslim detainees reported being
upset that correctional officers disrespected their
Korans during searches. Immigrants also reported
routine searches when leaving the “chow” hall.
Several detainees reported that MTC staff made
them pull their pants down in front of other
detainees and officers when leaving the “chow
hall,” searching for any food they may have
removed from the cafeteria.
Searches are purportedly conducted to look for
“contraband,” which is defined so broadly that
it could refer to a detainee possessing too many
phone cards or bottles of shampoo. If a domino
or playing card is missing, the entire dormitory
is reportedly searched, including locked drawers
and beds. One detained immigrant described
an incident in which a shaving razor went
missing. Generally, correctional officers manage
distribution and collection of razors. On this
occasion, immigrants reported that everyone was
forced to stay on their bunks for four hours while
MTC staff searched the entire dormitory. They
ultimately discovered the missing razor in the
correctional officer’s own desk.73
The manner in which MTC staff allegedly conducts
some searches raises serious concerns of rights
violations. According to reports from several
detained immigrants, one morning, staff moved
the entire pod to an empty pod where they
were left alone. One of the relocated individuals
became upset and destroyed the correctional
officer logbook left on the desk. When the officer
returned and saw what happened, he called for
backup and a large number of officers stormed
into the dormitory. The immigrants reported
being forced to strip down to their underwear
in the presence of several female officers and
told that they would not be released until they
produced the person responsible for tearing
the logbook. Correctional officers then turned
up the air conditioning to make the room
extremely cold. The immigrants remained in their
underwear in the frigid room for over two hours.
After the officers finally returned the immigrants
to their own dormitory, they allegedly threatened
the entire pod with loss of television, outdoor
recreation, commissary and other privileges if
the person who destroyed the book did not come
forward.
ACLU-NM received a report that in late September
2010, the correctional officers allegedly entered

40

one of the dormitories around 7:00 pm to
search the bunks. According to the witness, six
officers came through the emergency door and
six officers through the main entrance to the
pod. The officers then ordered everyone to strip
down to their underwear. The officers made the
immigrants in the pod stand up in the large area by
the bunks facing the wall while they individually
searched each bunk. Among the items allegedly
confiscated were letters and drawings intended
for the ACLU. The immigrants were reportedly
made to stand against the wall in their underwear
for nearly an hour.74

(Endnotes)
1.  ACLU interview with Chiumbo M. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
2.  Jesuit Refugee Services, What We Do: Detention Chaplaincy,
Retrieved from: http://jrsusa.org/we_do_programs_chaplaincy.php
3.  ACLU interview with Santiago R. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.
4.  ACLU correspondence with Hussein I. (pseudonym), August
2009.
5.  It is our understanding that Monday services have been
reinstated and are now conducted in a more appropriate space.
6.  Interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
7.  Immigrants at the Otero County Processing Center refer to the
religious diet as the “special diet.” A description of the religious
diet follows in the section on Religious Dietary Needs.
8.  ACLU interview with Nabid N. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
9.  ACLU correspondence with Idrissa (pseudonym), date
unknown.
10.  ACLU interview with Idrissa (pseudonym) June 2009.
11.  ICE 2008 Performance Based National Detention Standards,
Part 4: Care, Standard 20: Food Service. Retrieved from: http://
www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008/
12.  The immigrants claim that the cost of a Halal plate of food is
$2.00-$2.50 per plate as compared to the $6.00 or $7.00 cost per
plate for the Kosher meal.
13.  ACLU written correspondence with Keron (pseudonym), Sept.
2009.
14.  The term “Halal” means lawful or permitted. The Islamic
diet is Halal if it does not contain, among other things, pork,
carnivorous animals or birds of prey, animals slaughtered
incorrectly or dead prior to slaughtering, and anything
contaminated with the aforementioned products. In the absence of
an Islamic specific diet, Muslims are allowed to have Kosher foods.
(Information obtained from the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council
of America http://www.ifanca.org/halal/)

15.  ACLU correspondence with Calvin (pseudonym), Feb. 2009.

46.  ACLU interview with Omar B. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

16.  Letter to the President of the United States from Joel P.
(pseudonym), Sept. 2009.

47.  ACLU correspondence with Hernan A. (pseudonym), Date
Unknown

17.  ICE 2008 Performance Based National Detention Standards,
Part 4: Care, Standard 20: Food Service. Retrieved from: http://
www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008/

48.  ACLU interview with Carl L. (pseudonym), Jan. 2009.

18.  ACLU interview with Abel S. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.

50.  ACLU interview with Miguel R. ([pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

19.  Abel S. (pseudonym).

51.  ACLU written correspondence with Keron K. (pseudonym),
2009

20.  ACLU interviews with Jean-Philippe (pseudonym), Nov.
2009-March 2010

49.  ACLU interview with Joel P. (pseudonym), Sept. 2009.

52.  ACLU interview with Kennard D. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.

21.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

53.  ACLU interview with Sergio S. (pseudonym), April 2010.

22.  ACLU Interview with James B. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.

54.  ACLU interview with Carl L. (pseudonym), Jan. 2009.

23.  ACLU Interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

55.  ACLU interview with Jean Philippe (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

24.  ACLU Interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

56.  ACLU interview with Santiago R. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010. 

25.  Management and Training Corporation, Otero County
Processing Center Detainee Handbook. (Revised: Oct. 23, 2009). On
file with the author.

57.  ACLU interview with Margarita (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

26.  ACLU interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

59.  ACLU interview with Ishmael M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

27.  ACLU interview with James B. (pseudonym), March 2010.

60.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

28.  ACLU interview with Jesus I. (pseudonym), March 2010.

61.  Letter to ICE written by Jorge S. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.

29.  Information obtained through a FOIA request to ICE. On file
with author.

62.  ACLU interview with Gustavo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

30.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

63.  ACLU correspondence with Omar B. (pseudonym), date
unknown, 2010.

31.  ACLU interview with James B. (pseudonym), March 2010.

64.  ACLU interview with Efrain H. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.

32.  ACLU interview with Julian G. (pseudonym), May 2010.

65.  ACLU interview with Omar B. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

33.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

66.  ACLU interview with Gusatvo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

34.  ACLU interview with Javier M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

67.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

35.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

68.  ACLU interview with Abel S. (pseudonym) Dec. 2009.

36.  ACLU interview with Khalid M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

69.  ACLU interview with Edward M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

37.  ACLU interview with Gustavo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

70.  ACLU interview with Hernan C. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

38.  ACLU interview with Kennard D. (pseudonym), Jun. 2010.

71.  ACLU interview with Jeffrey B. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.

39.  ACLU interview with Chiumbo M. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.

72.  ACLU written correspondence with Gustavo F. (pseudonym),
date unknown.

40.  2008 Performance Based National Detention Standards, Part
4: Care, Standard 20 Food Service.
41.  ACLU interview with Andres B. (pseudonym), August 2010.

58.  ACLU Interview with Lilia (Pseudonym), April 2010.

73.  ACLU interview with Ishmael M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
74.  ACLU interview with Gustavo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

42.  ACLU interview with Eduardo G. (pseudonym), July 2010.
43.  ACLU interview with Roberto R. (pseudonym), July 2010.
44.  ACLU interview with James B. (pseudonym), March 2010.
45.  ACLU interview with Gustavo F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

41

42

MEDICAL & MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT

III

“Please: even if is saving [sic] money, not like this, people are dying
from lack of medical [care]...”
– Omar, a detained asylum seeker1

“As soon as you enter this facility, you’re dehumanized.”
– Carl L., a detained asylum seeker2

F

ailure to provide adequate medical care
to immigrants in detention has been in
the limelight since the widely publicized
deaths of several detained immigrants.3 In 2007,
Boubacar Bah, a West African immigrant, fell and
hit his head in a New Jersey detention center.
Staff viewed his agitation and incoherence—
symptoms of inter-cranial bleeding—as disciplinary
problems and sent him to solitary confinement
where his condition deteriorated. By the time he
was taken to a hospital, his health was severely

compromised. He slipped into a coma and
passed away four months later.4 In January of
2010, reports surfaced of attempts by high level
officials in DHS to cover up the circumstances
surrounding his death, including considerations
such as sending him to back to Guinea.5
On July 20, 2007, Victoria Arellano, a 23-year-old
transgender woman, died as a result of alleged
inadequate medical treatment for her HIV while
at the San Pedro Processing Center in California.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

43

Victoria became so weak that she could not even
lift her head back onto her pillow. An official
finally came in to see Victoria and used his foot
to lift her head back onto the pillow, then left.
Despite a great deal of discrimination against the
transgender population, detainees in Victoria’s
dormitory reportedly held a strike and would not
line up for the population count until Victoria
received medical attention. When she was finally
taken to a hospital it was too late.6
From October of 2003 to July 27, 2010, 113
immigrants died while in ICE custody.7 On this
list is Hadayatullah Saylab, an Afghani immigrant
who died while in custody at the Otero County
Processing Center. In the fall of 2006, Young Sook
Kim died while in ICE custody at the Regional
Correctional Center Facility in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The medical care provider at that facility
was Physicians Network Association, the same
provider for the Otero County Processing Center.8

Allegations of Inadequate Medical Treatment:
Physicians Network Association
Medical and mental health care services
at the Otero County Processing Center are
subcontracted by MTC with the private medical
provider Physicians Network Association (PNA).
According to their website, PNA provides health
services to more than 17,000 inmates in 24
facilities throughout Arizona, Texas, and New
Mexico.9
Physicians Network Association has a history of
alleged negligent and inadequate medical care
practices. For example, PNA is subcontracted by
GEO Group, Inc. to run medical services at the
Reeves County Detention Complex in Pecos, Texas.
Reportedly, immigrants at that facility staged a
protest in response to the untimely death of an
inmate who not only did not receive treatment
for his epilepsy, but was placed in segregation and
died following a seizure.10
The Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center
(SFCADC), like Otero, was managed by MTC
with health care services subcontracted to PNA.
Three PNA employees, in addition to other facility
officials, were sued by the family of Tyson Johnson,
a pre-trial inmate at the SFCADC who committed
suicide in January of 2001 despite being placed on

44

a suicide watch. The lawsuit alleges gross neglect
on the part of medical staff as well as MTC. 9 A
March 6, 2003 report released by the Justice
Department revealed startling findings relating
specifically to medical care within that facility.
The investigators noted that the CEO of PNA was
also the only supervisory physician for the Santa
Fe Detention Facility. Located in Lubbock, Texas,
he visited the facility every six weeks, seeing
only a few patients during his visits. Investigators
concluded, “While he is available by telephone
for consultation, he does not visit the Detention
Center frequently enough to provide adequate
supervision.”12 They write:
The [Santa Fe County] Detention Center,
through PNA, provides inadequate
medical services in the following areas:
intake, screening, and referral; acute
care; emergent care; chronic and prenatal
care; and medication administration and
management. As a result, inmates at the
Detention Center with serious medical
needs are at risk for harm. 13 [emphasis
added]
The report goes on to state:
The [Santa Fe County] Detention Center
fails to provide adequate mental health
services to inmates who need this care.
Specifically, the Detention Center fails
to provide appropriate intake screening
and referral and access to mental health
care.14 [emphasis added]

Immigrants Report Lack of Adequate
Medical Treatment
The majority of immigrants detained for long
periods reported negative changes in health.
Almost 84 percent of those imigrants who
participated in the in-depth interviews with
the ACLU reported negative health changes.
Reported changes included the development of
allergies and other upper respiratory problems,
increased depression and anxiety, weight loss,
weakness and physical fatigue, stomach cramps
and diarrhea, skin irritations and fungal infections,
and exacerbation of pre-existing health problems.
To access non-emergency medical care in the
Otero County Processing Center, detained

immigrants must fill out a “Medical Request” or
“Sick Call.” These requests are dropped in a box
on the way to the “Chow Hall.” Immigrants stated
that appointments are only scheduled Monday
through Friday. In many detention facilities,
immigrants wait weeks to be called to the clinic.
Immigrants at the Otero County Processing Center
reported a lapse of two or three days on average,
but they also noted that the response time
depended greatly on the nature of the request
and could take up to a month. In several cases,
immigrants reported never receiving a response.
Immigrants reported that the time lapse between
the submission of a “sick call” and the point at
which a person is actually seen by medical staff
can be hard on their health. They do not have
access to basic over-the-counter medications
and must depend on the medical staff for all
of their medical needs. Individuals often suffer
greatly while waiting two or three days to meet
with medical staff in order to obtain something
as simple as an ibuprofen. As one immigrant
explained, “There is a system in which a medical
request must be put in to see a doctor. But it takes
so long to see a doctor that the problem could get
worse. The system is problematic.”15 Immigrants
reported waiting, sometimes for hours, in a small
and cold holding cell for clinic appointments. After
waiting for two or three hours, people stated that
they abandoned their appointments.
The greatest complaint reported to the ACLU
with regards to medical care is not the time it
takes to see medical staff, but the inadequate
treatment provided. Immigrants reported being
“seen” by medical staff, but not being “treated”
by them. Immigrants stated that ibuprofen and
a little yellow pill, what some believe to be an
antihistamine, appear to be the solution to all
maladies. They feared that in the event of an
emergency, medical treatment would not be
available.
•• “If you are sick at night it would take a whole
lot of time to get here [to the dormitory]. If
it is a life and death situation you would be
dead,” Damon stated. He often noted officers
asleep at night and felt that officers would
not be alert if an emergency arose. 16
•• Nabid spoke of another detained immigrant
in his dormitory who was ill and so weak
he could not get up and could not control

his bowels, causing him to defecate in his
clothes. He reported, “The COs didn’t care
and they just told him to change his clothes
and throw them in the pile of dirty clothes in
the corner.”17
•• Jesus reported that everyone receives the
same two pills, a red one and a yellow one.
He says that the detainees refer to them as
the magic pills “because no matter what your
problem is you get them. One time I went
to medical and before I told them why I was
there they gave me the red and yellow pills.
Red is Ibu-something. The yellow one really
knocks you out.”16 Another person similarly
stated, “They [clinic staff] try to give everyone
the least amount of meds. The yellow pill,
the ‘wonder pill’ is given for everything.”17
And another, “They just give you something
to please you even though it’s not what you
need.”20
•• An asylum seeker recalled that during the
holy month of Ramadan, another Muslim
immigrant “had an attack of some sort” and
was sent to medical. According to his report,
20 minutes later this individual was returned
to the dormitory and had only been given
a blanket. The asylum seeker remarked,
“Blanket, I guess, can be medicine.”21
•• In a letter to the ACLU, Jose Antonio wrote
that he had been very ill and vomiting with
excruciating stomach pain for two or three
days before being seen by the clinic staff.
He stated the clinic gave him Pepcid and
ibuprofen and sent him back to the dormitory.
He writes, “But I knew it was more than the
stomach flu, but none of the Doctors or nurse
took me serious about my complaints, on
the fourth day I was in medical pale looking
and my eyes yellow and very dazing, then I
went to the hospital for three weeks and the
doctor over [there] said [I] barely made it.
One day short I would have died.”22
•• Cristoffer reported experiencing excruciating pain
in his back and side. He was taken to an off-site
hospital. The doctor reportedly informed him
that he needed testing for what appeared to
be a tumor on his liver. He returned to Otero
but reported he did not receive follow-up care.
Cristoffer claimed he wrote a complaint every
day regarding his medical situation. He was

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

45

threatened with segregation. He eventually
received a medical scan that confirmed a
large mass on his liver. After months of pain
and begging for assistance, Cristoffer was
approved to be taken to a hospital in El Paso
for a biopsy. The biopsy was not performed.
Cristoffer refused treatment at the hospital
because he was terrified that something
would happen to him during the procedure,
and he had not been given an opportunity
to notify his family or his consulate despite
requests to do so. Cristoffer also feared that
he would not receive unbiased treatment
from medical staff. He stated that the two
armed correctional officers with him made
disparaging comments to medical staff which
he felt jeopardized the quality of treatment.23
•• Abel slipped and fell when he stepped in water
that had leaked from the ceiling onto the
floor of the dormitory. He injured his arm in
the fall, causing unbearable pain. Concerned
that his arm might be broken, Abel went to
the correctional officer in the dormitory for
assistance. The officer reportedly told him to
fill out a “sick call,” though Abel now thought
it obvious that his arm was broken. He filled
out a sick call, but had already missed his last
opportunity to submit it on the way to dinner.
He didn’t want to wait until morning. He
approached the medical staff when they came
around to distribute medications and asked if
he could have something to mitigate his pain.
Abel reported that the medical staff required
him fill out a sick call. He reported waiting
three days for an appointment. According
to Abel’s report, when he was finally seen,
the doctor immediately recognized that the
arm was broken. Abel was taken to hospital
in El Paso and ultimately needed surgery
to repair the damaged arm. Following the
surgery, Abel reported that he did not receive
adequate follow-up care. At the time the
ACLU met with Abel, he claimed that his arm
was still very painful but luckily not infected.
ICE eventually released Abel, but he reported
that his injury has affected his mobility and
ability to find work.24
•• Sergio experienced chest pains. He stated
that he reported his concerns to the staff,
but was not taken to the clinic until nearly
24 hours later. Medical staff reportedly
performed an EKG and he returned to the

46

dormitory. A short time later, Sergio reported
that medical staff came to the dormitory
to get him. An ambulance took him to the
hospital. It was only then that he learned his
EKG had been abnormal. He remained in the
hospital for five days. The hospital performed
a heart procedure and prescribed medication.
Sergio claimed feeling humiliated while
in the hospital because two correctional
officers were with him the entire time and
he was chained to his bed following the heart
procedure. He noted that he was in good
health before his detention in Otero.25
The number, credentials, and qualifications of
clinic staff were largely unknown to the majority
of immigrants. Many believed there to be one or
two doctors who were rarely at the facility and
a number of nursing assistants or nurses who
provided the bulk of the medical care. Several
immigrants questioned their professionalism. A
Freedom of Information Act request submitted
to ICE on May 10, 2010, returned information on
medical staffing in September of 2010. According
to the response, in the course of a full week (24
hours for 7 days) there is one physician available
less than full time for a facility with the capacity
to hold 1, 086 detainees. Current staff at the time
of the request also included three registered
nurses, a number of licensed vocational nurses
and certified nursing assistants, and a nursing
director.
•• “The medical staff is not properly trained
to deal with emergency conditions,” Anibal
stated. He went on to explain that a detainee
in his dormitory had a seizure and other
detainees reportedly had to instruct the staff
on how to handle the situation.26
•• “If I get sick, I can’t get any help. We don’t
have any doctors, only nurses. If I put in a
medical request it takes four or five days to be
seen. Then only nurses see you and say that
there is no problem, give you an Ibuprofen
and send you back.”27

Immigrants Report Mechanisms to Access
Medical Care Delay Treatment
The complex system for accessing medical
care can delay or impede proper treatment. At

the time the ACLU-NM conducted interviews,
the process to approve “non-routine” care,
including approval of particular medications
and medical equipment, off-site medical visits,
exams, and hospitalization, required submission
of a “Treatment Authorization Request” (TAR) to
the Department of Immigration Health Services
(DIHS) in Washington, D.C., for approval. This
process is tedious and interferes with the timely
delivery of care. Like the detention system itself,
medical services are built on the assumption
that individuals will not be detained for long
periods of time. Those who seek immigration
relief before the courts are likely to be detained
for longer periods of time, and are therefore at a
disadvantage.
Recently, DIHS changed its name to the ICE Health
Services Corps (IHSC). According to advocates,
IHSC has been in the process of overhauling the
reimbursement procedures for medical care of
detained immigrants. The new system should
greatly reduce the delays in medical treatment
under the TAR system by relying more heavily
on the judgment of medical professionals for
reimbursement as opposed to a restricted set of
covered services.
The greatest barrier to adequate medical services
at Otero County Processing Center appears to be
the subcontract with a private, for-profit company.
Greater profit is gained by cost savings in services.
This could translate into hiring medical staff with
fewer qualifications, cutting back on supplies
including medications and medical equipment,
and delaying certain types of medical treatment.
This reality did not escape the attention of the
immigrants who stated things such as, “They’re
not here to help us. They’re just here to get
paid.”28; “[They] don’t seem to care about the
detainees. It is a job for them.”29 and “They are
after money while people are suffering.”30
PNA’s performance with the Reeves County
Detention Complex (RCDC) in Pecos, Texas, is
a prime example of cost-cutting behavior. A
reporter researching medical treatment provided
by PNA at the RCDC noted a dramatic decrease
in medical costs when Reeves County sought an
outside provider (in this case PNA) for medical
services as opposed to relying on local resources.
He wrote:

Ii I,i, i IJ I, ii", II,

/II

i, I //1" ,I,

- Drawing by detained immigrant Miguel R. (pseudonym)

…as reported in the Pecos Enterprise
(11/25/02) a [medical] provider not
accustomed to dealing with inmates
would inadvertently provide the inmate
with medication and other medical
provisions that he doesn’t necessarily
need. For the county commissioners,
worried about health care expenses, the
decline in surgeries, outside medical visits,
and x-rays was impressive. As [Warden]
Franco explained, in the first four months
of the PNA contract, compared with the
previous seven months, the number of
outside medical visits dropped from 59 to
four, the number of surgeries decreased
from 15 to two, and the total incidents of
medical services declined from 3,148 to
222.31
This alleged decline in services begs the
question of whether or not this was achieved by
dramatically reducing basic care to immigrants. At
the Otero County Processing Center, for example,
detainees have reported sharing a wheelchair.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

47

•• Adebayo had trouble walking for years, but
always managed with a walker. He claimed
his ability to walk significantly declined
in detention.
Eventually he needed a
wheelchair. Medical staff allegedly gave
him permission to “borrow” the Otero
wheelchair, but told him that he had to share
it with a detained person in another pod.
Adebayo reported that if he needed to use
the restroom during a time when he was not
in possession of the wheelchair, he had to
use the officer’s chair with wheels to move
from his bunk to the bathroom. Adebayo also
needed daily medication for a life-threatening
illness. He reportedly never received certain

on cold cell floors. [You have] been on a flight
across the country in handcuffs, and by the time
you get to medical you are numb and oblivious
and just want to go to sleep.”34
Even when immigrants reported alerting officials
of the exact medications they needed, the facility
allegedly required proof before it would issue a
prescription. Medical records must be requested.
Once received, some medications must be
approved and ordered. All of these steps create
delays in distribution of medication which can
have long-term and/or life-threatening effects
on an individual’s health. This is particularly
true for HIV-positive individuals. Long delays or

1))-<: d~ n'o~ ~er/ c( ~~~\ G--MOuvJ 0 r C~cd/ Wi.. de ~'lC~1- .9~+ ~+~Y\Je.d
b\.~ ~\.-{ e,J i : lA I :StC\.Ct. \..0~'''L
6Sf.. ;..~ ~,...J / 1l.-~. L, c'S ~c~ k<- .e~~f~~h
(!\,) o\<)Gk~/ t-G.\ +t\~\·\\~ we:... O,,,-"'L \'-'~\\'~ LL,lUL\'\ 1~·\8P-:-C.\u\~ s+-o~
#.
"
u..)

...

..

-

•

1

_

•

J

:

- Letter to the ACLU from Miguel R. (pseudonym)

medications throughout his entire detention
at Otero. He stated medical staff told him that
ICE would not provide the funds for all of the
medications.32

Immigrants Report that Continuity of Care is
Compromised by Detention
Detained persons are required to undergo an
initial medical and mental health screening
within 12 hours of entering a facility, and a full
health appraisal must be conducted within 14
days of arrival.31 The Otero County Processing
Center conducts both actions upon entry.
Because medical records allegedly often don’t
accompany people during transfer, screening
and assessment relies heavily on self-reporting.
The trauma of detention and transfer can leave
individuals disoriented and impair their ability
to immediately answer questions about their
present medical conditions, medical history and
prescriptions. An immigrant explained, “By the
time you get to processing you have spent time

48

gaps in treatment can lead to significant health
complications. Consistently, ACLU-NM found that
people with HIV experienced breaks in treatment
during transfer, processing, and transition to
Otero County Processing Center. Of the 11
people who disclosed to the ACLU that they were
HIV-positive, seven reported taking HIV-related
medications prior to detention and one was
taking supplemental vitamins. All eight people
reportedly experienced interruptions in receiving
medications; the longest lapse was 3 months. The
three people who were not previously in need of
medications allegedly did not receive blood tests
in a timely manner, despite declines in health.
•• An asylum seeker detained at the Otero
County Processing Center reported taking
anti-retroviral medication and vitamins
consistently for four years, a regimen which
contributed to her continued health. During
initial intake processing, she reported that
she informed medical staff of her condition
and her treatment plan. The facility allegedly
failed to administer her medications. She
reportedly submitted requests to see

medical staff nearly every day, and received
no response. She also reported submitting
requests for assistance to ICE. By the time an
ACLU representative met with her, she had
allegedly been without her HIV medication
for more than 20 days. She reported a marked
decline in health. 35
Detained immigrants reported long delays in
obtaining prescription refills as well. To address
this problem, the facility developed a system
that allows immigrants to administer their own
medication. Detainees punch pills out of a sheet
that includes a reminder to request a refill when
the pills run low. Detained persons simply peel off
a sticker, place it on a medical request form, and
send it to medical with enough notice to obtain
the refill and avoid any interruptions. Despite this
precautionary measure, immigrants still report
delays in medication.
•• Nicolas requires medication and constant
monitoring for a life-threatening condition.
When he arrived to Otero he possessed a
three-month supply of medication, but clinic
staff allegedly refused to let him use it. Nicolas
reported they instead gave him a package
with a month’s worth of self-administered
medication. He consistently requested a refill
at least nine days prior to running out of
medication, but reported that he consistently
went without medication for up to five days
when the supply ran out. According to
Nicolas, his life depends on this medication.
Three months after being processed into
the Otero County Processing Center, Nicolas
reportedly met the doctor for the first time.
Nicolas reported that the doctor expressed
surprise and stated, “How come I haven’t
seen you?” Despite a commitment from the
doctor to provide new dosages of medication,
on the day of his immigration court hearing,
Nicolas alleged he had been without his
blood pressure medication for eight days and
the medication for his serious condition for
five days.36
•• Cornelius required medication for a heart
condition in addition to insulin and regular
snacks to control his diabetes. Some detained
immigrants reportedly have a paper referred
to as a K.O.P. (Keep On Person), which
provides permission for detained persons in
the facility to keep certain items with them

for health reasons that otherwise would
not be permitted. Cornelius claimed he had
a K.O.P. that allowed him to administer his
own heart medication. He also possessed
a K.O.P authorizing snacks as needed to
control his diabetes. On several occasions
correctional officers allegedly took away his
K.O.P. for snacks, and on one occasion they
purportedly confiscated his K.O.P. for heart
medication. Cornelius had to wait until he
was able to secure a clinic appointment to
try to obtain a new K.O.P. and more heart
medication. As Cornelius entered into his 90day post order custody removal period, he
exhibited extreme depression and repeatedly
expressed fears of dying in the facility. He
stated that he could not imagine surviving
another 90 days of detention.37
According to detainee reports, clinic staff at Otero did
not share follow-up care information or lab results
with immigrants sent off-site for exams or tests. This
lack of information caused anxiety. Detained persons
questioned whether or not they were receiving the
medical treatment they needed or that had been
ordered by off-site medical professionals. In several
instances, the ACLU helped these individuals obtain
copies of their medical records. In some of these
cases, immigrants discovered that a particular
medication was not being administered because it
wasn’t necessary. For example, one man had been
diagnosed with HIV prior to detention but did not
have the opportunity to receive education on how
to manage his HIV and what to expect. He was
very stressed, afraid that he needed medication
and wasn’t receiving it. The clinic drew blood for
lab work, but failed to share the results with him.
His medical records revealed that he was in good
health and did not need medication. If medical staff
had shared the blood work results and spent a few
minutes providing health education, he would have
been spared the stress of not knowing.
In another case, an immigrant took the same
medication for a number of years, but when he
arrived at Otero his medication changed. Facility staff
prescribed three separate medications causing him to
submit several requests to remedy the situation. The
original medication is composed of three different
chemicals. Instead of providing the chemicals in
one pill, the facility prescribed three pills for the
same effect. Again, a brief explanation could have
alleviated his anxiety.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

49

•• Prior to detention, Ishmael was reportedly
in good health. After two years of detention,
he developed high blood pressure, a chronic
ulcer, a concerning blood condition, and his
teeth began to fall out. The medical staff at
Otero allegedly became concerned enough
to send him for off-site testing. The doctor
reportedly ordered an extremely painful
medical procedure. According to Ishmael,
the MTC officer called a Lieutenant from
the hospital to ask if the handcuffs could be
removed during the procedure. The request
was denied. Ishmael was handcuffed during
the entire test. The test results came back
abnormal. According to Ishmael, follow-up
tests were not performed and the facility
clinic drew blood, but he never received
the lab results. He began to lose weight and
feel dizzy. Months later the Otero doctor
called him down to the clinic. The doctor
purportedly exclaimed,
“Oh my gosh! You are
still here! What are you
“People are taken to a
doing here? I thought
special medical unit or
you were gone.” He
they are given pills that
ordered blood work.
Ishmael reported he
make them sleep.”
was later called back
for more blood work
–Abukar A., a detained immigrant
because the facility
in response to a question on
had never sent the
services for individuals with
38
initial blood samples
mental illness
to the laboratory and
they had expired. He
claimed he never saw the results of the lab
tests and never learned the source of his
condition.39

Detained Persons Report Insufficient
Dental Care
According to the 2008 Performance Based
National Detention Standards, routine dental
care “may be provided to detainees in ICE custody
for whom dental treatment is inaccessible for
prolonged periods of time because of detention
over six (6) months, including amalgam and
composite restorations, prophylaxis, root canals,
extractions, x-rays, the repair and adjustment
of prosthetic appliances and other procedures
required to maintain the detainee’s health.”40
Immigrants at the Otero County Processing Center

50

reported that it was a challenge to obtain dental
care beyond the pulling of painful or infected
teeth. Even those people subject to prolonged
detention reported having to fight for a dental
cleaning a year into their detention. Nabid, a
detained immigrant explained, “Dental health is
not taken seriously and rather than filling a cavity,
they will pull the teeth.”41 Another person stated
that he was in need of dental care but chose not
to see the dentist because he didn’t want his
teeth pulled. The facility employs a dentist at less
than half time and one dental assistant for the
entire facility.42
•• At the time of the ACLU interview, Ishmael
was detained at the Otero County Processing
Center for more than 17 months. He had
not yet received any dental care. His tooth
hurt but he didn’t want to have another
one pulled. Ishmael allegedly spoke to an
official at the facility and explained why he
believed he qualified for dental care. Ishmael
reported that the official informed him that
he was eligible for a root canal, fillings and a
deep cleaning. Ishmael explained this to the
dentist, but was allegedly told that in order
for the dentist to provide any additional care,
approval was necessary from the Health
Services Administrator. After many months
of struggling for dental care, he reported that
he was granted a deep cleaning and fillings.
A root canal was not approved. He stated
feeling that the long delay resulted in the loss
of several teeth.43
•• Abukar, an asylum seeker, suffered from a
dental infection which caused a great deal
of pain. He was concerned because he felt
“the facility does not offer treatment or
even cleanings,” but merely pull the tooth
when there is a problem. He wanted to keep
the tooth but eventually decided to have it
removed because of the pain.44
•• Chiumbo reportedly was told that he needed
to be in the facility for a year to obtain dental
care. He had been in the facility for nearly
two years and stated that he did not receive
adequate dental care. He had six teeth pulled
during his detention in Otero.45

Mental Health Care

Immigrants with mental illness are particularly
vulnerable in the detention setting. The range of
mental health concerns is vast, from individuals
who develop depression and anxiety as a result
of their detention, to asylum seekers and others
who may have experienced torture or trauma
prior to detention, to those with significant
mental illness. Physicians for Human Rights
report that asylum seekers subject to detention
experience increased levels of depression and
anxiety.46 Those with more significant needs may
be unable to control symptoms of their mental
illness. Facility staff often views their behavior as
disobedience or aggression and allegedly send
mentally ill individuals to segregation. Texas
Appleseed, in conjunction with the law firm Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, recently issued
a report on the challenges faced by persons with
mental disabilities in the immigration court and
detention system. They write, “Immigrants with
mental disabilities are unnecessarily detained
in a system ill-equipped to care for them,
sometimes arbitrarily transferred away from their
communities, often denied basic due process in
a complex immigration court system, and all too
frequently released from detention or removed
from the United States with little concern for
their safety or well-being.”47
Persons detained at the Otero County Processing
Center access mental health care services through
submission of a “sick call.” Those who sought
mental health services reported longer delays
between the time of submitting a mental health
request and receiving an appointment than for
regular clinic appointments. Information obtained
from a Freedom of Information Act request reveals
that mental health care staff consists of one mental
health professional and one mental health worker
(credentials unknown), a psychologist contracted
for consulting one time per week, and a psychiatrist
who offers consults once a month.48 Detained
immigrants who met with the counselor spoke highly
of their interactions. Some people, however, had a
very difficult time getting to the initial appointment.
Several detained immigrants said that medication for
depression and anxiety were prescribed regularly,
yet the ACLU-NM representatives encountered
individuals who appeared depressed or expressed
feelings of severe depression. Some of these
individuals who exhibited signs of suicidal ideation
reported that they were told that medications could
not be prescribed because there was no previous
diagnosis of depression.

Detention can have profound effects on mental
health. The majority of individuals interviewed
reported symptoms of depression and anxiety
including insomnia, loss of appetite, and
decreased desire to get out of their bunks during
the day.
•• “It’s really frustrating being in my dorm 24
hours a day. Especially with rec at 6:30 in the
morning. I get desperate. There are things I
want to do and I just can’t. I want to work and
do something productive, but all I can do is
wait.”49
•• Nicolas described a fellow detainee who
needed mental health medication and
repeatedly told staff that he felt irritable and
was starting to hear things. The detainee
eventually snapped and slapped a correctional
officer in the face. Instead of taking him for
medical attention, MTC staff allegedly took
him to the Special Housing Unit.50
•• Miguel’s family brought him to the United
States when he was only three years old.
He has two younger siblings with a terminal
illness who he had been supporting
financially. His daughter was born while he
was in detention. “It hurts. I’ve had a lot of
problems. Everything’s just gone down the
drain. We know we’re locked up 24 hours
a day. Make a Wish Foundation came out
to grant my brother and sister their wishes
already. I want to be with them and I can’t.
I wasn’t there when my daughter was born.
She’s going to be eight months and I won’t be
there when she turns eight months. I’m afraid
I won’t be there when she turns one. Me
and my girlfriend aren’t together anymore
because of this. Because I’m in here.”51
•• Marco stated that since his detention in Otero
he could not retain information. He began to
lose track of things and found that he was
talking to himself.52
•• Omar reported that he didn’t sleep at night
because he was thinking about the family he
left behind when he fled his war-torn country.
He lost his appetite as well. He reportedly
submitted 10 requests to see mental health
care staff. Instead they gave him a worksheet
on relaxation techniques. He was afraid to
take medication. He stated, “The medication

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

51

that they give can make you crazy. There are
pills but they damage the brain.” He stated
that he witnessed another detainee who was
really groggy from pills and couldn’t wake up
easily.53
•• Horace was sent to the Special Housing Unit
along with several other black detainees, who
protested because they felt they were being
treated differently than other detainees by
correctional officers. He reportedly spent
30 days in an isolated cell. He requested to
see the mental health staff on two occasions
during his time in the SHU and was allegedly
denied an appointment in both instances.
He was later diagnosed with depression and
placed on anti-depressants.54
•• When Guillermo first met with an ACLU
representative he had dark circles under his
eyes, a slouched posture, and an averted
gaze. He felt anxious and depressed and
reported that his anxiety had worsened
with the length of his detention. Prior to his
detention, he took medication for anxiety, but
at Otero staff allegedly told him that without
a documented past diagnosis of depression,
medication would not be administered.
Guillermo met with the counselor on several
occasions, but stopped putting in requests
for assistance because he felt that he wasn’t
improving. For more than a month, he mostly
stayed on his bed all day and listened to his
radio. He was worried about his ability to
control his actions around others. He lost his
appetite and did not sleep at night because
of thoughts spinning in his mind. He stated
that he used to be able to read but was
suddenly “not in the mood.” Calls to family
became infrequent as money became scarce.
He indicated that he had thoughts of ending
his own life, but was terrified of telling the
mental health staff for fear of being placed
in the Special Housing Unit or on suicide
watch where he would be left in a bare cell by
himself nearly 24 hours a day.55
•• Ediberto survived a number of traumatic
events since childhood and suffered from a
serious illness. His physical and mental health
deteriorated rapidly at the Otero County
Processing Center. He experienced nausea,
dizziness, diarrhea, and vomiting with
blood. According to Ediberto, he was sent to

52

segregation for two months after refusing a
tray of food. He reported that he began to
hear voices, constantly urging him to end his
life. He reported that he tried to take his own
life on one occasion and was placed naked
in a solitary cell. A significant amount of
time passed before Ediberto finally received
mental health care services.56 Ediberto
ultimately abandoned a claim to asylum and
signed an order of deportation. He could not
bear the thought of spending more time in
detention.
Access to individuals with significant mental
disabilities was challenging for ACLU-NM
representatives. The few referrals received
came from advocates and other detainees who
believed a pod mate was mentally ill and in
need of services. Detained immigrants who did
not seek mental health services believed that
those with mental health issues were commonly
housed in the general population without
adequate care. They observed other detainees
who would “be spaced out like zombies and
suddenly will have a violent outburst.”57 Another
detained immigrant reported that an individual
in his dormitory with severe mental health issues
“attempted to choke another detainee and tried
to escape.” He stated that such individuals are
“given sleep medications but no treatment.”58
Detained immigrants reported that Otero staff
used segregation as a short-term solution to
control behaviors associated with mental illness.
Once released from segregation, they reportedly
placed these individuals back into the general
population in a new dormitory. The ACLU-NM
could not confirm these reports without greater
access to individuals with mental health issues.
Several of the detained immigrants interviewed
by the ACLU witnessed an attempted suicide in
the dormitory. An asylum seeker, who himself had
been subjected to trauma, ran over to help the
individual. According to reports, this individual
was taken to the hospital but returned a short
time later. When the ACLU attempted to meet
with him, we learned he was deported.
The lack of information surrounding care
and treatment for detained immigrants with
significant mental illness is concerning. The ACLU
met with a person with mental illness who was
detained in the Special Housing Unit for months.
ICE detained this particular person well beyond

the six months after his order of removal. He could
not communicate details about his situation to the
ACLU and on one occasion refused to meet with a
representative. Texas Appleseed writes, “In some
cases, unnecessarily lengthy detention is caused
by ICE’s failure to consider the inability of an
immigrant with mental disabilities to cooperate
with the removal process…”59 It is difficult to
know how many immigrants with mental illness
languish indefinitely at Otero because they are
unable to participate in their immigration court
proceedings.

12.  Letter to Mr. Jack Sullivan, County Commission Chairman,
Santa Fe County, from Assistant Attorney General Ralph F. Boyd,
Jr. (2003, March 6). Re: Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center.
Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/
santa_fe_findings.pdf
13.  Letter to Jack Sullivan. Re: Santa Fe County Adult Detention
Center.
14.  Letter to Jack Sullivan. Re: Santa Fe County Adult Detention
Center.
15.  ACLU interview with Abel S. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
16.  ACLU interview with Damon M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
17.  ACLU written correspondence with Nabid N. (pseudonym),
August 2009.
18.  ACLU interview with Jesus I. (pseudonym), March 2010.

(Endnotes)
1.  ACLU correspondence with Omar B. (pseudonym), Aug. 2009.
2.  ACLU interview with Carl L. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
3.  Priest, Dana and Goldstein, Amy. (2008, May 11). System
of Neglect, Careless Detention. The Washington Post. Retrieved
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/
immigration/cwc_d1p1.html
4.  Bernstein, Nina. (2008, May 5). Few Details on Immigrants
Who Died in Custody. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05detain.
html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
5.  Bernstein, Nina. (2010, January 9). Officials Hid Truth of
Immigrant Deaths in Jail. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html
6.  Interview with Former Detainee at the San Pedro Processing
Center; Sandra Hernandez. (2008, June 1). A Lethal Limbo: Lack
of Healthcare Turns Federal Detention into a Death Sentence for
Some Immigrants. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://
articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/01/opinion/op-hernandez1
7.  ACLU. (2009, August 17) DHS Announces 11 Previously
Unreported Deaths in Immigration Detention. Available online
at: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights_prisoners-rights/
dhs-announces-11-previously-unreported-deaths-immigrationdetention
8.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement. List of Deaths in ICE
Custody October 2003-July 27, 2010. Retrieved from: www.ice.gov/
doclib/foia/reports/detaineedeaths2003-present.pdf
9.  Physicians Network Association, www.pnamedical.net/about.
php
10.  Barry, Tom. (2009, February 13). Medical Claims and
Malpractice in West Texas Immigrant Prison. Center for
International Policy TransBorder Project. Retrieved from: http://
borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/medical-claims-andmalpractice-in-west.html
11.  Grimm, Julie Ann. (2003, August 12). Family Files Lawsuit After
Jail Suicide. The New Mexican. Retrieved from: http://www.pscoa.
org/privatization/privatization%205/49.htm

19.  ACLU interview with Benson R. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
20.  ACLU interview with Nicolas C. (pseudonym), March 2010.
21.  ACLU interview with Khalid M. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
22.  ACLU written correspondence with Jose Antonio
(pseudonym), February 2010. An ACLU representative went to
meet with this individual upon receipt of his letter. He had already
been deported.
23.  ACLU interviews with Cristoffer K. (pseudonym), Jan.
2010-April 2010.
24.  ACLU interview with Abel S. (pseudonym), March 2010.
25.  ACLU interview with Sergio S. (pseudonym), April 2010.
26.  ACLU interview with Anibal E. (pseudonym), May 2010.
27.  ACLU interview with Abukar A. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
28.  ACLU interview with Carl L. (pseudonym), Jan. 2009.
29.  ACLU interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
30.  ACLU interview with Omar B. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
31.  Barry ,Tom (2009, February 13). Medical Claims and
Malpractice in West Texas Immigrant Prison Part I. Center for
International Policy Transborder Project. Retrieved from: http://
borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/medical-claims-andmalpractice-in-west.html
32. 

ACLU interview with Adebayo P. (pseudonym), April 2010.

33.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2008 Performance
Based National Detention Standards, Medical Care Standard.
Retrieved from: http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008/
34.  ACLU interview with James B. (pseudonym), March 2010.
35.  ACLU interview with “Veronica” (pseudonym), date
undisclosed.
36.  ACLU interviews with Nicolas C. (pseudonym), Jan.
2010-August 2010.
37.  ACLU interview with Cornelius E. (pseudonym), May 2010.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

53

38.  ACLU interview with Abukar A. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
39.  ACLU interviews with Ishmael M. (pseudonym), Sept. 2009Sept. 2010.
40.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2008 Performance
Based National Detention Standards. Standard 22 Medical Care.
Available online at: http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008/
41.  ACLU interview with Nabid N. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
42.  Otero County Processing Center Physician’s Network
Association, Professional Medical Provider Positions, obtained in a
Freedom of Information Act response to Immigration and Custom’s
Enforcement. On file with author.
43.  ACLU interview with Abukar A. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
44.  ACLU interviews with Chiumbo M. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010July 2010.
45.  ACLU interview with Abukar A. (pseudonym), Dec. 2009.
46.  Physicians for Human Rights. (June 2003). From Persecution
to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention for Asylum
Seekers. Retrieved from: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/
library/report-persprison.html
47.  Texas Appleseed and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP. Justice for Immigration’s Hidden Population: Protecting the
Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities in the Immigration
Court and Detention System. Retrieved from: http://www.
texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_
download&gid=313&Itemid=
48.  Otero County Processing Center, Physician’s Network
Association, Professional Medical Provider Positions, information
obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On record with the author.
49.  ACLU interview with Santiago R. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.
50.  ACLU interview with Nicolas C. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.
51.  ACLU interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
52.  ACLU interview with Marco R. (pseudonym), Feb. 2010.
53.  ACLU interview with Omar B. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
54.  ACLU interview with Horace F. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
55.  ACLU Interview with Guillermo R. (pseudonym), March 2010.
56.  ACLU interview with Ediberto R. (pseudonym), date
undisclosed
57.  ACLU interview with Kennard D. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
58.  ACLU interview with Chiumbo M. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
59.  Texas Appleseed and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
Justice for Immigration’s Hidden Population: Protecting the Rights
of Persons with Mental Disabilities in the Immigration Court and
Detention System.

54

EFFECTS ON FAMILY
& COMMUNITY

IV
LEFT: Letter from
a detained immigrant to the U.S.
President

“It is a very sad experience. It is a very demeaning experience. We have become
very tense and very anguished. I have become depressed. The first couple of
months were really bad. We keep in touch regularly... I just feel awful. They are
not treated like humans. They took him away really fast and they took him and
within days he was in New Mexico. But we’re hopeful. We have family.”
– Caterina, wife of an immigrant detained at the Otero County Processing Center1

T

he hidden costs of detention extend beyond
the detained individual and reach into the
families and communities from which they
have been separated. The financial, emotional,
and physical toll on family and friends is enormous.
Many immigrants in detention were the sole
financial supports for their family members and
now must rely on the help of others to keep their
families afloat.

•• Now 23 years old, Kennard was only two when
he first came to the United States. He stated

that his detention was an enormous financial
burden on his family, particularly on his father
who helped to support his children and his
girlfriend while also paying for Kennard’s legal
assistance and sending money for items from
the commissary. His current girlfriend moved
four times because of financial hardship and
had problems finding childcare. She became
depressed and was ultimately hospitalized.
She also developed physical health issues,
which Kennard attributed to stress. The

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

55

mother of his son was unable to find work
and depended solely on Kennard for financial
support. Kennard was his mother’s source of
financial support as well. After ICE detained
Kennard, his mother began to have a difficult
time paying bills. Kennard worked for his
father and worried about his father taking on
the extra physical burden and turning down
jobs because he didn’t have the extra help.
Kennard was extremely close to his little
sister who developed depression because of
his detention. While in detention, Kennard
missed the birth of his child.2
•• The father of an immigrant detained at the
Otero County Processing Center expressed
his frustration over his son’s situation. “It
disrupted everything,” he stated, “A severe

‘I don’t know why they are playing with us, with
our feelings, taking us far from our children and
our wives. When we came to this country we
lost a part of our family and now we suffer the
separation from the family we have formed in
this country, two blows. And we suffer, in the
end not knowing from where we have come or
to where we will go.”
– Gabriel D., immigrant detained at the Otero County
Processing Center3

strain on financial resources. Everyone is
stressed out. Everyone is obsessed with the
fact that it has been one year that ICE has
been holding my son. I can’t see for the love
of god if we have such concern for family why
we are using tax dollars to hold people and
disrupt families.” He spoke of the financial
strain of having to pay for plane tickets to
attend hearings, as well as money for his
son to purchase commissary, phone cards,
and to pay for lawyers. He stated, “This is
a conspiracy of robbery. A bunch of people
decided to get together and rob minorities
- the legal system, the airlines, the phone
company.” He continued, “I am so frustrated
and agitated. I feel totally let down. I used to
be proud of this place but I am not anymore.
…What good is it to build a life here and then

56

to have it pulled out? Everyday there is some
problem. I am at my wits end. I need someone
to help me understand.”4
The effects on emotional health of minor
children can be profound. Immigrants are often
transferred far away from the location of their
arrest. Increased financial strain impedes the
ability to visit and may also create difficulties with
telephone communication. The wife of a detained
immigrant reflected that their oldest child was
having a particularly difficult time emotionally
with his father’s detention. She stated, “Children
do not understand the difference between jail
and detention.” She expressed that her children
are now 100 percent emotionally and financially
reliant on her for support. The 10-year-old
developed anger issues and the oldest, a
teenager, is “going through a lot of things and
could use a male point of view. My biggest fear,”
she remarked, “is that he will be deported and I
won’t know.”5
•• Overnight, Kathy’s world changed. She stated,
“I became a single parent in one day, an entire
change in lifestyle in one day.” She dotes on
her two young children. Several times she
repeated, “My kids are number one.” Her
daughter has managed to maintain straight
As, and her son has been writing stories.
Kathy sends the report cards and stories to
her husband. She states, “He hasn’t written
to them [the children] in a long time. The
last time was a birthday card. He used to call
more frequently, but now it is more stretched
out.” She tried to imagine what it would be
like not to see the children. “When the kids
are gone for a weekend at their aunt’s house,
I miss them. I don’t know what it must be like
for Brian (pseudonym) to not see them for
so long.” The financial strain has been very
difficult on Kathy and the kids. She has been a
single mother for almost two years. She had
to pull her son from an after-school program
because it became too expensive. Kathy says
she feels lucky that her sister can help her by
picking the kids up after school. She begins
to cry as she speaks about not being able to
afford presents or vacations for her children.
Her son’s birthday is coming up, and he wants
a bike for his birthday but she can’t afford to
buy him one. “There is no financial support.
I have given up. It is like bleeding blood from
a turnip. I would love to take the kids to Sea

T-dcM ~lt;o'l./(
1;'0...\ v\\ \ \-e..:;'

('(')(""

"\.-

,~ c"'~ -- \-h.0\.\- 'l-CE I1-NS I s<pe.,o..~G'"

<: -ea.sc;f\"So \ i \::.-e. I

0..'1

0 IIe.\ <:3 ~Cl.~

eel.

If(>,(}.., 0'"

't>e-Co..-..;S<.

tj"eex-.e.o-..,d. ~ 11\. \.-~ ~I 0'1
~ LlJ h.oJ G~6c v~ \-ho se. ~e.o~ lz. \J0 ~ V\G\.\1\Jl. \'\{J L.0\'\ Vi d i M1S J lDho
ho..ve.. V-u.'" ~ ~-e.,e.. \; C> C" \ () ;-\ e()..,So 0'\ M.<:>' e.. 'I ~ 1<; ,,\ a~ Q~"i
S:O'N-...elW--L

cI.;J .n..o~ ,"-e..(\,,-~ \-\'-e."

:50~0~ (\Jt~~g \-C'.l d<!l ~\'\.A. ..~..\ ..\:(\~~ G\..'D~'U~ \-~~s.

- Letter to the ACLU from Miguel R. (pseudonym)

World, but I have to buy them clothes and
shoes…I just don’t want to disappoint my kids
anymore. I am a good person and my kids
are great kids. I don’t know what I would do
without them. It must be hard for Brian, but
it is hard for us as well.”6
Adult children are not immune to the emotional
effects of having a parent in detention and at risk
of deportation.
•• Hannah is in her 20s, but her father walked
with her to work nearly every day. On the
day he was arrested she waited for him and
he never came. “I miss him being a part of
my life. I always felt very safe with him. It
took a lot to adjust. I really miss him.” She
explained that her supervisor at work put her
on probation because she was always late
and having a hard time focusing since her
father’s arrest. Hannah was able to attend his
court hearing in El Paso. The officer allowed
Hannah to speak with her father during a
30-minute recess, “but I wasn’t allowed to
hug him,” she states.7
•• Samuel, an asylum seeker, sought relief under
the Convention Against Torture. He lived
with mental illness for a number of years but
managed symptoms with medication. His son
was also diagnosed with mental illness and
requires constant support. In a letter to the
ACLU, Samuel wrote, “…my stay here [in the
United States] will privilege me to take care
of my son. I am all that he has and ever since
my incarceration he has been going through
difficult situations, he suddenly developed

intense psychiatric and psychological illness
that has prompted his admission into a
rehabilitation home, where he stayed for
seven straight months of treatment and at
the moment he is still mentally unstable and
undergoing treatments, but all this trauma is
stemming from the knowledge and fear that I
would encounter if I am deported back to [my
country of origin].”8

(Endnotes)
1.  ACLU telephone interview with Caterina F. (pseudonym), April
2010.
2.  ACLU interview with Kennard D. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
3.  ACLU correspondence with Gabriel D. (pseudonym), Aug. 2009.
4.  ACLU telephonic interview with father of an immigrant
detained at the Otero County Processing Center, March 2010.
5.  ACLU interview with the wife of an immigrant detained at the
Otero County Processing Center, Feb. 2010.
6.  ACLU interview with the wife of an immigrant detained at the
Otero County Processing Center, May 2010.
7.  ACLU telephonic interview with daughter of an immigrant
detained at the Otero County Processing Center, April 2010.
8.  ACLU written correspondence with Samuel D. (pseudonym)

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

57

58

OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY
& ICE REFORM EFFORTS

V

T

he use of private contractors and subcontractors
to operate immigration detention facilities
creates barriers to oversight and accountability.
In a report focused on the immigration system’s
deficiencies in dealing with individuals with mental
illness, Texas Appleseed writes, “The deficiencies in
enforcement and oversight of immigration detention
are compounded by the many contractors and subcontractors in the ICE detention system, which has
created a system rife with inefficiencies.”1

of the measures implemented to date begin to
examine and address deficiencies in oversight.
Reform efforts will be discussed in greater depth
later in this section. ACLU-NM is encouraged by
these actions, but cautions that there is still much
work needed to put a system of truly meaningful
oversight in place. The ACLU-NM hopes that ICE
leadership will continue to work with advocates
in this process to remedy systemic shortcomings
such as those raised below.

As mentioned earlier in this report, on October 6,
2009, the Department of Homeland Security and
ICE released a document outlining immediate
reforms, short-term benchmarks, and long-term
goals for overhauling the immigration detention
system. These announcements came on the
heels of a comprehensive review of the detention
system and set of recommendations released by
Dr. Dora Schriro, the former director of the ICE
Office of Detention Policy and Planning. Several

Improving accountability and oversight requires
focus on three key items: (1) an improvement and
standardization of detainee grievance procedures,
(2) an assessment and improvement of facility
inspections and reviews to create meaningful
oversight and (3) an evaluation of the use of
private contractors and the development and
implementation of accountability mechanisms.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

59

Grievance Procedures Fail to Provide Resolution
for Detained Immigrants
The use of private contractors appears to confuse
processes for seeking redress and submitting
grievances. For example, there are several avenues
for a detained immigrant to file a grievance
or complaint to national agencies tasked with
oversight. A person may lodge a complaint with the
Department of Homeland Security Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) or with the DHS Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), but these
channels are complicated for even those few
immigrants who speak English fluently and have
a cultural and intellectual understanding of U.S.
legal systems. More often than not, complaints to
these agencies do not end in resolution, or the
complaint finds it way back to the desk of the
offending agency. Complaints are often reviewed
individually, with patterns of consistent issues
being more difficult to track. Immigrants can also
file claims of civil rights violations with the district
courts, but the steps involved are onerous if the
detainee is unrepresented.
At a local level, each facility has its own grievance
procedure in addition to a grievance procedure
initiated by the local ICE Field Office, or developed
by the private contractor on behalf of ICE. The
detainee handbook issued by Management
and Training Corporation encourages informal
resolution. It then explains the formal grievance
procedure where informal resolution is
“unattainable” or “impractical.” There is a twostep process for submitting grievances. The first
goes to the unit grievance coordinator. If one is
not satisfied with the result, a grievance may be
submitted to the warden. The bottom of the Step
2 grievance form specifically states that decisions
made by the warden cannot be appealed. The
handbook, however, mentions that a grievance
can be submitted to the ICE officer in charge at
any time.
Transparency within these processes is further
complicated because it appears to be in the
best interest of the private contractor to
“resolve” grievances before they reach ICE
management. At Otero, some grievances and
requests “disappeared.” Facility inspections
and subsequent follow-up reviews in 2009 and
2010 report that staff failed to log all detainee
requests and grievances. In June of 2009 the
inspectors wrote, “All written detainee requests

60

are not maintained in a logbook.”2 Nearly a
year later, an April follow-up review to a March
2010 inspection still found the facility deficient
in this area. The report states, “The facility staff
did not maintain request logs from November 1,
2009 through March 31, 2010. Request logs for
detainee requests submitted directly to ICE were
not maintained by ICE/DRP.”3 The annual Contract
Performance Monitoring Instrument reflects an
extremely low number of grievances filed with
MTC compared to the size of the population, with
only 242 grievances from July 2008 through June
2009 out of a population of 10,348 detainees and
only 32 grievances filed from July 2009 to May
2010 out of a population of 9,340 detainees.4
Based on the number of grievances shared with
the ACLU-NM, we believe it is unlikely these
numbers reflect the actual number of requests
and grievances submitted.
The MTC detainee handbook specifically states
that “no harassment, punishment, or disciplinary
action will result to a detainee for seeking
resolution of legitimate complaints in good faith.”5
Yet, many immigrants reported being afraid to
file grievances. Some individuals even expressed
concern that speaking to the ACLU might result in
harassment or retaliation.
•• Idrissa reported that he was called to a
meeting with the MTC warden and a captain.
He was ordered to refrain from submitting
grievances or encouraging others to submit
grievance forms to the ICE officers. According
to Idrissa, the captain threatened grave
consequences and stated that Idrissa would
be put in a place “where I would not see the
daylight for a long time.”6
•• Miguel filed a civil rights complaint against
the facility with the New Mexico courts. “They
know who is filing the lawsuit and they [the
officers] put more pressure on us but try to be
discreet. They try to act like we don’t know.”
He also filed several grievances. On one
occasion Miguel was filling out a grievance
form and an officer reportedly reacted. “You
can write whatever the hell you want. You
think you can challenge me? You’re acting
like a bunch of little girls.” Another detained
individual laughed at the officer’s comment.
The officer allegedly responded by saying,
“I am going to deal with this little faggot
outside.” When asked if any of his grievances

were resolved, Miguel responded, “I see we
file grievances and they get a promotion and
there is nothing we can do or say.”7
Immigrants detained at Otero who were not afraid
of potential retaliation were frustrated with the
process and, like Miguel, rarely saw resolution to
their grievances. Some individuals reported never
even receiving a response to their grievance.
Others felt that small easy issues were handled,
whereas larger issues were ignored. The process
was described as a “waste of time” by another.
In the ICE Inspection conducted from September
16-18, 2008, of the 227 grievances filed from July
to September, zero grievances were resolved in
favor of the detainee.8
One immigrant filed a grievance regarding the
inefficiency of the grievance procedure, stating that
ICE referred him back to MTC staff who claimed

Facility Inspections and Reviews Fail to Ensure
Adequate Oversight
The Statement of Work for the Otero County
Processing Center states that the “PROVIDER
is required, in units housing ICE detainees,
to perform in accordance with the most
current editions of the ICE National Detention
Standards…”11 These standards are not
legally enforceable and therefore serve only
as suggested guidelines. Without adequate
oversight it is impossible to ensure compliance
with detention standards. ICE facility inspections
consist primarily of filling out worksheets with
checkboxes, reviewing paperwork, and looking for
written policy. Documents obtained in a Freedom
of Information Act request indicate follow-up
reviews to determine if corrective actions were
taken in deficient areas. The first inspection at
Otero resulted in a “Deficient” rating. Subsequent

--------~-

- Letter to the ACLU from Miguel R. (pseudonym)

to never have received his complaints. He stated
concern with the lack of “accountability, absence
of procedures, and no available remedy.”9 Several
detained immigrants had the same dissatisfaction
with the endless cycle of being referred by MTC
to ICE and vice versa. One immigrant reported
an incident to ICE which they claimed was MTC’s
responsibility. The MTC lieutenant reviewing the
grievances became upset and, according to this
individual, “lectures people for an hour for filing the
grievance. It’s frustrating. No one is on our side at
all.”10 Responsibility shifting impedes any attempt
to seek redress. The process becomes more complex
when grievances reflect concerns about mental or
medical health care, adding another agency, PNA,
into the already confusing mix.

inspections raise the rating to “Good.” Yet, several
deficiencies persist throughout the existence of
the facility in the absence of corrective actions.
Discrepancies exist in findings based on the
agency conducting the inspection. For example,
in March of 2009, Creative Corrections conducted
a review of Otero and did not find any deficiencies
in standards. Three months later, the Office of
Detention Oversight (ODO) conducted a Quality
Assurance review and identified 29 deficiencies
including: Access to Legal Material, Admission
and Release, Key and Lock Control, Food Service,
Religious Practices, Security Inspections, StaffDetainee Communications and Use of Force.
In March of 2010, a review worksheet does not
reveal any deficiencies, but one month later an

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

61

ODO follow-up review to the June 2009 Quality
Assurance Review found that 10 of the 29
deficiencies identified in June had not yet been
remedied.
Additionally, inspections and reviews often refer
back to the existence of a written policy to affirm
compliance with a standard. Inspections and
reviews do not appear to reflect the experiences
of the individuals detained in the facility. It is
worth noting that the June 2009 inspection
team interviewed 50 detainees as part of their
process. It is also worth noting that issues raised
by the detainees were deemed “without merit.”
According to the report, medical concerns were
not addressed because of staff shortages.12
The facility was granted accreditation by the
American Correctional Association following an
official audit from November 2-4, 2009. These
reports are not yet publicly available. However,
ACLU interviews with detained persons in the
Otero County Processing Center reveal a stark
inconsistency between policy and practice. For
example, the Assistant Field Office Director
informed a representative of the ACLU that Otero
received two awards for superior medical care.
This comment came after the ACLU intervened
on behalf of an individual who allegedly had not
received his HIV medication for weeks. When a
person is first processed into a facility he receives
an initial medical screening. A full health appraisal
is required for all detainees within 14 days of
arrival. Otero reportedly received an award for
increased efficiency by conducting the full health
appraisal during the processing period. However,
efficiency in policy does not necessarily reflect
provision of adequate treatment once initial
screening and exams are conducted.
The contract with MTC indicates that ICE will
conduct “periodic unscheduled inspections.” In
reality, inspections and audits are conducted with
advance notice to facility officials. A detained
immigrant at Otero reported that when people
come to perform an inspection everything is
cleaned ahead of time, the food improves for a
brief period and dormitory searches are limited.
He reported that those conducting the inspection
don’t allow contact with the detainees. “After
the inspectors leave,” he states, “the things go
back to the way they were.”13 In a letter to the
ACLU, Gustavo F. wrote: “Let me tell you on the
day you came by there were some visitors from

62

Washington, D.C., so they window dress the place
nicely. They fed us as they should, the guards
treated us with nice but no soon they left, they
went back to the same old thing abusive guards,
nasty food, pront [sic] punishment for minor
things….”14
ACLU representatives noted fresh paint, repairs,
and extensive cleaning in the weeks before the
American Correctional Association (ACA) came
to conduct the facility audit for accreditation. For
example, the roof leaked for more than a year,
flooding parts of the facility every time it rained.
Shortly before the ACA audit, the facility appeared
to have undergone extensive roof repairs.

ICE Makes Efforts to Improve Oversight and
Accountability
Dr. Dora Schriro, in her report on immigration
detention released October 6, 2009, writes,
“Accountability is the keystone to detention
reform.”15 She provided several recommendations
for improving oversight and accountability
over the web of facilities and contracts utilized
by ICE including: (1) hiring on-site detention
administrators at locations holding the largest
populations of ICE detainees; (2) establishing
Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) teams
to “conduct routine and random inspections
and investigate for cause;” (3) revising and
periodically reassessing the Performance Based
National Detention Standards; and (4) creating
a current detainee locator system. Secretary
Napolitano established one-year benchmarks to
implement several of these recommendations.
Action steps included reviewing existing contracts
for renegotiation or termination and revising
and regularly reassessing the immigration
detention standards. Effective immediately,
ICE was to “aggressively monitor and enforce
contract performance” and to find solutions for
deficiencies where applicable. ICE headquarters
also moved to centralize contracts.
ICE has made some progress in improving
oversight and accountability and continues to
engage in discussions for advancing meaningful
inspections, reviews, and grievance procedures.
The acting director of the Office of Detention
Policy and Planning toured several of the
largest facilities housing ICE detainees to review

conditions and recommend areas for immediate
compliance with the reform goals. ICE consulted
with non-governmental organizations on several
of the Performance Based National Detention
Standards. The revised standards have not
yet been released, but imminent release is
anticipated. ICE has also made a commitment to
develop a set of civil detention standards more
reflective of the care and needs of a civil detention
population. Detention service managers (DSM)
were hired and trained. Currently 53 facilities
have access to a permanent or shared DSM,
including the Otero County Processing Center.
detention service managers report directly to
ICE headquarters and are tasked with monitoring
facility compliance with detention standards,
tracking patterns of abuse, and seeking immediate
resolution where available. Because the program
is brand new, program evaluations have not yet
been conducted. Reports submitted by DSMs
to headquarters are not publicly available. ICE
launched an online detainee locator system on
July 23, 2010. This system allows advocates and
family members to locate an individual in ICE
custody.16 Previously, family members had to call
every local and federal detention facility in search
of a loved one.
Several policy changes have also gone into effect.
In response to criticism on lack of transparency
surrounding deaths of individuals in ICE custody,
ICE issued a directive, effective October 1, 2009,
for the Notification and Reporting of Detainee
Deaths. This directive requires officials to report
a detainee death within 24 hours, to several
parties, including the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, the Office of Professional Responsibility,
Congress, and the individual’s consulate and
family.17 ICE also revised the policy of mandatory
detention for arriving asylum seekers. Effective
January 4, 2010, individuals who establish
credible fear with an asylum officer are eligible
for a parole interview and subsequent parole
if they meet certain criteria and do not pose a
security threat.18 ICE Assistant Secretary John
Morton issued a memorandum highlighting ICE
Civil Enforcement Priorities. The memorandum
included a mandate for ICE officials to exercise
prosecutorial discretion “when conducting
enforcement operations, making detention
decisions, making decisions about release on
supervision pursuant to the Alternatives to
Detention Program, and litigating cases.”19

(Endnotes)
1.  Texas Appleseed and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
Justice for Immigration’s Hidden Population: Protecting the Rights
of Persons with Mental Disabilities in the Immigration Court and
Detention System.
2.  Management Inspections Unit Detention Facilities Inspection
Group, Quality Assurance Review: Detention and Removal
Operations, El Paso Field Office, Otero County Processing Center
June 16-18, 2009. Obtained through a Freedom of Information Act
Request. On file with the author.
3.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Detention
Oversight Follow Up Inspection: Otero County Processing Center,
April 13-15, 2010. On file with the author.
4.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Contract Performance
Monitoring Instrument, Contract Years July 2008 thru June 2009
and July 2009 thru June 2010. Obtained through a Freedom of
Information Act Request. On file with the author.
5.  Management and Training Corporation Otero County
Processing Center Detainee Handbook (Revised: Oct. 23, 2009).
6.  ACLU interview and written correspondence with Idrissa
(pseudonym), June 2009.
7.  ACLU interview with Miguel R. (pseudonym), Nov. 2009.
8.  Department of Homeland Security Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Detention Facility Inspection Form,
Otero County Processing Center September 16-18, 2008
available online at: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dfra-ice-dro/
ocountyprocessingcenterchaparralnmseptember16182008.pdf
9.  ACLU interview with Brian S. (pseudonym), date undisclosed,
2010.
10.  ACLU Interview with Nabid N. (pseudonym), Jan. 2010.
11.  ICE Office of Detention and Removal Detention Acquisition
Support Unit Request for Contract Action Statement of Work, Otero
County Processing Center.
12.  Management Inspections Unit Detention Facilities Inspection
Group, Quality Assurance Review, Detention and Removal
Operations, El Paso Field Office, Otero County Processing Center,
Chaparral, NM June 16-18, 2010. Information obtained through a
Freedom of Information Act Request. On file with author.
13.  ACLU interview with Javed E. (pseudonym), April 2010.
14.  ACLU written correspondence with Gustavo F. (pseudonym),
November 2009.
15.  Schriro, Dr. Dora (2009, October 6) Immigration Detention
and Overview and Recommendations, available online at: www.ice.
gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf
16.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Press Release:
July 23, 2010) ICE Announces Launch of Online Detainee Locator
System.
17.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Directive No:
7-9.0, Notification and Reporting of Detainee Deaths. Retrieved
from: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/dro/notification_and_
reporting_of_detainee_deaths.pdf
18.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Directive No:
11002.1: Parole of Arriving Aliens Found to Have Credible Fear

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

63

of Persecution or Torture. Effective January 4, 2010. Retrieved
from: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/pdf/11002.1-hd-parole_of_
arriving_aliens_found_credible_fear.pdf
19.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2010,
June 30). Memorandum from John Morton, Assistant
Secretary, regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities
for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.

64

CONCLUSION &
RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION

LEFT: Otero County
Processing Center

T

he ACLU-NM recognizes ICE for taking
concrete steps towards reform of the
immigration detention system. The findings
in this report draw attention to the issues that
continue to plague the Otero County Processing
Center and other similarly situated facilities.
The intent is to appeal to ICE to consider the
consequences of private contracts both on the
rights of detainees and the implementation of
authentic system reform. ACLU-NM recognizes
local ICE officials who have responded swiftly
and appropriately in several cases brought to
their attention. Positive practices should be
recognized, standardized, and implemented in all
field offices. The proper treatment of detained
immigrants should not be left to the whim of
facility leadership at a given moment in time. A
system-wide change of culture is crucial to true
reform.
Otero County Processing Center is not an
exception, but rather appears to be emblematic
of the problems that arise when the civil

detention of immigrants is placed in the hands of
private companies with a profit motive. Both the
complex web of private contracts that impede
transparency and the challenge of implementing
reforms developed in Washington, D.C., in the
field must be overcome by ICE leadership in
order to adequately address these issues. As ICE
continues to move towards intended reform,
ACLU-NM is concerned about several crucial
areas including the continued reliance on private
contractors for detention facility management,
lack of due process in custody determinations,
lack of a standardized grievance procedures, and
inspection and review processes that heavily rely
on paperwork and policy and lack mechanisms for
holding providers accountable when deficiencies
are noted.
The following section proposes several
recommendations and considerations for ICE, U.S.
Department of Justice and members of Congress.

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

67

RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
• • Continue work to expand and utilize
the Alternatives to Detention Program.
Release individuals who pose no danger
to national security or risk to community
safety. Individuals should be released
under the least restrictive requirements
and
with
the
appropriate
case
management services to ensure program
success.
• • End unnecessary and unconstitutional
prolonged detention of immigrants who
pose no risk or danger.
o	 DHS and DOJ should ensure that
detainees have the opportunity to
appeal decisions regarding their
custody and to have these decisions
reviewed by the immigration court.

o	 Individuals who have received a final
order of removal, who are unlikely to be
removed in the reasonably foreseeable
future and who pose no threat to the
community, should be released as soon
as possible following their final order. If
the goal of detention following a final
order of removal is to effectuate removal,
and removal is not possible because of
lack of diplomatic relations between the
United States and the country of origin,
any further detention of the individual is
prolonged and unnecessary.
o	 Individuals who have been granted
withholding of removal, who are
unlikely to be accepted by an alternative
country and who pose no threat to the
community, should be released as soon
as possible following the judge’s decision.
o	 DHS and DOJ should work with Congress
to expand resources for immigration
court proceedings to eliminate prolonged

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

69

and unnecessary detention of individuals
based on lack of capacity to calendar
hearings in a timely manner.
•• Apply and enforce detention standards for
all facilities housing immigration detainees.
o	 The dissemination of codified, legally
enforceable detention standards to
all facilities housing ICE detainees is a
priority.
o	 In the absence of standards that may be
legally enforced, ICE should ensure that
contractors who do not comply with
detention standards are held accountable
for a breach of contract by administering
penalties and terminating contracts
where necessary.
o	 A comprehensive training protocol
should be established and implemented
for all personnel in facilities that hold
ICE detainees. This training should be
augmented by periodic updates and
include, but not be limited to, guidance
on detention standards, investigation of
grievances, use of force, civil and human
rights obligations, CPR and First Aid,
working with vulnerable populations, and
cultural competency. Personnel should
pass certification requirements before
working directly with detainees.
•• Phase out the use of private, for-profit prison
contractors to manage civil immigration
detention. Centralizing contracts and
maintaining control over the daily operations
of immigration detention facilities will greatly
improve oversight, accountability, and
transparency.
•• Engage independent monitors and nongovernmental organizations in the review
of existing contracts. DHS and ICE expressed
intent to review contracts for all detention
facilities “to identify opportunities for
improvement and move forward with
renegotiation and termination of contracts as
warranted.”1 As part of this process, ICE field
offices were asked to complete a survey of
facilities in their area of service. Industry also
had the opportunity to address their ability
and willingness to make changes. However,

70

NGO groups offer another perspective
important for contract review.
•• Streamline the facility inspection and review
process to ensure appropriate follow up and
remedy of deficiencies.
o	 Provide adequate resources for the Office
of Detention Oversight (ODO) to properly
inspect and review all facilities housing
ICE detainees. Inspections and reviews
cannot occur in a vacuum and should take
into account previous inspections and
reviews to monitor compliance and track
patterns of consistent repeat offenses.
o	 ODO inspection teams should consist of
multi-sector partners, including the NGO
community.
o	 Inspections and reviews should incorporate
interviews with willing detainees and
advocates.
o	 Processes should be put into place to
ensure correction of deficiencies and to
penalize those facilities that repeatedly
fail to address deficiencies.
o	 All inspection reports, reviews, detention
service manager reports, and other
documents relating to facility conditions
and treatment of detainees should be
publicly available.
•• Establish local ICE-NGO Working Groups in
each field office area. Local advocates should
play a role in working with the local field
offices to discuss implementation of reform
measures, particularly those that can be
implemented immediately.
o	 Local
working
groups
with
representation
from
the
NGO
community, DHS, and DOJ should be
formed to develop detailed plans for
implementation of reform measures.
o	 These groups should be required to
submit recommendations and reports
to ICE headquarters to ensure a
uniform flow of communication from
headquarters to field offices and vice
versa.

•• Develop clear and uniform grievance
procedures for detained persons with an
option for third-party grievances filed by
advocates on behalf of a detained individual.
o	 DHS, DOJ, and the Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties should establish a
uniform and clear grievance procedure
for detained immigrants. Currently,
complex contractual structures, a lack of
legally enforceable detention standards,
and challenges for limited-English or
illiterate detainees to file grievances,
limits access to effective remedy.
o	 Complaint procedures should include
meaningful protections against retaliation.
o	 Each grievance should be reviewed and
responded to on its own merits. However,
grievances should also be monitored for
patterns of practice and there should be
a mechanism that responds to emerging
patterns.

TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS:
••

Restore Due Process and Maintain Constitutional
Protections. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act as well as the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 expanded the categories of deportable
crimes, decreased the discretionary powers of
immigration judges, and effectively stripped
immigrants of key due process rights. These rights
should be restored.
o	 End unnecessary and unconstitutional
prolonged detention of immigrants who
pose no risk or danger. DHS and DOJ should
be mandated to ensure that detainees have
the opportunity to appeal decisions regarding
their custody and to have these decisions
reviewed by the immigration court.
o	 Restore judicial discretion to eliminate mandatory
detention and deportation laws.
o	 Limit the overly broad definition of
aggravated felony to actual felonies, preserve
meaningful judicial review and repeal
summary procedures that deny fair hearings
to immigrants.

•• Increase Oversight and Accountability of ICE
Detention. Recent exposure of ICE detention
policy and practices reveals an urgent need to
increase oversight and accountability of the
department.
o	 Pass legislation to develop strong
oversight and accountability mechanisms,
including codified, legally enforceable
detention standards.
o	 Require non-federal prisons and correctional
facilities holding federal prisoners under
contract with the federal government
to comply with provisions under the
Freedom of Information Act. This would
include expanding FOIA provisions to
private contractors responsible for
managing the care and treatment of ICE
detainees.
o	 Allocate increased DHS resources for
the Office of the Inspector General, the
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
the Office of Detention Oversight, and
the Office of Professional Responsibility
to support oversight and conduct regular
reviews of detention facilities, personnel,
and administrative functions.
o	 Establish local ICE-NGO Detention
Advisory Groups and a federal Immigration
Detention Commission to increase
opportunities for advocates to contribute
to the meaningful review of existing
detention facilities and contracts as DHS
moves forward with implementation of
reform measures. Both local and federal
groups with representation from the NGO
community, DHS, ORR, DIHS, and DOJ
should be tasked with developing detailed
plans for implementation of reform
measures and hold investigatory powers
to ensure compliance in facilities. Local
groups should submit regular reports to
the Commission. The commission should
submit annual reports to Congress.
•• Guarantee Humane Immigration Detention
Conditions. Increased outsourcing of
immigration detention to private, for-profit
prison management companies in the
absence of legally enforceable detention

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

71

standards creates complex structures
which are costly to the government, limit
transparency, and increase possibilities for
human and civil rights violations.
o	 End the use of private, for-profit prison
contractors in civil immigration detention.
o	 Implement penalties for those facilities
that do not comply with detention
standards.
o	 Guarantee basic standards for medical
and mental health care by establishing
a set of legally enforceable standards
specifically related to medical and mental
health care for individuals in ICE custody.
o	 Support legislative policy changes to
ensure humane treatment and due
process of individuals detained by DHS.
o	 Require the DHS Secretary to establish
an administrative appeals process for
denials of medical and mental health
care requests. Ensure that detainees
are provided with information regarding
this process as part of the detainee
orientation and handbook.
o	 Establish independent on-site monitors.
Monitors should be required to submit
regular reports to ICE headquarters
regarding the progress of detention
reform measures and recommendations.
ICE shall submit aggregate data in
annual reports to Congress. Detention
service managers are a positive step
towards improving oversight but many
are ICE employees who may not have
an objective lens. Independent monitors
provide an additional, much-needed
layer of accountability.
o	 Independent inspections, audits, and
monitoring of facilities by the OIG or
other entities must require criteria
beyond review of paperwork to include
interviews with legal advocates, Legal
Orientation Program providers, and
detainees. Expand access for community
organizations and media representatives.
o	 Federal agencies as well as local and
state law enforcement agencies involved

72

in immigration enforcement should be
provided with training that includes: (1)
immigration law (2) civil rights law (3)
medical and mental health needs and
treatment (4) due process protection and
(5) humanitarian guidelines.
•• Support Alternatives to Detention and
Release Policies. The goal of detention is
to ensure individuals appear for their civil
immigration court hearings. Vulnerable
populations such as women and children,
transgender persons, asylum seekers, and
individuals with special health care needs
who do not present a flight risk or a threat
to society should not be subject to detention.
Alternatives to detention can vary from
issuance of bond or intensive supervision
to community-based case management
programs that cost less than $8 a day as
compared to the $99 to $120 dollars a day it
costs to detain individuals. Alternatives have
yielded a 93 percent appearance rate.2
o	 In the past, Congress earmarked funds for
alternatives to detention and specifically
directed that the money must be used to
“promote community-based programs
for supervised release from detention
such as the Vera Institute of Justice’s
Appearance Assistance Program or other
similar programs.” Congress must ensure
funds to expand alternative to detention
programs.
•• Ensure ICE compliance with the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis
ruling which deemed indefinite detention
unconstitutional and established a post
order custody review process for immigrants
in detention.
•• Ensure Access to Justice and Effective
Remedy for Immigration Detainees
o	 Extend the right to court-appointed
counsel
for
indigent
individuals
undergoing immigration proceedings and
expand funding for legal services to nonprofit organizations offering free or low
cost immigration legal services.
o	 Allocate resources for the expansion of
the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration

Review in areas with the highest
immigration caseload to eliminate
prolonged and unnecessary detention of
individuals due to lack of court capacity.

(Endnotes)
1.  U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (October 6, 2009).
Fact Sheet: ICE Detention Reform: Principles and Next Steps.
Retrieved from: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/press_ice_
detention_reform_fact_sheet.pdf/
2.  American Immigration Lawyers Association. Position
Paper: Alternatives to Detention. Retrieved from: http://
www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=6755%7C25667%7C
33497%7C25874; Detention Watch Network, About the U.S.
Detention and Deportation System, Retrieved from: http://www.
detentionwatchnetwork.org/aboutdetention

OUTSOURCING RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Cost of Privatized Immigration Detention in Otero County

73

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
of NEW MEXICO

REGIONAL CENTER FOR
BORDER RIGHTS
P.O. Box 727
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Tel: (575) 527-0664
Fax: (575) 527-0111