1

2

This report is dedicated to the memory of Roberto Medina Martinez (1969-2009)
and all immigrants who have perished in the custody of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.

3

4

"After twenty months away from home, you lose faith, you feel worthless, this place breaks you, it
is made to break your soul. The constant screaming and verbal abuse the guards inflict on the
detainees is just made to break your soul and handicap you."
-Pedro Guzman, formerly detained at Stewart Detention Center

“While international law recognizes every State’s right to set immigration criteria and
procedures, it does not allow unfettered discretion to set policies for detention or deportation of
non-citizens without regard to human rights standards.”
-Jorge Bustamante, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants

"I feel like I'm going crazy....When I get upset, they just give me more medicine. I can't tell them
I'm really upset or they just put me in a helmet and handcuffs for a few days. That's torture! I
don't see anybody. I don't really care about anything. I just want to get out and get into a
program that will help me."
-Ermis Calderone, formerly detained at Stewart Detention Center

“I propose a worldwide ban on prolonged solitary confinement....Equally, individuals with
mental disabilities should be provided with proper medical or psychiatric care and under no
circumstances should they ever be subjected to solitary confinement.”
- Juan Méndez, Special Rapporteur on Torture

Published May 2012

5

Report Editor and Human Rights Documentation Project Supervisor
Azadeh Shahshahani, National Security/ Immigrants’ Rights Project Director, ACLU Foundation
of Georgia
Lead Author and Researcher
Alexandra (Sachi) Cole, National Security/ Immigrants’ Rights Legal Fellow, ACLU Foundation
of Georgia
Acknowledgements
The ACLU Foundation of Georgia would like to give thanks to the many community advocates,
attorneys, law firms, and law student interns who provided invaluable information and research
assistance for this project, including Mary Elizabeth Head, Juliana Lorenzo, Colleen Coveney,
Curtis Isacke, Laura Rivera, Damien Vrignon, Elisa Wong, Silas Allard, Tariq Khan, Jay Burhan
Haider, Ruth Dawson, Joseph Lavetsky, Elizabeth Main, William Hudson, Joshua Clark, Brenda
Lopez, Lucero Bello, Kathryn Madison, Allison Willingham, Priscilla Padron, Surinder Chadha
Jimenez, Merlinus Monroe, Chaka Washington, Julie Kang, Kathy Purnell, Laura Vogel of DLA
Piper; Christy L. MacPherson of Carlton Fields; Tashwanda Pinchbak of Troutman Sanders;
Katy Smallwood and Suzanne Bertolett of Sutherland; G. Patrick Montgomery, Lynette McNeil,
Allison Dyer, Bethany Rezek, and Zach McEntyre of King & Spalding LLP; Michael Conway
and Marilee Miller of Foley & Lardner LLP; as well as the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human
Rights (GLAHR), Alterna, and Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA. We would also like to
thank the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU Human Rights Program, and the ACLU
National Prison Project for their support for this project. The ACLU Foundation of Georgia
would also like to thank Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Corrections Corporation
of America (CCA), Detention Management, LLC, and the City of Atlanta Department of
Corrections for allowing the ACLU of Georgia access to the four immigration detention centers
in Georgia.
We would like to give special thanks to the men and women detained at Georgia immigration
detention centers and their families who spoke to us.

6

Photography Credits
Front cover photographs: Mario Guevara, Mundo Hispanico; and Periódico La Visión.
Photo on page 3: Pax Christi South.
Photo on page 28: Indy Media.
Photo on page 31: Cuentame.
Photo on page 34: The News Tribune.
Photo on pages 50: Associated Press.
Photos on pages 52 and 53: Periódico La Visión.
Photo on page 70: Tom Reed, Gainesville Times.
Back cover photo: Miguel Martinez, Mundo Hispanico.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia’s mission is to advance the cause of civil
liberties in Georgia, with emphasis on the rights of free speech, free press, free assembly,
freedom of religion, due process of law and to take all legitimate action in the furtherance of
such purposes without political partisanship.
The ACLU of Georgia National Security/Immigrants’ Rights Project is dedicated to
protecting international human rights and constitutional guarantees for immigrants and refugees,
including detainees held in Georgia detention centers. To that end, the ACLU of Georgia is
presenting this report to bring to light the human rights abuses and due process concerns posed
by immigration detention throughout the state of Georgia.

7

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PREFACE............................................................................................................................. 10
II. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................. 11
III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................12
IV. BACKGROUND: Immigration Detention in the U.S. and Georgia............................. 20
A. Immigration Detention in the U.S.: An Overview..................................................... 20
1. Federal Acts ............................................................................................................. 20
2. Formation of ICE.....................................................................................................21
3. Pathways to Detention ............................................................................................ 21
B. Overview of Immigration Detention in Georgia........................................................ 28
1. Georgia’s Immigration Detention Facilities..........................................................28
2. Pathways to Detention in Georgia......................................................................... 29
3. The Prison Corporations: CCA and Detention Management, LLC ...................31
V. LEGAL STANDARDS OF DETENTION........................................................................ 32
A. ICE Standards.............................................................................................................. 32
B. Constitutional Standards............................................................................................. 33
C. Regional and International Human Rights Standards............................................. 34
VI. FINDINGS .........................................................................................................................36
A. Removal Due Process Concerns.................................................................................. 36
1. Immigration Court.................................................................................................. 36
2. ICE Officers............................................................................................................. 44
B. Facility Findings ........................................................................................................... 47
1. Stewart Detention Center....................................................................................... 47
2. North Georgia Detention Center............................................................................70
3. Irwin County Detention Center............................................................................. 81
4. Atlanta City Detention Center................................................................................95
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS .......................................................... 110
A. Conclusions................................................................................................................. 110
B. Recommendations.......................................................................................................110
1. Overall Recommendations ................................................................................... 110
2. Facility-Specific Recommendations .....................................................................112

9

I. PREFACE
The United States is home to the largest number of non-citizen1 detainees in the world.2
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains over 30,000 individuals across the country
every day in more than 250 facilities, including privately run facilities, facilities run by ICE, and
prisons and jails run by local governments.3 Almost half of all immigrant detainees are housed in
private for-profit facilities.4
The purpose of this project was to document and evaluate conditions of detention for immigrant
detainees in Georgia per ICE standards, constitutional standards as articulated by the U.S.
Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, as well as international human rights standards.5
Georgia houses four immigration detention centers, including the country’s largest, the Stewart
Detention Center.6 Of particular concern are conditions at the detention centers run by
corporations, including the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Detention
Management, LLC, which operate three of the four facilities featured in this report. 7

10

II. METHODOLOGY
This report focuses on conditions of detention for immigrants in the state of Georgia. The report
is based on more than three years of research conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation (ACLU) of Georgia. The ACLU of Georgia interviewed 68 detainees who were
detained in Georgia immigration detention facilities.8 In addition, detainees’ family members
and immigration attorneys were interviewed. The ACLU of Georgia also toured detention
centers in Georgia and reviewed documents obtained from ICE and other governmental agencies
through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Those documents include agreements for
operation of the facilities, grievances filed by detainees, domestic and international human rights
reports, and reports from ICE and other governmental agencies. The ACLU of Georgia also
sought responses from ICE, Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), and the four
facilities based on allegations included in the report. To the extent that we received responses,
they are indicated throughout the report.
The report covers the four immigration detention facilities in Georgia. They include:


Stewart County Detention Center (Lumpkin, Georgia)



Irwin County Detention Center (Ocilla, Georgia)



Atlanta City Detention Center (Atlanta, Georgia)



North Georgia Detention Center (Gainesville, Georgia)

The ACLU of Georgia would again like to thank Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Corrections Corporation of America, Detention Management, LLC, and the City of Atlanta
Department of Corrections for their cooperation in providing the ACLU of Georgia tours of the
four detention center facilities. The ACLU of Georgia is, however, concerned about denial of
access to parts of some facilities. Specifically, CCA and Detention Management, LLC staff
denied the ACLU of Georgia access to the segregation units, despite our specific requests, at both
the Stewart Detention Center and the Irwin County Detention Center. At Stewart, the ACLU of
Georgia was also not allowed to see the law library. Refusal of access to the segregation units is
troubling because we could not report upon confinement conditions at these most restrictive of
units. Denial of access to the law library facilities makes it impossible to know if adequate due
process protections are being provided to the detainees during their removal process.

11

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the number of immigrants detained annually approaches half a million,9 the prison-like
conditions10 of immigration detention facilities and the substandard treatment 11 afforded to the
detainees are an area of increasing concern. Georgia is home to four immigration detention
facilities: Stewart Detention Center (Stewart), North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC), Irwin
County Detention Center (Irwin), and Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC). Stewart is the
largest detention facility in the U.S.12 It has become common practice for ICE to contract with
private companies to operate detention facilities;13 indeed, private companies run three of the
four detention facilities in Georgia documented in this report.14 Corrections Corporation of
America, the largest private prison company in the U.S., whose annual revenue in 2010 was $1.7
billion, runs two of those facilities.15 Although it has been claimed that privatization of detention
facilities is cost-effective, this proposition has been cast into serious doubt.16 What has been
confirmed is the systemic violation of immigrant detainees’ civil and human rights while
detained in substandard prison-like conditions ill suited for civil detainees.17
The ACLU of Georgia has documented the current landscape of immigration detention in
Georgia. The following methods were used for documentation:
·

Interviews with 68 detainees from all four detention facilities

·

Interviews with detainees’ family members

·

Interviews with immigration attorneys

·

Detention center tours

·

Reviews of responses from officials

·

Review of grievances filed by detainees

Findings from these diverse sources raise serious concerns about violations of detainees’ due
process rights, inadequate living conditions, inadequate medical and mental health care, and
abuse of power by those in charge.18
A. Due Process Concerns
ICE’s aggressive “Operation Endgame” goal of deporting all removable aliens by 2012 overloads
already overcrowded immigration court dockets. In furtherance of this goal, detainees’ due
process rights are violated, both in immigration court and at the detention facilities.

12

1. Due Process Concerns During the Removal Process
Some practices both at immigration court and by ICE officers are troubling. At the Stewart
Immigration Court, the ACLU of Georgia is troubled by barriers to legal representation based on
Stewart’s remote location, the prevalence of telephonic hearings and telephonic meetings,
overcrowded dockets resulting in unknown or rescheduled court dates, incomplete Notices To
Appear, bond concerns, and a failure to consistently provide listings of pro bono attorneys to
detainees. At the Atlanta Immigration Court, there were documented instances of immigration
judges attempting to get detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal, a new policy which
prevents attorneys from speaking to their clients before their hearings, delays in the removal
process, and an inadequate removal process for foreign-language speaking detainees where
translation is not consistently provided throughout every hearing. In addition, the ACLU of
Georgia is troubled by detainees’ accounts of being transported from Irwin to the Atlanta
Immigration Court in substandard conditions and in a psychologically intimidating way. The
following outlines the ACLU of Georgia’s biggest concerns with the removal process.
a. ICE Officers and Immigration Judges Coerce Detainees to Sign Stipulated Orders
of Removal
Detainees in each of the four facilities reported instances where ICE officers, deportation
officers, and even immigration judges attempted to coerce detainees to sign stipulated orders of
removal. Stipulated orders of removal allow for deportation of non-citizens without a hearing
before an immigration judge.19 This procedure is used to expedite deportation of detained noncitizens who often are unaware of the rights they are giving up or the potential consequences that
may result.20 Immigrants who sign these orders waive their rights to a hearing before an
immigration judge and agree to have a removal order entered against them, regardless of whether
they are actually eligible to remain in the United States.21
There were instances where
deportation officers screamed at detainees who refused to sign stipulated orders of removal and
threatened them with permanent detention.22 There were two instances where a deportation
officer physically forced detainees to sign the order.23 Many Spanish speaking detainees also
reported that they were pressured by deportation officers to sign a document written in English
that they could not understand. As Stewart has the highest deportation rate in the country at 98.8
percent, with the Stewart Immigration Court having issued 8,731 deportation orders in 2010,
these practices pose particularly serious concerns.24
b. Non-Citizens are Detained in Excess of a Presumptively Reasonable Time
At Stewart, at least two detainees interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia were still in detention
more than six months after their final orders of removal were issued.25 In light of the serious due
process concerns presented by indefinite detention, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that
detention exceeding six months violates detainees’ right to liberty without sufficient justification
or adequate procedural safeguards where detainees’ removal is not reasonably foreseeable.26 In

13

addition, other detainees at Stewart with final orders of removal were not given 90-day custody
reviews as required by regulation or were not notified of the results of such a review.27
c. Non-English Speaking Detainees Cannot Effectively Communicate with ICE
Officers
At all four facilities, the ACLU of Georgia found several instances of detainees being unable to
communicate with ICE officers. For example, Dung Dang is originally from Vietnam and speaks
only a little English.28 When Dung was initially detained in February 2011, he was not provided
with an interpreter and thus could not effectively communicate with the ICE officer.29 At the
North Georgia Detention Center, Spanish speaking detainees complained that they could not
communicate with ICE officers and deportation officers because the officers only spoke
English.30
2. Facility Due Process Concerns
Detainee interviews at each facility revealed due process concerns including challenges related to
communication for non-English speaking detainees, legal services, and visitation policies.
a. Non-English Speaking Detainees Are at a Disadvantage
Although the majority of immigrant detainees in Georgia only speak Spanish, the majority of
detention facility staff and medical staff do not. Of the four facilities, Irwin had the largest
bilingual staff with 20 percent of the staff able to speak Spanish; however, even at that facility, it
is still common practice to have other detainees interpret.31 At ACDC, one detainee was afraid to
interpret for other detainees since he was previously put in the segregation unit for interpreting.32
Thus, Spanish speaking detainees in Georgia are at a disadvantage in all areas of the detention
and removal process and are vulnerable to due process violations.33
b. Inadequate Information about Available Pro Bono Legal Services
All of the facilities exhibited problems with detainees’ access to legal information. At ACDC,
none of the detainees interviewed had been provided access to information about their basic legal
rights. Detainees at Irwin, Stewart, and NGDC complained of not being notified of pro bono
services and not being given a list of pro bono attorneys upon entry into the facilities.
c. Conditions for Attorney Visits are Inadequate and Raise Attorney/Client
Confidentiality Issues
Attorney visits at Stewart and Irwin34 are no-contact. This policy means that in order to
communicate, attorneys and detainees must use phone calls, which may be monitored or
recorded. In addition, until October 2011, NGDC did not allow contact attorney visits.35 Finally,
the Attorney Visitation Form at NGDC has a provision requiring attorneys to disclose all
14

confidential information learned in their interview with the detainee to the warden of the
facility.36
d. Law Library Concerns
Numerous problems were documented regarding law libraries at the facilities. First, many
detainees complained about delays in gaining access to the law library. To access the law library,
detainees must put in a paper request slip. This process could take days or even weeks. One
detainee at Stewart put in three requests to use the law library, all of which went unanswered.37
The second problem with the law library is that each facility limits detainees’ access to a certain
amount of time or visits per week. Third, not all facilities have adequate materials. At ACDC,
there is only one computer for 300 detainees.38 Detainees also expressed concern about the lack
of adequate foreign language resources. Although all facilities had some legal books in Spanish,
no detainees reported seeing books in other languages for non-English speaking detainees. The
ACLU of Georgia is particularly concerned about challenges faced by detainees filing for asylum
or withholding of removal, since a large part of proving such a case is through news articles and
other public sources on the current political climate in their native country, as well as specific
instances of persecution or abuse. The law library at NGDC does not have internet access,
making it impossible for detainees to search the internet for news articles or to print them out.
B. Inadequate Living Conditions
Prison-like conditions at the detention centers expose immigrant detainees to harsh confinement
and regulations ill suited for civil detainees. Many of these practices infringe upon international
and regional human rights standards.39 To make matters worse, since three of the four facilities
are run by private companies, adequate supervision and accountability measures are lacking.
1. Transfer Takes Detainees Away from Family andCommunity
Both Irwin and Stewart are located in remote areas of Georgia and house a number of out-ofstate detainees. The state of Georgia,40 and Stewart in particular, receive more transfers than
almost any other facility or state.41 Of the 28 detainees interviewed at Stewart, one-third had
been transferred from out of state, and two-thirds of those had been transferred from North
Carolina.42 One detainee said that in the eight months he had been detained at Irwin, he had not
seen his family at all because of the distance.43
2. Phone Services
Detainees expressed numerous concerns about phone services at the detention facilities. First,
almost all detainees complained of the phone services being too expensive, sometimes
prohibiting detainees from contacting their family members altogether.44 Second, detainees were
concerned about the lack of privacy when making phone calls since phones are located in the
pods.45 Third, there are concerns about the possible monitoring of detainees’ calls, even calls to
15

their attorneys. 46 Fourth, detainees experienced technical problems with the phones such as
dropped calls.47 One detainee reported that at Irwin, calls last a maximum of 15 minutes.48 Other
detainees have stated that they are not allowed to make a free phone call and still others said that
most of the pro bono numbers are out of date and connect to non-working numbers. 49
3. Inadequate Visitation Policy and Schedule
None of the four facilities offer contact visits for families and friends. In addition, all of the
facilities have time limitations on the visits. Thus, detainees’ family members will have to drive
hours only to talk to them through the glass via phone for as little as 30 minutes. Some detainees
have not been able to see their family members because they are undocumented and afraid that
they may be detained as well if they visit.
4. Cell Conditions
Detainees expressed numerous concerns about the cell conditions, including temperature
extremes and overcrowding. At ACDC, detainees of various security classifications are housed
together, including those classified as the lowest and highest security levels, raising concerns
about detainees’ safety.50
a. Segregation Unit
All four facilities have segregation units for administrative and disciplinary segregation. The
ACLU of Georgia spoke with two detainees at Stewart who said they had been kept in
segregation in excess of 60 days, one for five months.51 At ACDC, detainees expressed concerns
about the sanitation of the segregation units, calling them “portable toilets.”52 In addition, the
ACLU of Georgia documented instances where detainees were denied privileges such as
recreation, law library access, and phone access, and were given smaller portions at mealtime as
a result of being placed in segregation. Detainees in segregation are allowed access to the
shower less frequently than the general population.53 Finally, and most problematic, detainees
with mental health problems are put in segregation in lieu of receiving treatment.
5. Hygiene Concerns
The ACLU of Georgia documented instances where facilities ran out of hygiene items and
detainees simply had to go without. At ACDC, detainees complained that they are not given
deodorant and that the razor and razor blades they are given are used and could spread
communicable diseases. One detainee at Stewart said that in his two months there, the water had
stopped working on three separate occasions making it impossible to flush toilets, shower, or
wash one’s hands.54
At Irwin, women are not given new underwear.55 Instead, they are given used underwear and in
at least one case, soiled underwear, causing a female detainee to get a serious infection, which
16

left scars on her legs and genitals.56 At NGDC, female detainees are given new underwear but
used sports bras.57 Women are given sanitary napkins for their menstrual cycle, but they are only
given a couple at a time and sometimes they must wait to get more if the facility runs out.58
6. Food Concerns
Detainees had three main concerns about the food served at each detention facility: unusual
mealtimes, insufficient quantity, and poor quality. Some detainees complained about the 15-hour
period between dinner and breakfast. Most detainees also complained that portions were too
small and some detainees began to work in the kitchen just so they could eat more. Detainees
reported weight loss; one detainee lost 68 pounds while at Stewart. Several detainees also
reported being served expired food or beverages and finding foreign objects in their food; this
was especially prevalent at Stewart. 59
The food that detainees received for special diets for religious or medical reasons did not provide
adequate nutrition. In addition, it was not medically appropriate for some detainees we spoke to
and did not meet religious standards for others.
7. Voluntary Work Program
Stewart and NGDC both have voluntary work programs where detainees are paid $1.00 to $3.00
per day. This means that detainees work full time for pay that is far below minimum wage. At
Irwin and ACDC, there is no official work program, but detainees are still required to perform
work such as cleaning their pods and doing laundry. There is no compensation for this work.
8. Religious Services
Religious services at Stewart are entirely volunteer-based. This means that if there are no
volunteers, there are no religious services. Although there are some services in Spanish, they are
not always provided. Some detainees reported that religious services consisted only of playing
the video of a service. Finally, religious services are not offered for all religions.
9. Recreation is Too Limited and Not Always Provided
At all facilities, recreation was offered too infrequently, in violation of ICE standards. At ACDC,
there is no opportunity for detainees to have outdoor recreation. At NGDC, there were instances
where detainees’ only recreation time was in their pod. Recreation was also sometimes denied to
detainees as punishment for small infractions such as not making one’s bed.

17

C. Inadequate Medical and Mental Health Care
1. Intake Examinations Are Insufficient
Detainee interviews revealed three main concerns surrounding initial intake examinations. First,
there is a delay, sometimes weeks long, in conducting medical examinations. Second, dental
examinations are not a routine part of medical examinations. Third, many detainees are not
asked any mental health questions during intake.
2. Medical and Mental Health Unit is Understaffed and Lacks Professional FullTime Staff
Neither Stewart nor NGDC employ a doctor, only nurses. Although Irwin and ACDC each
employ a doctor, detainees still uniformly complained of understaffing and only being able to see
a nurse. It is almost impossible to see someone from the medical unit during the weekends for
routine care.
Similarly, there is no psychiatrist employed at Stewart. 60 Although there is a psychiatrist on staff
at NGDC and Irwin, he/she is employed on an on-call basis and is not physically present at the
facility most of the time.61
3. Detainees Face Unreasonable Delays in Receiving Care
Almost all detainees who had requested to visit the medical units in their facility faced a wait
time ranging from a day to weeks. In addition to delays in receiving treatment, detainees
reported delays for receiving prescription medication. At Stewart, emergencies have taken at
least one hour to address.62 One detainee at NGDC complained for two months of pain from
gallstones. One night, when she was feverish and throwing up, she was brought to the medical
unit three times before she was finally taken to the hospital.63
4. Medical Unit Has a Shortage of Spanish Speaking Staff
None of the facilities employ a truly bilingual medical staff. As a result, there are often
miscommunications, misdiagnoses, and failures to provide adequate treatment. A common
practice documented at all four facilities is using other detainees as interpreters. Although Irwin
has a phone translation service, at least one detainee reported that she still did not feel she could
adequately communicate with the medical staff.64

18

5. Treatment of Detainees with Mental Disabilities is Punitive Rather Than Care
Oriented
Although ICE has acknowledged that segregation of detainees with mental disabilities is not
appropriate and “often exacerbates mental illness,” this is an established practice at all four
facilities.65 At Irwin, because of this practice, detainees were afraid to discuss their mental health
problems with the medical staff for fear of being put in segregation.
D. Abuse of Power
1. Failed Grievance Procedure
Detainees who had filed grievances did not get responses and did not feel that they were taken
seriously, based on the lack of a response. This failed grievance procedure exists at both a
facility and an agency level. This is supported by the fact that of the 160 grievances filed with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General by detainees at the
four facilities, all but six were closed without any further action.66 Because of this widespread
non-responsiveness, many detainees gave up filing grievances because they did not believe that it
would do anything but get them in trouble with the guards.
2. Verbal and Physical Abuse
Verbal abuse was documented at all the facilities in varying degrees. At best, detainees reported
that guards would shout at detainees to hurry them up at meal times. At the other end of the
spectrum, verbal abuse came in the form of threats and racist slurs. This type of verbal abuse
was also sometimes accompanied by physical violence. Detainees at two out of the four
facilities reported physical abuse.67 One detainee reported getting punched in the head by a
guard, resulting in a scar on his forehead and trouble with his vision.68
3. Retaliatory Behavior from Guards
Detainees at each facility relayed personal and secondhand stories of guards threatening
detainees with segregation for refusing to follow orders and sometimes placing detainees into
segregation as a means of retaliation. For example, after the ACLU of Georgia interviewed a
detainee at Stewart, he was sent directly to the segregation unit and confined for 29 days.69
Although he was not given a reason for being put in segregation, his wife believed that he was
put in segregation as a consequence of speaking to the ACLU of Georgia.70 Other forms of
retaliation include denying detainees recreation, food, law library access, or telephone privileges.
In 2009 and 2011, detainees at Stewart documented instances where CCA guards sent detainees
to the segregation unit for complaining about the quality of the water.71 Detainees believe that
this behavior is retaliatory, and that there is a pattern of sending detainees who complain about
conditions to segregation to “shut them up.”72

19

IV. BACKGROUND: Immigration Detention in the U.S. and Georgia
A. Immigration Detention in the U.S.: An Overview
In 2010, ICE detained more than 442,000 individuals - more than double the number of detainees
in 2003 when ICE was first established as an agency.73 Detaining these individuals costs
taxpayers $5.5 million per day.74 The current cost to detain an immigrant is approximately $166
per day, and that cost is rapidly increasing.75 For the Fiscal Year 2012, the U.S. House of
Representatives has approved a budget of $2.75 billion for detention and removal - over $184
million more than the previous year.76
Despite the current landscape, mass immigration detention is a relatively recent development.
The following section discusses federal law, regulations, and events that precipitated mandatory
detention of non-citizens.
1. Federal Acts
Until the 1990s, release was the norm and detention the rare exception for non-citizens facing
deportation. It was not until 1996 that drastic changes in U.S. immigration laws “increased the
number of people subject to mandatory, prolonged, and indefinite detention.”77 These measures
included passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
and the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). These Acts amended the
Immigration and Nationality Act , and most significantly made detention the norm rather than the
exception for several groups of non-citizens. The Acts mandated detention for nearly all persons
placed in removal proceedings due to criminal convictions as well as asylum seekers arrested at
the border,78 and limited immigration judges’ discretion to waive removal proceedings in
exceptional circumstances.79
As a result of these policies, the number of non-citizen detainees has increased dramatically.
From 2003 to 2007, there was a 40% “increase in the number of non-citizens held in detention on
a given day,” and the number of immigrants in detention only continues to grow.80 This marked
expansion of the use of immigration detention is partly attributable to the statutory detention
rules established under IIRIRA in 1996, and partly to the increased enforcement of immigration
laws following September 11, 2001.81 The increase in enforcement after 9/11 did not go
unnoticed by private prison company executives. Weeks after September 11, the head of the
private prison company Cornell Corrections stated while speaking to stock analysts: “It is clear
that since September 11 there’s a heightened focus on detention. More people are gonna (sic) get
caught. So I would say that’s positive. The federal business is the best business for us, and
September 11 is increasing that business.”82
Although current immigration rhetoric paints immigrants as national security threats, most
immigrants do not pose any danger to public safety.83 Current immigration policies, however,
mandate the unnecessary detention of many immigrants facing court proceedings.84 In fact, most
20

people detained in this system have not committed a crime and have not been afforded basic due
process rights. 85 The Obama administration is beginning to make strides toward repairing the
arbitrary and faulty immigration detention system that currently exists, but the process has been
too slow.86 In spite of the acknowledgement on the part of DHS and the Obama administration
that immigrant detainees should be housed in civil facilities, not in punitive conditions (or not
detained at all in certain situations),87 and that partnerships with corporations with a history of
abuse and neglect should be severed, ICE continues to contract with third-party corporations.
Most facilities have neither closed down nor renovated as was hoped. 88
2. Formation of ICE
Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 200289 (Act), the functions of Immigration and
Naturalization Services (INS) were assumed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As part of the Act, ICE became the
principal immigration enforcement and detention agency in the U.S. With formation of ICE, the
federal government commenced a nation-wide crackdown on removable immigrants.
Embodying this strategy, ICE adopted a new strategic plan called “Operation Endgame” in June
2003. The goal of “Operation Endgame” was to remove 100% of “removable aliens” by 2012.90
The Office of Detention and Removal ’s plan has been accompanied by a massive expansion of
immigration detention, even in instances where detention is not justified by flight risk or danger.
The detention population today includes legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S
their entire lives, asylum seekers, torture survivors, single mothers, the sick, and the elderly.91
3. Pathways to Detention
60% of non-citizens detained by ICE in 2009 were detained through the Criminal Alien Program
(CAP) (48%) and the 287(g) program (12%).92 Many non-citizens detained through these
program in fact do not have criminal convictions, even though these programs are purportedly
focused on apprehending non-citizens with criminal convictions of a serious nature.93
a. Local Enforcement/Entanglement
CAP, 287(g), and Secure Communities are programs that create partnerships between state and
local law enforcement and ICE to facilitate ICE’s enforcement of immigration laws. These
programs are each seriously flawed and have led to unjust arrests, detentions, and deportations.
One significant contributing factor to such consistent and distressing shortcomings in these
programs, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, is that local and state
law enforcement officials are given a great amount of discretion in this process. ICE does not
have sufficient oversight mechanisms, such as data collection, review processes, or direct
supervision in place to prevent discriminatory practices.94

21

i. CAP
Each year, CAP leads to the detention and deportation of scores of undocumented immigrants
with no prior criminal conviction.95 Roughly half of the people deported each year as a result of
CAP should never have been detained.96 ICE claims that CAP helps with identification,
processing, and removal of non-citizens who are incarcerated in federal, state, and local prisons
and jails throughout the U.S.97 Its purported aim is to improve public safety by preventing
“serious criminal aliens” from being released into the public.98
Regardless of the purported goals of the program, CAP has led to a shocking number of costly
and sometimes unjustified detentions and deportations. The program has a history of problems.99
In 2009, for example, well over half of the 178,605 people who were arrested and detained
through CAP had no criminal convictions at all. 100 Since 2009, deportation numbers have
continued to rise and the gap between CAP’s intended goals and CAP’s actual, devastating
results is growing as well. Studies have revealed that discrimination and racism frequently cloud
the judgment of local police officers participating in CAP, and as a result, non-citizens with no
criminal records find themselves detained.101
ii. Secure Communities
In 2008, DHS introduced the Secure Communities program.102 Purportedly initiated in an effort
to remove “criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration
violators,” the program allows fingerprints of arrested individuals, which have been forwarded to
the FBI, to then be shared with DHS.103 As of October 2011, the Secure Communities program
was active in 1,595 jurisdictions in 44 states and territories. The Obama administration’s goal is
to have Secure Communities activated nationwide by 2013.104 Although it has long been the
practice of state and local law enforcement agencies to share the fingerprints of arrested
individuals with the FBI, the Secure Communities program has added a further step: if the
fingerprints come from a Secure Communities jurisdiction, the FBI will send them on to DHS.105
Unlike other DHS or ICE programs, the Secure Communities program does not require any local
or state law enforcement officials to undergo training, and there is no official agreement or
contract between the state or local jail and DHS or ICE.106 If there is a match in the DHS system
and the individual is deemed potentially “deportable,” ICE is immediately notified.107 This
database contains personal information of over 91 million individuals, including travelers,
applicants for immigration benefits, those who may have violated an immigration law in the past,
and even U.S. citizens who have naturalized.108 Even if an individual is not “deportable,” if DHS
or ICE wish to further investigate their status, ICE may issue a detainer, which is a request
asking the facility to detain the individual while further investigation takes place.109 Officers run
a person’s fingerprints through the system after an arrest has been made, before a conviction and
in some cases even before charges. The arrested individual may have never committed a crime,
may be found innocent, or may have their charges dropped. Regardless, his or her fingerprints
are still sent to DHS. No oversight mechanism currently exists to monitor and address abuses,

22

and there are indications that arrests are often made solely for the purpose of checking
individuals’ immigration status once in jail.110
The Latino community is especially hard hit by Secure Communities as a disproportionate
number of Latino individuals are taken into ICE custody through this program each year.111
Although Latinos make up only 77% of the undocumented population in the United States,
Latinos made up 93% of those arrested and subsequently deported through Secure Communities
in fiscal year 2011.112 In addition to this disturbing fact, it has been estimated (based on ICE
statistics) that since its inception, approximately 3,600 U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE
through Secure Communities.113 Furthermore, the vast majority of those detained and deported
through this program are not guilty of any violent crime. Traffic violations or being present in the
country without documentation is often the extent of the individual’s offenses.114 This is in spite
of the many recommendations and procedural guidelines that prioritize detaining and deporting
those who have been convicted of certain crimes or felonies. 115 Local law enforcement has also
expressed concern that the communities’ trust in them has been greatly diminished due to the
forced implementation of Secure Communities.116
State governments and police officials have begun to resist implementation of Secure
Communities and some states and localities have even attempted to opt out of the program.117 In
June 2011, the Director of ICE created a Secure Communities Task Force to investigate the rising
discontent of local officials with the program.118 The Task Force’s September 2011 report caused
great controversy, with five of the 19members resigning rather than endorsing the report. Of the
remaining members, some recommended that the program be suspended. Although the Obama
administration has yet to take action, there is growing support across the country for termination
of the program.119
iii. 287(g)
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective
September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g) to the INA, which allowed certain duties that were
previously performed only by ICE officials to be performed by state and local law enforcement
officials.120 Section 287(g), commonly referred to simply as “287(g),” authorized DHS to enter
into agreements with local law enforcement agencies. As long as the appropriate training and
supervision are provided by ICE officers, local police, sheriff deputies, and other law
enforcement officers can perform certain functions of ICE officers, with all the authority that
accompanies such a role.121 The stated purpose of 287(g) was to make communities safer.122
Because the training and supervision have been found to be highly insufficient, even the best of
reasons fails to justify such a discriminatory and error-riddled system.123

23

1) National Statistics on 287(g)
287(g) is widely regarded as a “failed Bush experiment” that has resulted in “widespread use of
pretextual traffic stops, racially motivated questioning, and unconstitutional searches and
seizures primarily in communities of color.”124 In spite of the fact that many consider 287(g) a
failure, 287(g) programs continue to be utilized during the Obama administration.125 As of fall
2011, there were 69 state and local law enforcement agencies in 24 states across the country
involved in 287(g).126 In July 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the agency’s
intention to implement the program in 11 new jurisdictions, including Gwinnett County,
Georgia.127 This announced expansion disappointed advocates who had hoped that the program
would be shut down, given the need for better controls documented by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office in their January 2009 report.128 Since that expansion, however, a number
of jurisdictions have withdrawn from their agreements, citing problems with the program such as
high costs and lack of oversight as the reason for withdrawal.129 There are eight fewer
jurisdictions participating in the program now than in 2009.130
2) Abuse of Power under 287(g)
There is a troubling history of 287(g) agreements leading to operations that are rife with human
rights abuses. 131 A systemic lack of oversight has enabled state and local authorities acting under
287(g) to abuse their power. Complaints of racial profiling and abusive treatment are rampant.132
Among the problems with the system is the lack of accountability it fosters.133 Although DHS
released a new Memorandum of Agreement in 2009 that was supposedly aimed at addressing
problems, it “actually takes a step back, especially in terms of transparency, as it attempts to
further shield 287(g) from public scrutiny by declaring that documents related to 287(g) are no
longer public records.”134 287(g) agreements have also lessened police effectiveness working
with immigrant communities, as fear of deportation has inhibited immigrants from reporting
crimes.135
A clear example of abuse of 287(g) is the actions of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
(MCSO) in Phoenix, Arizona. On December 15, 2011, the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a report on the findings of an investigation of MCSO.136 The
report found that MCSO “engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and
arrests Latinos” and operates its jails in a manner which discriminates against Latinos.137 As a
result of these findings, ICE finally terminated MCSO’s 287(g) program “to ensure that ICE
detainees are not subject to the violations detailed in the DOJ’s report and that ICE’s immigration
enforcement programs are not inadvertently a part of constitutional abuses.”138 Thought to be one
of the most egregious departments engaged in the 287(g) program, MCSO is not an aberration.
As stated above, abuses pursuant to 287(g) abound in Georgia as well.
Earlier this year, it appeared that the Department of Homeland Security was finally responding to
the problems of 287(g). In its 2012 Budget Request, officials of the Department of Homeland
Security stated that they will not sign new 287(g) contracts and will terminate the “least
24

productive” of those agreements.139 However, in March 2012, two new 287(g) programs were
announced in Knox County, Tennessee and Horry County, South Carolina.140
b. Border Enforcement
On November 2, 2005, DHS announced the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), which was
purportedly aimed at reducing illegal immigration and further securing U.S. borders.141 This
initiative consisted of two phases. The first phase expanded expedited removal and created a
“catch and return” initiative. 142 It also focused on adding more personnel and new technology to
control the borders.143 The second phase, unveiled in 2006, expanded operations to target
undocumented workers along with all non-citizens, including refugees, legal permanent
residents, and others with permission to reside in the U.S., who have criminal offenses on their
records, including minor offenses.144 In order to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants
and to “reverse American citizens’ tolerance” of the presence of undocumented workers and
residents, SBI attempts to identify and remove non-citizens with criminal convictions and to
deter undocumented immigrants from immigrating or working in the US.145
In 2009,
approximately 19% of immigrants in removal proceedings were apprehended by U.S. Border
Patrol.146
1) Asylum Seekers
If a non-citizen arriving at the border “indicates an intention to apply for asylum…or a fear of
persecution,” an asylum officer will conduct a credible fear interview.147 By statute, however, the
asylum seeker must be detained not only while awaiting the credible fear interview but also
while awaiting its results.148 Reports have found that asylum seekers can remain in detention for
months while awaiting their credible fear determination.149 Detaining asylum seekers in jail-like
conditions has been largely criticized as an unduly harsh practice.150
Under Directive 11002.1 issued on December 8, 2009, ICE modified parole determination
guidelines for asylum seekers.151 Under this directive, arriving non-citizens who establish a
credible fear of persecution or torture are to be detained until further consideration of their
application for asylum.152 They may be paroled for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant
public benefit,” provided that they present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding.153 If
deemed not a flight risk, the directive then goes on to list five categories of non-citizens who
may meet the parole standards based on a case-by-case determination.154 These categories
include (1) non-citizens who have serious medical conditions, where continued detention would
not be appropriate; (2) women who have been medically certified as pregnant; (3) certain
juveniles; (4) non-citizens who will be witnesses in proceedings conducted by judicial,
administrative, or legislative bodies; and (5) non-citizens whose continued detention is not in the
public interest.155

25

c. Worksite Enforcement
As part of the second phase of the Secure Border Initiative, a new interior enforcement strategy
was announced in April 2006. The Worksite Enforcement Unit targets employers who knowingly
hire undocumented workers as well as the workers themselves. In April 2009, Secretary
Napolitano announced that ICE would focus its worksite enforcement program resources on the
criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.156 This would be
in addition to arresting and removing undocumented workers found in the course of these
worksite enforcement actions.157 This marks a significant shift in ICE’s approach to employers
from traditional enforcement actions such as administrative fines and sanctions to bringing
criminal charges and seizing unlawfully-derived assets.158
In 2009, there were 1,647
administrative arrests of non-citizens in worksite enforcement operations.159 This marked a 60%
decrease in the number of administrative arrests of non-citizens from 2008. 160 This drop may be
due to the focus on employers rather than employees. The Worksite Enforcement Unit, however,
remains a strong way to identify and locate non-citizens in the workforce.161
d. Statistics Snapshot
The ICE detention system consists of “an unwieldy patchwork of detention beds, located in
hundreds of facilities nationwide.”162 There has been an explosive growth in the ICE detention
system within the past few years.163 Currently DHS maintains a daily detention capacity of
33,400 detainees per day, which is a record-high number.164 In 1994, the daily detainee
population was 6,785.165 By 2001, after the passage and implementation of IIRIRA, that number
more than tripled to 20,429.166 After 9/11, the number of detained immigrants grew even more.
Since 2003, the number of individuals in immigration detention has increased 86 percent.167
The dramatic expansion of the immigration detention industry is particularly troubling because
the rates of undocumented immigrants migrating to the U.S. have actually declined sharply over
the past few years.168 According to Pew Hispanic Center estimates, the annual flow of
unauthorized immigrants into the U.S. was almost two thirds smaller from 2007-2009 than it was
from 2000-2005.169 With an overall reduction of eight percent in the undocumented population,
there is no reason for DHS to continually increase the number of immigration detention beds and
the budget to maintain them.
The expansion of the immigration detention system is putting a serious strain on government
resources.170 As a result, a huge amount of federal money is being spent on immigration detention
each year. Not only has ICE’s immigration detention program expanded significantly, but over
the past eight years, the portion of ICE’s budget allocated to custody operations has doubled.171
These costs have only continued to grow and for its 2012 fiscal year, the House of
Representatives has approved a budget of $2.75 billion for detention and removal. This is over
$184 million more than the previous year and enough for ICE to keep 34,000 immigrants
detained at any one time. In 2009, a study found that the daily cost of immigration detention had
risen to nearly $141 per day.172 Between 2005 and 2009, the ICE budget for custody operations
26

nearly doubled, from $860 million to $1.72 billion in taxpayer money.173 As of November 2011,
the cost to detain an immigrant was even greater: approximately $166 per day.174
These numbers are not only staggeringly high, but the system is also inefficient. The current cost
of $166 per day is over 18 times greater than the $8.88 per day that more humane alternatives to
detention programs would cost.175 Part of this is due to the fact that an alarmingly increasing
number of immigration detention facilities are run by private companies and not by the U.S.
government. As a result, immigrant detention is run as a for-profit business. However, as a
recent ACLU report found, it is the private prison industry, not the American public, that profits
from the ever expanding, unregulated immigration detention system in the U.S.176 This tension
between profit-making and efficiency has undermined human needs and protection of human
rights.177
Half of the immigrant detainee population was housed in private contract facilities in 2009.178
Currently, CCA alone has a capacity of 90,037 beds across the country.179 Most recently, ICE
requested that its budget for FY 2012 be increased by more than $50 million from FY 2011; this
increase includes an allocation for 34,000 daily immigration detention beds, up from 33,400 last
year.180 Since the control of private prison corporations over the immigration detention industry
only continues to grow, those extra 600 beds are likely to be operated by companies such as
CCA.
In addition to these high costs, the human cost of detention is also unaccounted for. Detaining
non-citizens across the U.S. takes fathers and mothers away from their children for long and
undetermined periods of time. Detention limits non-citizens’ rights, privacy, and ability to work,
and puts emotional and economic strains on families. Since 2003, more than 120 immigrant
detainees have died in ICE custody.181 Surrounding these deaths was evidence of poor hygiene,
inadequate medical care, and inadequate attention from the guards.182 Because a systematic lack
of oversight and transparency persists in immigrant detention facilities, the causes underlying
these deaths and suicides are at times difficult to uncover.183
Both the monetary and human costs of detention could decrease significantly if ICE were to
employ alternatives to detention on a national level. Various factors contributing to cost
reduction include curtailing lengthy periods of detention, reducing litigation, and preventing
overcrowding of facilities.184 Currently, pursuant to a Congressional directive, ICE operates
three approved Alternative to Detention (ATD) programs.185 They include: Intensive Supervision
Appearance Program ,186 Enhanced Supervision Reporting , 187 and Electronic Monitoring.188 In
its 2009 directive, ICE prioritized the use of ATD programs in the next two years.189 However,
these ATD’s have yet to be implemented on a national scale. In ICE’s April 2010 report to
Congress, it was stated that ATD’s cost ICE on average $8.88 per day per individual, which is
$110 a day less than what it costs to detain individuals.190 However, ICE still has not expanded
its ATD programs and the requested fiscal year 2012 budget for detention is 28 times its
requested budget for ATD.191 In addition to ICE ATD’s, a number of community-based programs
have also been successful.192
27

B. Overview of Immigration Detention in Georgia
This report focuses on the four immigration detention facilities in Georgia: the Stewart Detention
Center (Stewart), North Georgia Detention Center
(NGDC), Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin), and
Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC). ACDC is run
by the City of Atlanta. The other three facilities,
Stewart, NGDC, and Irwin, are run by private
corporations.
The problem of privately run facilities was
documented in DHS’s report on immigration
DHS’s report included a
detention in 2009.193
recommendation that ICE “create capacity within the
organization to assess and improve detention
operations and activities without the assistance of the
private sector.”194 In a press release following the
report, DHS and ICE committed to this goal by
announcing increased oversight over detention
facilities and decreasing the number of privately run
facilities.195 DHS and ICE also committed to reducing
reliance on detention in jails and jail-like facilities,
and instead providing alternative facilities more suitable to civil detention.196
ICE also
announced that it would contract with and build detention facilities near urban centers in order to
reduce the number of transfers to remote communities and also allow detainees better access to
legal counsel.197
However, three of the four Georgia immigration detention facilities in Georgia are however
operated by private companies. This includes Stewart, the largest detention center in the U.S.198
Besides the CCA-run NGDC and Stewart, Irwin County Detention Center is run by Detention
Management, LLC. Located in a rural community in southern Georgia, the facility came under
the management of Detention Management, LLC in 2009 and began housing immigrant
detainees in December 2010, contradicting ICE and DHS’s announced policy of reducing their
reliance on private, for-profit detention facilities and locating facilities in urban centers.
1. Georgia’s Immigration Detention Facilities
• Stewart Detention Center (Stewart) is a 1,725-bed medium security all male facility in
Lumpkin, Georgia.199 Stewart is the largest immigration detention facility in the nation.200
Stewart has been under Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)’s management since 2006.201
• North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC) is a 502-bed male and female facility in Gainesville,
Georgia that has been under CCA management since 2009.202
28

• Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin) is a 1,201-bed male and female facility located in
Ocilla, Georgia. Of those 1,201 beds, 512 are for immigrant detainees. Irwin opened in 2009,
but it was not until December of 2010 that it began to house immigrant detainees. Irwin’s staff is
all employed by Detention Management, LLC.203
• Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC) is a 1,300-bed facility for male and female detainees in
Atlanta, Georgia. The facility is managed by the Atlanta Department of Corrections. The
Atlanta Department of Corrections contracts with the U.S. Marshal Service and ICE to house up
to 300 immigrant detainees.
2. Pathways to Detention in Georgia
The majority of immigrant detainees interviewed were detained after being stopped for traffic
violations throughout Georgia. At Stewart, 14 detainees were stopped for traffic violations or
apprehended at roadblocks in Cobb, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Houston, and Whitfield counties. In
addition, five detainees were arrested in North Carolina at traffic stops or roadblocks. Only one
interviewee of 68 was stopped while trying to enter at the border. At NGDC, four detainees were
detained through traffic stops in Hall County, one at a traffic stop in DeKalb County, and one at a
traffic stop in South Carolina. One female detainee was arrested by local Gainesville police after
calling in a domestic violence complaint against her husband. At Irwin, five detainees were
arrested throughout Georgia by local police officers. At ACDC, one detainee was detained at the
border when he asserted his asylum claim. Two detainees were arrested in North Carolina. Five
detainees were picked up by local police for traffic stops, arrest warrants, or calling the police to
report a crime.
a) Local Enforcement Programs
i. Secure Communities in Georgia
Georgia activated the Secure Communities Program on November 17, 2009.204 In September
2011, 43 Georgia counties were participants in the program.205 However, on December 6, 2011,
the remaining 116 counties from across Georgia joined the Secure Communities Program,
making all 159 counties in Georgia participants in the program.206 As of December 31, 2011,
4,788 individuals had been removed or returned pursuant to Secure Communities.207 In
December 2011, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett had the largest number of total removals
among all 159 Georgia counties.208 Gwinnett had the largest number of removals with 1,912
cases, accounting for 40% of all removals under the Secure Communities program in Georgia.209

29

ii. 287(g) in Georgia
Four counties in Georgia participate in 287(g): Cobb, Gwinnett, Hall, and Whitfield.210 In 2010,
the number of detainees put into deportation proceedings pursuant to 287(g) was: 2,011 in Cobb,
2,545 in Gwinnett, 755 in Hall, and 581 in Whitfield.211
b) Out-of-State Transfers to Georgia Facilities
Because the number and size of detention facilities in certain regions or circuits are not
consistent with the number of non-citizens being arrested and detained in those locales, ICE has
to rely on high numbers of costly, long-distance transfers to house detainees.212 The state of
Georgia213 and the Stewart Detention Center in particular receive more transfers than almost any
other state or facility.214 As of June 2011, Georgia received the fourth highest number of
transferred detainees, that is, 9% of all transfers. Transfer is expensive. In addition to actual
transfer costs, other costs associated with transfers include prolonged detention, duplicate
medical and intake screenings, additional court time or court delays, and administrative
paperwork.215
In 2009, 52% of ICE detainees experienced at least one transfer. Between 1998 and 2010, 2
million detainees, or 40% of the total number of detainees, were transferred at least one time.
The average distance of a transfer was 370 miles, with some common transfer routes covering
over 1000 miles. Over 46% of those 2 million detainees were transferred more than once.216
From 2004 until 2009, the number of detainee transfers tripled.217 This has had a devastating
impact not only on the family and community support systems for these men and women, but
also on attorney-client relationships, which can be virtually impossible to maintain over such
distances.218 Also, once a detainee was transferred, his or her chances of spending a long period
of time in detention greatly increased. Detainees who were transferred at least once typically
spent an average of triple the amount of time in detention compared to those who had never
been transferred. 219 Detainees who were transferred also experienced a greater chance of
deportation: 74% of detainees who were transferred at least once were eventually deported,
compared with 54% of those who were never transferred. 220
Transferred detainees are at a disadvantage when seeking release; the opportunity for voluntary
departure, parole, or a termination of removal proceedings are less likely to occur for a
transferred detainee. Detainees who have been transferred long distances, as is the case for
detainees who are transferred from North Carolina to Stewart, are less likely to prevail at bond
hearings.221 As a 2011 report from Human Rights Watch noted, a detainee can more successfully
prove that he or she is not a flight risk when “evidence of family relationships and community
ties” can be presented. For a detainee who has been moved hundreds of miles from that family or
community, such proof is almost impossible to present.222

30

3. The Prison Corporations: CCA and Detention Management, LLC
a) Corrections Corporations of America
Corrections Corporations of America (CCA) is
the largest private prison company in the
U.S.223 In 2010, CCA earned almost $1.7
billion.224 Since CCA’s founding in 1983, it has
grown to manage approximately 75,000
detainees including males, females, and
j u v e n i l e s a t a l l s e c u r i t y l e v e l s .225
Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, CCA
has contracts to manage facilities in more than
60 institutions in 19 states and in Washington,
DC.226 CCA currently manages 5 facilities in
Georgia, including Stewart, NGDC, and the
McRae Correctional Facility. 227
In 2009, a 39 year-old man detained at the
Stewart Detention Center, Roberto Medina
Martinez, died of myocarditis,228 an
inflammation of the heart muscle that is usually
caused by a viral infection and is often
treatable.229 Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident of potential neglect or abuse at a CCAowned or operated facility. CCA has had a reputation for poor management and turning a blind
eye to abuses within its facilities for over 30 years.230 In 2010, CCA settled a lawsuit out of court
over its operation of a facility in Idaho where staff failed to protect detainees from violence
inflicted by other prisoners.231 It has been alleged that detainees at CCA-operated facilities have
in some cases died as a result of inadequate health care. 232 The disciplinary procedures at CCA
facilities can be haphazard and arbitrary, extremely harsh, or completely unwarranted.233
b) Detention Management, LLC
Detention Management, LLC is a private, for-profit detention corporation based in Atlanta,
Georgia. The company began operating the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia,
in 2010. Detention Management, LLC is Irwin County’s largest private employer according to
the Chairman of the Irwin Board of Commissioners. The Chairman also noted: "The more
detainees that we can get will be better for our facility."234

31

V. LEGAL STANDARDS OF DETENTION
This report analyzes conditions of detention based on three sets of standards: ICE standards,
constitutional standards, and international human rights standards. Although ICE’s standards are
non-binding, they are promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security and set forth
aspirational standards for every immigration detention facility. Currently, the review process is
completely internal and the only agency that evaluates facilities is ICE. Thus, it is imperative to
assess the facilities not only according to ICE standards but also constitutional standards as set
forth in the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing
rights to all individuals including non-citizens.235 Finally, international human rights standards
are relied upon, as there are rights which have reached the status of customary international law
that are universally applicable to all human beings and must be protected by all countries. In
addition, international and regional conventions and treaties which the U.S. has signed and
ratified are binding upon the U.S.
A. ICE Standards
There is very little federal regulation addressing conditions of confinement for ICE detainees.
However, since ICE is a division of DHS, under Title 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(2), the Secretary of
Homeland Security has the authority to regulate conditions of confinement for immigrant
detainees.236 Pursuant to this authority, DHS has set forth guidelines for ICE in the Detention
Operations Manual.237 In 2000, ICE released its National Detention Standards (NDS), which
consisted of 38 standards.238 In 2008, ICE replaced these standards with the “Performance Based
National Detention Standards” (PBNDS 2008), which were supposed to take effect in all ICE
facilities by January 2010.239 The PBNDS 2008 created 41 performance-based national detention
standards, all targeting oversight and well-being of the detainees in custody while they awaited a
determination in their removal proceedings or removal. 240
PBNDS 2008 is organized according to seven categories: Safety, Security, Order, Care,
Activities, Justice, and Administration and Management. Within these sections are subsections
that address most aspects of detainee life including food, housing, recreation, medical care, and
discipline.
Although the standards are not enforceable, ICE reviews facilities’ compliance with PBNDS
2008. Despite recent efforts to either make these standards binding or put forth new binding
standards, they remain non-binding. In addition, not all of the standards are applicable to
Intergovernmental Service Agreements. 241 One of ICE’s main detention reform goals in 2010
was to release new standards. 242 Although ICE did not release new standards in 2010, it did
release the Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (PBNDS 2011) in February
2012.243 The stated purpose of PBNDS 2011 is “to improve medical and mental health services,
increase access to legal services and religious opportunities, improve communication with
detainees with limited English proficiency, improve the process for reporting and responding to
32

complaints, reinforce protections against sexual abuse and assault, and increase recreation and
visitation.”244 Since these standards do not yet uniformly apply to all detention facilities, this
report analyzes conditions based on PBNDS 2008.245
B. Constitutional Standards
It is well established that non-citizens have due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that provisions of the
Fourteenth Amendment “are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial
jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, or color, or of nationality.”246 The
Supreme Court expanded upon this holding in 1976 when it held that every non-citizen was
entitled to due process, “even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or
transitory.”247
The Supreme Court has further stated: “Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison
inmates from the protections of the Constitution.”248 Immigrant detainees depend on the facilities
to provide basic human needs such as adequate living conditions, food, and medical treatment,
which are constitutionally mandated. The Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states by
the Fourteenth Amendment, demands that no incarcerated persons receive cruel and unusual
punishment. A claim under the Eighth Amendment exists when: (1) a prisoner is deprived of a
basic human need,249 and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference.250
Under the Fifth Amendment, non-citizens have basic due process rights in removal
proceedings.251 Because removal proceedings are civil in nature rather than criminal, there is no
constitutional right to government-funded counsel for indigent immigration detainees.252
If an immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals issues a final order of removal,
IIRIRA mandates that ICE detain non-citizens during the 90-day “removal period.”253 Removal
is typically required within 90 days after the final order of removal is entered.254 Often detention
continues for far longer than 90 days due to delays in procuring travel documents or situations
where the U.S. does not have repatriation agreements with a non-citizen’s country of origin.255
This type of prolonged detention deprives individuals of their fundamental right to liberty
without sufficient justification or adequate procedural safeguards.256 The U.S. Supreme Court has
held that once a final order of removal has been issued, a period of detention exceeding six
months is not a “reasonable time” if there is not a significant likelihood of removal.257 Since the
decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, DHS updated its regulations to include a provision that if 90 days
have passed since receiving a final order of removal, DHS must assess: (1) whether the noncitizen poses a flight risk or threat to public safety, and (2) whether removal is imminent because
travel documents have been or will soon be obtained.258 If a non-citizen remains detained for six
months, DHS conducts a second review inquiring whether removal of the non-citizen in the near
future appears reasonably foreseeable.259

33

C. Regional and International Human Rights Standards
In addition to ICE and
constitutional standards,
immigrant detainees are
also afforded rights under
the international human
rights framework.
Viewing treatment of
detainees through the lens
of human rights provides a
framework of rights that
are inalienable and
universally applicable to
all people. Under human
rights pedagogy,
international standards
place minimum conditions
on all states regarding
treatment of individuals
and groups. Analyzing treatment of detainees through the human rights corpus seeks to enforce
minimum conditions that every human being is entitled to by virtue of being a human being.
Since these rights are inalienable, an individual cannot lose these rights even when he or she is
detained.260
The sources of international human rights law include binding conventions that the U.S. has
signed and ratified, regional treaties, customary international law, and United Nations Principles.
In addition, the U.S. also has an obligation to aspire to comply with resolutions and declarations
to which the U.S. is a signatory. These norms set forth minimum standards to be afforded to
detainees, including the right to personal liberty, due process and access to justice, humane
treatment during detention, as well as equality and nondiscriminatory practices. These
principles are codified in both regional and international law.
Among international human rights instruments the U.S. has signed and ratified are the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),261 Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention),262 International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD),263 Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT),264 and the 1967
Protocol to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.265 The U.S. is also signatory
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is now considered a central
instrument of customary international law and is thus binding on all states.266 Although not
binding law, the U.S. is also signatory to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of

34

Prisoners and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment (UN Body of Principles).267
In addition to international standards, the U.S. is also part of the regional body of the
Organization of American States (OAS), which is made up of the 35 permanent states of the
Americas.268 Within the OAS, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is
entrusted with promoting and protecting human rights.269 As part of the OAS, the U.S. has signed
the American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention),270 American Declaration on
the Rights and Duties of Man (American Declaration),271 and the Principles and Best Practices on
the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (Inter-American Principles on
Detention).272
Embodied in these regional and international treaties, conventions, and declarations are
fundamental human rights. They include: 1) the right to personal liberty;273 2) the right to due
process and access to justice;274 3) the right to humane treatment during detention,275 which
includes a) the right to medical care, b) the right to be notified of transfer to other detention
facilities, c) the right to have trained and qualified personnel and independent supervision, and d)
the right to established disciplinary policy and due process; 4) the right to equality and nondiscriminatory practices;276 5) the right not to be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment;277 and 6) the right to seek asylum and non-refoulement.278 In
addition, the UN High Commission for Refugees has specific guidelines relating to the detention
of asylum seekers.279
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants has stated: “[W]hile international
law recognizes every State’s right to set immigration criteria and procedures, it does not allow
unfettered discretion to set policies for detention or deportation of non-citizens without regard to
human rights standards.”280

35

VI. FINDINGS
The following section documents the ACLU of Georgia’s specific findings based on interviews
conducted at Stewart, NGDC, Irwin, and ACDC as well as interviews with family members of
detainees, review of documents obtained as result of FOIA requests, and tours of the facilities.
This section is divided into two parts. The first section addresses due process concerns during
the removal proceedings pertaining to ICE and the immigration court. The second section
addresses concerns specific to each detention facility.
A. Removal Due Process Concerns
This section discusses due process violations at immigration court and by ICE officers at the
facilities. Violations include coercion by immigration judges and deportation officers to get
detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal, overburdened court dockets, delays in the removal
process, failure to provide pro bono representation information, and lack of adequate language
access for non-English speaking detainees.
1. Immigration Court
There are two immigration courts in Georgia: the Stewart Immigration Court in Lumpkin and the
Detainees at Stewart appear before the Stewart
Atlanta Immigration Court in Atlanta.281
Immigration Court. All other detainees at NGDC, Irwin, and ACDC appear before the Atlanta
Immigration Court. The following sub-sections outline due process concerns.
a. Stewart Immigration Court
The following issues seriously affect immigration detainees’ right to due process: barriers to
legal representation; overcrowded dockets that cause delays in detainees’ immigration cases and
bond hearings, thereby increasing the length of detainees’ confinement; coercion by deportation
officers; and inadequate access to available pro bono legal services.
Stewart has four courtrooms and three immigration judges on site. Presiding judges are the
Hon. Barry Chait, Hon. Saundra Arrington, and Hon. Dan Trimble.282 From FY 2007 to FY
2010, the national number of cases before immigration courts increased by 17 percent.283 At
Stewart, the increase in cases between 2009 and 2010 alone was a staggering 27 percent, putting
Stewart among the busiest immigration courts across the country.284 A recent report showed that
in FY 2011, the Stewart Immigration Court issued 8,731 removal orders, giving it the highest
removal rate in the country at 98.8 percent.285 As the court with the highest number of removal
orders in the country, Stewart is the main contributor to making Georgia the state with the third
largest number of deportation orders in the country.286 This increasingly high number of removal
orders paired with the fact that few detainees at Stewart have legal representation raises serious
concerns about whether detainees’ due process rights are preserved during the removal process.

36

i. Barriers to Legal Representation
Only 43% of non-citizens in immigration court proceedings were represented in 2010.287 Legal
representation for detained non-citizens numbered at 16% in 2008 and at less than 20% at
2010.288 Of the 28 interviews the ACLU of Georgia conducted at Stewart, only two detainees,
Josue Cervantes and Ido Yelkal, had legal representation. This is well below the national
average.289
Ido, who had been detained for over two years at the time of our interview,
eventually let his attorney go because he could not afford to retain his services.290
1) Stewart’s Remote Location
One of the main reasons why legal representation for detained individuals is scarce is because
the majority of immigrant detainees are housed in facilities in rural locations far away from their
homes and legal representation.291 One immigration attorney reported that the biggest problem
with Stewart is the remote location of the detention facility, which he believes is at least in part
by design. “It’s so remote that you can’t even send overnight mail there.”292 This is particularly
problematic since Stewart only accepts documents via mail and not by fax.
“Far distances hinder in two ways. Normally it takes an attorney from Atlanta the whole
day to deal with a detained client. Also, the attorneys must charge for the whole day when
they have consultation or court hearings. Most immigrants in detention are the working
poor. It is cost prohibitive to hire an attorney to do the job properly. If they’re lucky, the
lawyer may be able to appear telephonically. The attorney does not have to charge so much
for that, but you’re stuck in office the entire day. In order to prepare the client, the
attorney must travel.
100% of the cases I’ve fought at Stewart have not been paid and won’t be repaid…I will
never see those clients again. Attorneys must really think twice about taking Stewart
clients…sometimes you just have to turn them down.
The financial aspect is one
consideration. Another is access to family and documents—since the client is so far away,
the family can’t get there. Family visits are limited. I fought one case with just half of the
evidence because my client couldn’t help with documentation.
There are other evidentiary problems with distance, like in the case of experts. Obtaining
an expert physician to look at scars or conduct physiological evaluations is not possible.
The family can’t afford to pay a doctor to go visit a client at a jail so far away. I
understand that detention centers aren’t popular and that it’s not easy to open them close
to the city. But do they have to be so far away?”
– Atlanta-based immigration attorney293
Faced with these obstacles, the majority of detainees at Stewart are unrepresented. For those
who do not have legal representation, the only resources are presentations by Catholic Charities,
a “Know Your Rights” video, and handouts provided by the court.294 The Stewart Detainee
37

Handbook states that there is a “Know Your Rights” presentation given by volunteer legal
representatives, and that the schedule is posted at the dorms.295 According to Jennifer Bensman,
Program Director for Immigration and Legal Services at Catholic Charities, the organization
provides a legal orientation program for all new arrivals at Stewart and NGDC.296 This training
is meant to enable the detainees to represent themselves pro se.297 Catholic Charities has
presentations almost every day at the courtrooms at Stewart, and that they see between 400-500
detainees a month. Catholic Charities also takes a few cases for individual representation. As of
November 2011, Catholic Charities attorneys represented a handful of detainees at Stewart.298
With Catholic Charities only representing a small number of detainees, and because most
detainees cannot afford representation, the majority of Stewart detainees are unrepresented. As a
result, according to one Atlanta-based attorney: “People just accept deportation. . . because
families can’t afford to hire an attorney or they are tired of being detained and waiting for court
hearings.”299 Even those who do have legal representation often are only represented
telephonically. An Atlanta-based immigration attorney commented: “If I came to Stewart for
every court appearance my client would be bankrupt.”300
2) Telephonic Hearings and Telephone Access
Attorneys who represent clients at Stewart communicate with their clients primarily through
telephone and represent their clients at immigration court through telephonic hearings. One
Atlanta-based attorney told us that the phones at Stewart are unreliable: “Clients are not always
able to call from Stewart. For a while, calls will come through and then won’t come through.”301
Stewart Immigration Court allows attorneys to enter appearances via telephonic hearings.302
However, beyond the problem of losing face-to-face contact with the judge, prosecutor, and
client, some technical issues have also been documented.
“Stewart is willing to provide telephonic hearings; however, there have been multiple
miscommunications that resulted in the revocation of my right to carry out telephonic
hearings. For example, I told the court that I would be in my Gainesville office on a certain
day, and they nonetheless called my Atlanta office. Then the next day the court called my
Atlanta office when I told them I would be in Gainesville, in spite of my office doing
everything humanly possible to let those people know where I would be. And in spite of the
fact that this was the court staff’s or judge’s error, I was required to appear in person for
telephonic hearings as punishment for not having been available for those calls. The court
in Stewart has been known to use denying motions for telephonic hearings to punish
attorneys. I have borne the brunt of this, as have other attorneys. The court will also call at
times that are different than when they said they would call (e.g. 2 p.m. vs. 8 a.m.).”
-Duane, Gainesville-based immigration attorney303
All of these factors contribute to the low rate of legal representation at Stewart, illustrating the
barriers detainees at rural facilities face in securing representation. As noted by ICE’s Dr.
38

Schriro, the highest rate of transfer is to facilities where there are few pro bono services, located
far from cities where there is a larger number of immigration attorneys.304
ii. Overcrowded Dockets
With the high volume of cases at Stewart, there are necessarily long delays and overcrowded
dockets. The biggest problem with the backlog at Stewart is that the longer non-citizens sit in
detention, the more likely they are to accept removal orders to avoid further detention. One
attorney told us: “My biggest problem with the process is that people are just taking orders of
removal. They just accept deportation even though they are eligible for relief. There have been
slam-dunk cases where relief would have been granted, but because of the expenses and the
restlessness detainees face from being at the detention centers for so long, they just give up.”305
1) Unknown/Rescheduled Court Dates
Instances of waiting for months at Stewart before appearing before an immigration judge are
well documented. In July 2008, Juan had been at Stewart for almost a month and still did not
have a court date scheduled.306 In 2009, Jose Vallejo was detained at Stewart for over four
months (from April 15, 2009 to August 17, 2009) and still had not seen an immigration judge.307
In July 2009, Ido Yelkal, a young Ethiopan man seeking asylum in the U.S. after several
members of his family disappeared, were murdered, or were kidnapped because of their political
views, arrived at Stewart.308 Over two years later, with an asylum application still pending, Ido
was still detained at Stewart.309 As of August 2011, he had not been before a judge in over eight
months, and was unsure when he was going to have a chance for a hearing.310 In 2010, Pedro
Guzman Perez had three different court dates scheduled throughout his first two months at
Stewart.311 All were cancelled by the judge.312 When asked if he knew why his hearings were
cancelled, Pedro responded that he was never given a reason. 313 Ugochukwu Ehienulo, a 23year-old Nigerian, was detained at Stewart since July 2011.314 As of September 27, 2011,
Ugochukwu had still not seen an immigration judge.315 Ugochukwu also related other detainees’
experiences of going to court, where there were 100 detainees scheduled for hearings, and the
judge could only do about 50 and then canceled all the rest.316 Most recently, in October 2011,
Josue Cervantes waited three weeks from his arrival at Stewart to his first appearance in court.317
2) Incomplete Notice to Appear (NTA)
A common trend among detainees interviewed is that their Notice to Appear (NTA) did not have
a time and date for their court hearing. This is troublesome because without a hearing date,
detainees do not have adequate time to prepare a case or procure counsel to enter an appearance.
Upon being transferred to Stewart in July 2011, Ugochukwu Ehienulo received a NTA with no
set hearing date.318

39

3) Bond Concerns
Detainees’ two main complaints about bond are the delay in having a bond hearing and the high
and variable bond amounts. Javan Jeffrey was detained on June 3, 2011 and did not have a bond
hearing until June 19 which was 16 days after he was initially detained.319
“The whole process is like a kidnapping because no one is given access to justice, no one is
placed before the judge, and no one is given a bond hearing. You are just left in limbo.”
–Omar Ponce 320
Immigration attorney Carolina Antonini commented on the vastly different approach in bond
amounts in Georgia versus other courts across the country. 321 She believes that there are people
who have excellent cases, but are denied bond or forgo bond because they can’t pay the cash.322
Ms. Antonini told the ACLU: “We have outrageous bond levels. Not all detainees are eligible for
bond, but the ones who are eligible are sometimes unable to be bonded out because the amount is
so high…and it’s a cash bond. This means that the family must come up with cash and it just
doesn’t make any sense.”323 Another attorney, who wished to remain anonymous, said that
requiring a $5,000 bond for driving without a license is ridiculous, and families lose all of their
savings trying to get their family member out of jail.324
In addition, one detainee was denied bond while he was litigating his case for immigration
relief.325 Pedro Guzman Perez applied for relief to stop his removal proceedings under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act and was not let out on bond while his
case was pending.326 As a result, he was held at Stewart for 19 months before he was released to
re-unite with his U.S. citizen wife and 4-year-old son still living in North Carolina.327 Pedro
stated: "After twenty 20 months away from home, you lose faith, you feel worthless, this place
breaks you, it is made to break your soul.”328 The constant screaming and verbal abuse the
guards inflict on the detainees is "just made to break your soul and handicap you."329
iii. Inadequate Legal Information
Individuals are only given the list of pro bono services at Stewart’s Immigration Court if they tell
the immigration judge that they wish to fight their case.330 When Jaime Lara received his NTA in
July 2010, he was not provided with a listing of pro bono legal services.331 An attorney told us
that even if such a list exists, it is only in English.332 Article 8 of the American Convention
entitles a detainee to “the right…to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing.”333 Failure
to notify detainees of pro bono legal resources and services denies them access to their due
process right to be assisted by counsel.

40

b. Atlanta Immigration Court
Detainees at NGDC, Irwin, and ACDC have removal hearings at the Atlanta Immigration Court.
Through interviews with detainees, the following problems have been documented: due process
violations including immigration judges pressuring detainees to sign stipulated orders of
removal, a new ICE policy which effectively prevents communication between clients and their
attorneys before removal hearings, delays in the removal process resulting in extended periods of
detention, and lack of adequate language access for non-English speaking detainees who often
cannot understand or communicate effectively during their removal proceedings. Finally, the
ACLU of Georgia found that conditions of transport between Irwin and the Atlanta Immigration
Court are particularly troubling.
i. Immigration Judges Have Attempted to Get Detainees to Sign
Stipulated Orders of Removal
The ACLU of Georgia interviewed two detainees who stated that they were pressured by
immigration judges in Atlanta to sign stipulated orders of removal. Dung Dang, a Vietnamese
detainee, stated that he was “basically ordered” to sign a removal order on April 5, 2011 when in
front of an immigration judge.334 Despite having signed the order over two months ago, Dung
was still detained at NGDC.335 Dung was told by other detainees that if you do not sign, they
will keep you there indefinitely.336 Also at the Atlanta Immigration Court, a judge tried to get
Cristian Morales to sign a voluntary departure order, which he refused to do.337 Cristian
explained: “This happens all the time,”338 referring to non-English speakers being coerced to sign
removal orders they don’t even understand. Cristian believes that the judge only began to “treat
him like a human” after he showed that he could speak English.339
These two instances appear to violate international law. Non-citizens have basic due process
rights during removal proceedings.340 These include the right to representation and to have
explained to them the availability of free legal resources.341 In addition, both the ICCPR and the
American Convention grant all persons, no matter what type of proceeding they are in, the
following due process rights: 1) the right to a hearing, with due process guarantees and within a
reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal; 2) prior notification in
detail to the accused of the charges against him; 3) the right not to be compelled to be a witness
against oneself or to plead guilty; 4) the right of the accused to be assisted by legal counsel of his
own choosing and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; 5) the right of the
defense to examine witnesses present in court and to obtain their appearance as witnesses,
experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; and 6) the right to appeal the
judgment to a higher court.342 The IACHR has found that the rights set forth in Article 9 of the
American Convention “establish a baseline of due process to which all immigrants, whatever
their situation, have a right.”343 Attempts to coerce non-citizens to sign stipulated orders of
removal before having had an opportunity to consult with counsel violate non-citizens’ rights
under the U.S. Constitution and under international human rights law.

41

ii. ICE’s New Policy Prevents Attorneys from Speaking to
Their Clients Prior to Their Hearings
In January 2012, an attorney informed the ACLU of Georgia of a new problem at immigration
court in Atlanta:
“In the last few weeks, ICE officers escorting detainees to court have prevented all
attorneys from having any conversations with their clients before or after their case is
called. Apparently this new policy was enacted because the wife of a detainee gave him
something he shouldn’t have had in jail. This policy has prevented us from both gathering
necessary information before going in front of the judge and explaining the outcome of
hearings afterwards. Also, this procedure has slowed down the docket because we are now
forced to request time to speak with our client while we are in front of the judge. I’ve seen
some of the judges step out for 10 to 15 minutes while we explain voluntary departure to
our clients.” –Attorney Julio Moreno344
This new practice is problematic because, as noted earlier, detainees often have trouble
communicating with their attorneys while in detention due to faulty phone services, detention
centers’ remote locations, or lack of contact visits. The time before a hearing is critical for an
attorney to be able to communicate with their client and explain to them the nature of the
proceedings. In addition, this new policy only exacerbates the situation with the already
backlogged dockets. This is especially problematic for detainees from Irwin who have to travel
the farthest for their court appearances.
iii. Delays in the Removal Process
Detainees awaiting hearings at the Atlanta Immigration Court reported long wait times in their
removal cases. After having been detained for two months, Dung Dang never received a Notice
To Appear (NTA).345 Similarly, Jose Cruz Morales was arrested April 30, 2011 and as of June 29,
2011, he still had not seen an immigration judge, received an NTA, or spoken to a deportation
officer.346 In June 2011, Fredin Toledo had been at NGDC for more than a month and still had
not gone before an immigration judge.347 Fredin was supposed to be transferred to Stewart and
was told by his deportation officer that he would have to wait to see a judge until he was at
Stewart.348 In fall of 2011, Florent Kalala was detained for 52 days at Irwin before his first court
hearing.349
Delays in the removal process only make it easier to get detainees to sign stipulated orders of
removal. Fredin Toledo said he felt pressured to sign the stipulated order of removal.350 “I was
desperate after being jailed for so long. I’d rather just leave this country and be free.”351 He
added: “With so many others in the same boat, the only thing to do is to resign oneself and
sign.”352 These delays are also problematic because the longer a non-citizen is detained, the more
profit the private prison company makes, since their contracts with ICE are on a per diem basis.
Thus, there is an inherent tension between profit-making incentives for private prison companies,
42

such as CCA and Detention Management, LLC, and holding non-citizen detainees for as little
time as necessary.353
iv. Foreign Language Speaking Detainees at a
Disadvantage during the Removal Process
Edith Ornelas Mejia lived in Georgia for seven years before being detained.354 Edith became a
single parent at the age of 16 and came to the U.S. to be able to support her son.355 She was
arrested on July 6, 2011 at a traffic stop. She was taken to the Gwinnett County Jail and
transferred to NGDC later that same day.356 Edith received her NTA on July 7, 2011; however, it
was all in English except for a separate list of pro bono legal services.357 Since Edith could only
read Spanish, she did not understand what the document was when she signed it.358
Foreign language speakers are also at a disadvantage during their removal hearings. Maria
Francisco had an interpreter at her court hearing, so she understood that she was going to be
removed, but she did not have anybody tell her in Spanish the details of what was happening
before then.359 Apart from knowing that she was being deported, she did not know what was
going on or what she could have done.360 “I really don’t know what’s being said much of the
time.”361
These women’s experiences are illustrative of a common problem.362 The inability to understand
charging documents due to lack of adequate language access violates detainees’ due process
rights. Specifically, the rights under the ICCPR and the American Convention to have prior
notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him are violated.363
v. Transport from Irwin to Atlanta Immigration Court
By the end of the fiscal year, Irwin plans to have a video courtroom on the premises that would
be telephonically connected to the Atlanta Immigration Court.364 This would mean that detainees
would no longer have in-person hearings once transferred to Irwin,365 making Irwin the only
Georgia facility where detainees are not able to fight their cases in person.
The current arrangements for immigration hearings are far from ideal. According to detainees,
Irwin detainees are transported by van to the Atlanta Immigration Court for their hearings, and
the drive alone takes approximately three and a half hours. Detainees are kept in small, dirty
holding cells when they are transferred to Atlanta for court appearances. The cells smell of urine
and are often overcrowded, temperatures are often uncomfortably hot or cold, and the one
available toilet is sometimes so dirty that some would refuse to use it; sometimes, toilet paper
would be gone as well.366

43

“When we go to court in downtown Atlanta, they take us out at 1 a.m., put us on a bus at
2:30 a.m., and we get to court at 6 a.m. We are often at immigration court for hours
waiting to see the judge. They only give you one sandwich for the entire 24 hours; it’s very
tough. It’s like a punishment to go to court and when you’re there you can’t think well
because you haven’t slept.” - Jose Ponce 367

2. ICE Officers
This section covers due process violations committed by ICE officers.368 The ACLU of Georgia
found that like the immigration courts, ICE officers often failed to adequately protect detainees’
due process rights by coercing detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal, detaining noncitizens for more than six months after their orders of final removal were issued, and not
providing detainees with adequate language access for purposes of communicating about the
status of their cases.
a. Coercion by ICE and Deportation Officers
A common thread at all four detention centers revealed through the interviews is that deportation
officers threaten or coerce detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal.369 When Roberto
Carillo arrived at Stewart in August 2010, he was asked to sign a stipulated order of removal.370
When he refused to do so, the deportation officer tried to coerce him by telling him that no
matter what he did, he would be deported. As a result of this coercion, Roberto signed the order
without fully understanding its consequences.371 “This is one of the biggest problems,” said a
Gainesville-based immigration attorney. “ICE officials sometimes force a detainee to sign a
voluntary removal. If the detainee refuses to sign, the ICE officer will sometimes yell and
scream at him or her.”372 The attorney cited cases where ICE officers physically took detainees’
hands and forced them to sign the removal or put a fingerprint on the signature line.373
Similarly in April 2011, ICE officers at the Hall County Sheriff’s Office asked Luis Ventura to
sign a stipulated order of removal before being transferred to NGDC.374 When he refused, the
ICE officer told him that this was mandatory if he did not have identification papers.375 ICE
officers tried to get Carlos Vargas to sign an order of voluntary departure on June 21, 2011.376
When he refused and asked for an attorney, the ICE officer responded: “That’s your problem;
you’ll have to get one.”377 Daniela Esquivela was also asked by ICE officials to sign a stipulated
order of removal while at the Hall County Jail in October 2011, but she refused.378
This problem also occurs at Irwin. After being arrested for a traffic violation, ICE officers asked
Ignacio Morales if he would sign a stipulated order of removal.379 He did not know what to do.
When he asked if he could call someone, he was told that he was not allowed.380 Ignacio Morales
said that ICE officers kept yelling at him to sign the stipulated order of removal. “Sign, sign,
sign! I felt pressured.”381 Jovita Campuzano Jimenez, who does not understand English, was
given a paper to sign at the Cobb County jail, but she did not understand what it said and refused
44

to sign it.382 “When I refused, I was forced to sign it by [a Cobb County police] officer.”383
When Angela Kelley refused to sign the stipulated order of removal, she was told that she would
be deported whether she signed it or not. “They told me I would stay in custody forever if I did
not sign it.”384 Afraid to be deported for fear of persecution because of her sexual orientation,
Angela did not sign the order.385
Like at Stewart, NGDC, and Irwin, a detainee at ACDC recounted how he was pressured to sign
a stipulated order of removal. Edwin Edgold Omoregbe told us that in 2010, on three separate
occasions, ICE attempted to get him to sign a voluntary deportation order.386
Coercive attempts to get detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal, without explaining the
charges in a language they understand and without providing them an opportunity to contact an
attorney, violate detainees’ due process rights.387
b. Non-citizens Detained in Excess of Presumptively Reasonable Time
Detainees have been held at Stewart for more than six months after issuance of their final orders
of removal. In light of the serious due process concerns presented by indefinite detention, the
U.S. Supreme Court has held that detention exceeding six months violates detainees’ right to
liberty without sufficient justification or adequate procedural safeguards, where detainees’
removal is not reasonably foreseeable.388 Paul was issued a final order of removal in 2007 when
he did not appear at a hearing that would help him maintain his status as an asylum seeker.389
However, Paul did not know about that order until he was detained in January 2011.390 At the
time of the interview with the ACLU of Georgia, Paul had been detained at Stewart for over six
months because there had been difficulties obtaining travel documents from his home country.391
Ido Yelkal was detained at Stewart in summer of 2009.392 Difficulties with travel arrangements
kept coming up and Ido was detained for over two years before being removed.393 Another
detainee, Pedro Guzman Perez, who had been in custody since November 2009 and had a final
removal order issued on March 18, 2010, had not yet had a 90-day custody review as of July
2010, more than five months after issuance of his final order of removal.394 Dyna Khleang, a
Cambodian asylum seeker, received a final order of removal on July 13. 2011.395
When
interviewed in October 2011, he was still awaiting the results of his 90-day custody review. “I
filed all my letters of support but I still have not heard.”396
c. Non-English Speaking Detainees Lack of Effective Communication
with ICE Officers
The ACLU of Georgia documented the problem of detainees being unable to communicate with
ICE officers and their deportation officers due to language barriers. Detainee Dung Dang at
NGDC is originally from Vietnam and only speaks a little English.397 When Dung was initially
detained in February 2011, he was not provided with an interpreter and thus could not effectively
communicate with the ICE officer. 398 At Irwin, Veronica was unable to communicate with her
deportation officer at their initial meeting, so she could not stay informed about the status of her
45

deportation.399 Without interpreters, detainees are forced to rely on translations imparted by
others not professionally trained or suited for this role. When Veronica was arrested by local
police, her 13 year-old had to interpret for her when talking to the police officer at the roadblock
as well as later when talking to ICE at the county jail400 After a friend took her children home
from the jail, Veronica had to ask another detainee to interpret for her since she was not provided
an interpreter.401

46

B. Facility Findings
This section discusses findings at each detention facility: Stewart, NGDC, Irwin, and ACDC.
Each section is broken down by facility into the following areas of concern: 1) Due Process, 2)
Living Conditions, 3) Medical and Mental Health Care, and 4) Abuse of Power.
1. Stewart Detention Center
Background
The Stewart Detention Center (Stewart) is the largest immigration detention center in the U.S.402
It is a 1,752-bed medium-security all-male facility in Lumpkin, Georgia.403 The detention center
is often used to hold detainees who have been transferred from other parts of the country. Of the
28 detainees interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart, approximately one-third were from
out of state.404 The facility is located three hours south of Atlanta. There are few legal service
providers such as immigration attorneys or pro bono resources in the area.
In September 2011, there were 13 officers, 71 ICE employees, and 63 other employees at
Stewart.405 Two of the low-security housing units were made accessible for a tour along with the
medical facility, visitation rooms, the outdoor recreation area, and the general library. The
ACLU of Georgia was denied access to the law library and the segregation unit. CCA stated that
the denial of access to the segregation unit was because of safety and security reasons.406
On June 27, 2006, Stewart County and CCA entered into an agreement for CCA to house federal
prisoners at Stewart.407 The contract between CCA and Stewart County is in effect from July 1,
2006 until December 31, 2011, with a four-year renewal option upon mutual written agreement
of both parties.408 According to CCA, the contract has been renewed through 2016.409 Under the
Inter-Governmental Service Agreement (IGSA) between ICE and Stewart County, the per diem
rate for each detainee accepted and housed is $54.25.410 Pursuant to the IGSA, medical services
are provided through U.S. Public Health Services.411 Per the IGSA, Stewart County also agrees
to allow periodic inspections of the facility by ICE.412
Findings
Between 2008 and 2011, the ACLU of Georgia conducted 28 interviews with detainees at
Stewart.413 The ACLU of Georgia is particularly troubled by Stewart’s remote location that
effectively cuts detainees off from attorneys and family, consistent accounts of substandard
living conditions including spoiled food and non-potable water, and insufficient physical and
mental health care staffing levels.

47

1. Facility Due Process Concerns
Detainees at Stewart face numerous barriers in their removal hearings including inadequate
access to law libraries, insufficient legal visitation areas that make communication between
attorneys and clients unnecessarily difficult, and inadequate provision of legal orientation
information and lists of pro bono services.
a. Not All Detainees Provided with Detainee Handbooks upon Entry
Through detainee interviews, the ACLU of Georgia found that detainees were not always given
Detainee Handbooks upon entering the facility. This happened in November 2009, when officers
informed Pedro Guzman Perez that they were “all out,” and again to Luis Vasquez in July
2010.414 Failure to provide detainees with facility handbooks is in violation of ICE PBNDS Part
2, Section 4, subsection II.8, which reads: “Each newly admitted detainee will be oriented to the
facility through written material on facility policies, rules, prohibited acts, and procedures ….”415
b. Inadequacy of Legal Visitation Rooms
At Stewart, all visits including attorney visits are no-contact. Each visitation room has a
telephone and a plexiglass wall with a small opening at the bottom. Some of the openings have
been nailed shut, so attorneys and clients are unable to pass forms or paperwork to one another.
On one occasion, an attorney had no alternative but to send the forms back to the detainee
through a guard. Having to communicate in such a fashion presents obvious confidentiality
problems. Immigration attorney Carolina Antonini described the problems she faced: “Stewart’s
visitation room has a telephone with a cord so short that I cannot see my client’s face and he
cannot see mine. You can’t meaningfully talk to a client when you’re looking at a wall. When I
prepare my clients for testimony, I need to see their faces.”416 Another attorney believes that nocontact visitation is completely inappropriate for attorney-client visits.417
“When we have to speak through the phones there is no way of telling if the call is recorded
or not. If we don’t use the phones then we have to yell, which also puts privacy at issue.”
–Immigration Attorney Carolina Antonini 418
Even while using the telephone, it is impossible for a detainee and his attorney to hear each other
when the facility is having its count (eight times daily) because all of the officers congregate in
the waiting area directly outside of the visitation rooms. This makes the hallway incredibly loud
and makes it all but impossible to carry on a conversation. There is a one to two-inch opening
between the door that leads into the room and the floor, which not only allows noise into the
interview room, but also makes it very easy for guards outside the room to clearly hear
conversations. The ACLU of Georgia has experienced this problem first-hand. During the
summer of 2011, every interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia was interrupted multiple
times by the noisiness of the guards outside the door. During the visits on June 17, 2011 and July
25, 2011, the interviewers had to step outside and ask the guards to be quiet, and on the latter
48

occasion, the guards were asked six times to please lower their voices. When we asked the guard
at the security desk to intervene on our behalf, he refused.419
c. Inadequate Access to the Law Library and Insufficient Legal Texts
Detainees at Stewart have limited access to the law library and the materials are insufficient for
detainees who require such access to prepare their cases for immigration relief. Detainees can
request to access the law library by filing a paper request slip. Although the Detention Services
Manager reports that detainees could use the library whenever they wanted, detainees stated that
they were only allowed maximum access of three times per week for a set amount of time.420 In
addition, in 2010, Omar Ponce told the ACLU of Georgia that the paper slip request system is
unreliable and that he put in three requests to use the library, all of which went unanswered.421
Moreover, the law library has insufficient resources. The law library is equipped with five to
seven computers with access to Lexis-Nexis and immigration law books.422 One detainee told us,
however, that the legal books are all out of date.423 Another detainee expressed concern over lack
of resources for Spanish speaking detainees. 424 In addition, for detainees who do not speak
Spanish or English (for example, detainees from Poland, Vietnam, and Cambodia whom we
spoke to) there are no foreign-language resources.
“There is not enough legal information to help me with my case.”- Ugochukwu, discussing
the limitations of the law library for filing for Withholding of Removal under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). 425
Specifically, the ACLU of Georgia is concerned about the lack of sufficient resources for those
detainees filing for asylum, CAT, and withholding of removal. To file a claim for relief for
asylum or withholding of removal, an individual must show, respectively, a “well-founded fear”
of persecution or that it is “more likely that not” that he will be persecuted if returned to his
home country.426 In order to win CAT relief, an individual must show that it is more likely than
not that he will be tortured if removed.427 A large part of proving the case is through news
articles and other public sources on the current political climate and specific instances of
persecution and abuse. The law library at Stewart does not allow for the detainees to search the
internet for news articles. Thus, detainees cannot obtain sufficient supporting evidence from the
law library to provide to the court in their asylum or withholding claims. 428
2. Effects of Transfer to Stewart
The devastating impact of transfers on the detainees, their families, and communities has been
discussed above, but the plight of detainees at Stewart is exceptionally acute. Certain “transfer
routes” are habitually utilized, and of the top ten most frequently used routes, Stewart is the
destination point for two.429 The most frequently used interstate transfer movement occurred
between Mecklenburg County Jail in North Carolina and Stewart. Between February 2009 and
August 2010, 15,959 detainees were transferred over 315 miles to this detention center.430 The
49

fifth most utilized transfer was also one that originated in North Carolina and ended at Stewart.431
During that same time period, 7,320 detainees were taken over 414 miles from North Carolina’s
Alamance County Detention Facility to Stewart.432 Of the 28 men the interviewed at Stewart,
one-third had been transferred from another state. Of those interviewees that were transferred,
two-thirds were from North Carolina, which limits their access to their families and attorneys
back home. 433
Additionally, the long distance transfers are very costly. ICE spent over $5 million transferring
detainees from Mecklenburg County Jail to Stewart, and each transfer cost an average of
$325.95. This was the second most expensive transfer route, and yet it was also the most
frequently used.434
a. Lack of Contact with Family, Attorneys, and Support Systems
Frequent and costly interstate transfers to
Stewart not only inhibit detainees’ access to
their lawyers but also to their local support
systems.435 The location of Stewart reduces
the number of family visits.
Lumpkin,
Georgia is a difficult drive for family
members who live in Atlanta, and an almost
impossible one for those from out of state.436
The Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights has found: “Visiting rights are a
fundamental requirement for ensuring respect
of the personal integrity and freedom of the
inmate and … the state must establish
positive provisions to effectively guarantee
the right to maintain and develop family
relations.”437
Stewart’s remote location
makes attainment of visiting rights very
difficult for many detainees. During the three
months he had been detained in 2011,
Ugochukwu Ehienulo’s father and mother
were able to visit with him just once, for less
than 30 minutes, after they drove 12 hours
from Virginia.438 When Ugochukwu asked
his deportation officer why he could not have
stayed in detention in Virginia near his family, the officer replied that it was cheaper for him to
come to Stewart.439 Most detainees do not even receive one visit from family members. Javan
Jeffrey had been detained at Stewart since June 7, 2011. In over three months of detention, he
had not been able to see his U.S. citizen wife and two U.S. citizen children, because they live in
50

Charlotte, North Carolina, a seven-hour drive away. They lack the resources for making the long
trip.440 Furthermore, with the exception of El Refugio, there are no accommodations available
for families in the town of Lumpkin.441
Given the devastating impact of transfers on the detainees, both in terms of access to
representation and their emotional wellbeing, a serious curtailment of transfers is necessary.
Transfer is also of special concern when it is done with the aim of inhibiting a detainee from
litigating his case. In 2010, Pedro Guzman Perez’s deportation officer told him that he was being
transferred from NGDC to Stewart “because he was fighting his case.”442
b. Lack of Contact Visits
According to Stewart’s Detainee Handbook, detainees are permitted one visit per week for up to
one hour.443 Visitation rooms for family and friends are separate from attorney visitation rooms.
All visits at Stewart are no-contact.444 In December 2009, Pedro Guzman Perez’s wife and son
traveled ten hours each way to see Pedro. Pedro’s wife stated that “the visit went well but it was
also heartbreaking to see Pedro and Logan [Pedro’s son] playing ‘hide and seek’ through
glass.”445 Javan Jeffrey’s wife was finally able to visit Javan for the first time in October.446 The
fact that she could not touch or kiss her husband whom she had not seen for months made her
feel “terrible.”447
c. Phone Access
Detainees at Stewart face barriers to phone access, including prohibitively high phone charges, a
high rate of technical problems with Stewart’s phone system, and lack of privacy for callers. All
of these factors seriously impact detainees’ ability to communicate with their attorneys and
families.
There is no privacy afforded for using the phones, which are located in the pods with two phones
flanking a single bench.
According to the detainee handbook, telephone calls may be made collect or detainees can
purchase a calling card through the commissary.448 The handbook includes numbers for free calls
to legal assistance programs and consulates.449 At the time the ACLU of Georgia spoke to the
detainees, phone services were managed by Correctional Billing Services, a division of Evercom
Systems, Inc.450 Detainees have complained of dropped calls and connections issues. Grzegorz
Kowalec was unable to get a connection for an international call to speak to his family in
Poland.451
In addition to technical problems, many detainees find the phones too expensive. Ugochukwu
Ehienulo finds the telephone system unaffordable, and as a result, he rarely talks to his family in
Virginia. Guards will not give detainees a courtesy call if they have no money unless it is a true
emergency.452 The handbook does not list the price of phone calls, but detainees have given
51

differing accounts.
In October 2011, Josue Cervantes reported that the phone costs
approximately $5.00 for 12 minutes out of state or for 26 minutes in state.453 Josue explained
that there are two ways to use the phone. The first is through a phone card which costs 19 cents/
minute.454 The second is to put money on an account, which has a $1.00 connection fee.455 He
spends about $40 per week on phone calls.456 Grzegorz Kowalec once spent $7.00 for a 5-minute
call to his sister.457 She eventually changed her number to a local number with a Lumpkin area
code. Now the calls cost $2.00 for 20 minutes.458 A number of the family members of detainees
have changed their phone numbers to Lumpkin numbers if they are out of state or out of the
country.459 Although the facility did not provide current rates, it did acknowledge that in order to
avoid high prices many families buy cell phones with local area codes.460
However, not all out-of-state family members have a mobile phone and can change their area
code. In 2009, detainee Jose Vallejo could not even communicate with his family telephonically
because he could no longer afford phone cards.461 “This is abuse,” he stated.462 Since many
detainees’ family members do not reside in Georgia, they must pay an elevated rate for out of
state phone calls.463
3. Inadequate Living Conditions
This section documents problems with cell conditions, hygiene, water quality and water
shortages, meals, the work program, religious accommodations, recreation, and inadequate
supervision by CCA staff.
a. Housing Facilities
Stewarts’s housing units are made up
of six main housing areas also known
as pods.464 These six areas are then
broken down into smaller living units
of various sizes.
Detainees are
housed according to their
classification levels. Level 1 is lowsecurity and detainees wear blue
jumpsuits.
Level 2 is mediumsecurity and detainees wear orange
jumpsuits. Level 3 is high-security
and detainees wear red jumpsuits.465
According to the Detainee
Handbook, Level 1 and Level 2
detainees may be housed together, and Level 2 and Level 3 detainees may be housed together,
but Level 1 and Level 3 detainees can never be housed together.466 Each housing area has its
own showers, toilets, and a dayroom. The dayroom provides televisions for entertainment as
well as space for in-dorm recreational activities such as board games or cards.467 Stewart also
52

has a Special Management Unit known as the segregation unit, which consists of two sub-units
of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation.468
Level 1 (low-security) detainees live in pods, which are communal living/sleeping rooms with
approximately 60 detainees per pod. Level 2 (medium-security) detainees are either housed in
pods or in 2-man cells. The Level 3 (high-security) detainees are all housed in 2-man cells.
i. Cell Conditions
Josue Cervantes, a detainee classified as low-security, described his
pod as follows. There are 64 cellmates, 32 bunks, two small slit
windows, two television sets (one in Spanish and one in English, but
the Spanish one is always on mute), four phones, tables, microwaves,
five showers, three toilets, and three urinals. 469 Raul470 described his
pod to be about the size of a basketball court, a big open area with 66
people, three toilets, three urinals, and five showers.471 Raul added that
the space was “like a chicken coop” and was cramped and
overcrowded.472 Mahbubal added that Stewart “was like a human
zoo.”
ii. Hygiene Concerns
According to international human rights standards, detainees’ right to humane treatment while in
custody includes a right to hygienic conditions.473 In December 2008, Georgia Detention Watch
conducted a humanitarian visit to Stewart and interviewed 16 detainees.474 The group wrote a
report documenting its findings and documented violations.475 Among these concerns was a
violation of personal hygiene standards.476 Hygiene is still a significant concern at Stewart.
Interviewees described the pods as unclean and overcrowded.477 Many detainees believe that
rashes and colds are passed around because of the unclean and crowded environment. “Flu and
colds are passed everywhere,” one detainee said.478
1) Kits
According to the Detainee Handbook, detainees are issued hygiene kits at intake.479 Included in
the kit are soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes, combs, and a disposable razor. At the beginning of
October 2011, the facility ran out of soap and toothpaste. Luckily, Josue Cervantes was able to
buy some from the commissary, but those who could not afford it just had to do without.480 Ido
told us that he receives a travel-sized toothpaste tube once every two weeks, and that it always
runs out too soon.481 This is in violation of the PBNDS on Personal Hygiene, which provides
that “Staff shall provide male and female detainees personal hygiene items…[and] shall
replenish supplies as needed.”482

53

2) Showers
In August 2010, Frank reported that although there are five showers in the pod for 58 people, two
have been broken for some time.483 In October 2011, Josue Cervantes considered filing a
complaint because hot water had been out in his pod for three days.484 This is in violation of ICE
PBNDS on Hygiene which provides that: “Operable showers … are thermostatically controlled
to temperatures between 100 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit, to ensure safety and promote hygienic
practices.”485
Detainees expressed concerns about the lack of privacy while showering. Mikyas Germachew
feels uncomfortable when female guards patrol the area when he is showering.486 This is also the
reason why Paul chooses to shower in his underwear.487 He noticed that his white boxers turn
green in the shower.488 Other detainees have also expressed concerns about the water quality. In
2009, detainee Arman Garghani, who worked in a pod cleaning the showers, stated that the water
was dirty and turned the whole shower green.489 Javan Jeffrey developed a skin rash from the
water and had to go to the medical unit for topical ointment in order to treat the rash. 490
3) Toilets/Urinals
The 2008 PBNDS requires that toilets be provided at a minimum ratio of one for every 12 male
detainees or one for every 8 female detainees.491 For males, urinals may be substituted for up to
one-half of the toilets.492 Damon reported that his pod of 60 detainees contained three toilets and
three urinals.493 Other detainees have had access to far fewer. In July 2010, Juan stated that his
pod had 62 detainees and there were only three toilets.494 This was confirmed by Pedro Guzman
Perez, whose pod of 60 detainees only had three toilets.495 In August 2010, Felix stated that there
were only three toilets for 60-70 men in his pod.496 This is in direct violation of ICE’s standards.
When offered an opportunity to respond, the facility stated that Stewart had received a waiver
during its last American Correctional Association audit, which, like PBNDS, requires a ratio of
1:12.497
There were also concerns expressed about toilet conditions. In 2009, Raul stated that toilet
conditions were bad, “because with 66 people and three toilets, always two of three, sometimes
even all three were clogged.”498 He added that since detainees were not provided with cleaning
solutions with any type of chemicals, the detainees could not adequately clean the toilets.499
4) Instances of No Working Water
In addition to the water’s poor quality, the ACLU of Georgia was told that it was periodically
turned off. Javan Jeffrey relayed that during his three months detained at Stewart, the water was
turned off on at least three occasions.500 As a result, detainees were not able to flush the toilets,
drink from the water fountain, or shower during those times.501 According to ICE PBNDS on
Personal Hygiene, detainees are entitled to running water 24 hours a day.502

54

5) Laundry
Ugochukwu Ehienulo said that the sheets, towels, and pillowcases are not regularly changed and
that the only way to get fresh linen is to lie (“say you spilled something on it”).503 Another
detainee said it took a month for him to get a new pair of socks and underwear after putting in a
request.504 Josue Cervantes reported that his laundry was stolen during his second week he was
at Stewart. It took CCA three weeks to replace it, so he was wearing the same underwear and pair
of socks the entire time.505
iii. High-Security Units
In certain units, particularly in the high-security unit, some detainees were given mattresses that
had been emptied of the filling.506 Paul had to request two mattresses because the one he had
been issued was an empty lining. 507 Other detainees would steal the stuffing from the mattress to
thicken their own mattresses.508 When Paul complained about this, nothing was done about it.509
In fact, Paul’s cellmate, Mikyas Germachew, had the same problem with his mattress.510 Mikyas
had broken his back as a child, but the medical staff refused to issue him a new or second
mattress. Although his back problems were noted in his records, the medical staff informed
Mikyas that they were no longer giving new mattresses because “people were playing games”
with them and getting things undeservedly.511 “[The medical provider] said I looked healthy, so
no mattress.”512 As a result, both men have experienced back pain and Mikyas is taking pain
medication to ease the pain in his lower back.513
b. Poor Drinking Water Quality
In addition to water problems in the cells for showering and flushing toilets, the quality of the
drinking water also poses concern. The drinking water was described as “green.”514 A number of
detainees do not drink the water given during meals, but instead go back to their cells and boil
water in the microwave for drinking. 515
c. Food Concerns
There are numerous problems with food services at Stewart, including long periods between
meal times, guards rushing detainees through their meals, and small meal portions. Even more
troubling are the numerous instances where detainees were served rancid or expired food or
found foreign objects in their meals.
Breakfast at Stewart is typically served between 5:30-7 a.m., lunch between 10 a.m.-12 p.m., and
dinner between 4:30-7 p.m.516 Detainees are not provided with any snacks. They have to go to
the commissary to buy their own. Depending on the unit, detainees may have to wait as long as
13 hours between meals. Roberto Carillo ate dinner at 4:45 p.m. one evening and did not get
breakfast until the next morning between 5:30 and 6:00am.517 In an email from the warden,
CCA acknowledged that this is true: “Breakfast service begins at 5 a.m., lunch service begins at
55

10 a.m. and dinner service begins at 4:15 p.m.”518 In three months in detention, Javan Jeffrey
had lost 15 lbs.519 Damon lost 40 pounds during his detention.520 One detainee had to request
that he be put on a special diet, which consisted of an Ensure dietary supplement once a day,
because he was losing weight so rapidly. He had lost 35 pounds during his three months at
Stewart.521 Most disturbing, Grzegorz Kowalec has lost 68 pounds since being detained.522
The reasons for such widespread and unhealthy weight loss numbers are numerous, but the
consensus among the men we spoke to was that meal times are rushed by the guards and that the
food is inadequate and sometimes inedible. Mikyas Germachew said that the hours are irregular
for breakfast, such that it could be as early as 5:45 a.m. or as late as 6:30 a.m.523 One morning,
the meal call was particularly early, and he was still asleep.524 By the time he made it to the hall,
others in his unit were still lining up, but he was told he was too late and was made to wait until
lunch.525 The guard just smiled at him and said: “Thank you for coming. Goodbye.”526 Detainees
are rushed through the meal lines and then through the meals themselves.527 Many experience
average meal times lasting less than ten minutes.528 According to Ido Yelkal: “If you ever stop
eating or put your fork down, they tell you you’re full and you need to go back to your cell.”529
Jose Nunez said he spent around $30.00 a week on extra food because he was never full.530
Almost all detainees had complaints about the food quality. Ugochukwu Ehienulo stated that all
meals have potato mixed with something, and that there is never enough to eat.531 Javan Jeffrey
added that there was never enough food, and the food was of poor quality.532 Dyna Khleang told
us that he does not eat the food because it is so bad.533 He only eats out of the commissary and
spends on average $40.00 per week on food. 534
The nutritional quality of the food is inadequate. Detainees do not get any fruit and rarely get
green vegetables or even meat.535 Chicken is served only once a week.536
A number of detainees have found foreign objects in their food and have been served spoiled or
rancid food. Many detainees found hair and plastic in their food.537 Other detainees have found
bugs and gnats in their meals.538 In July 2007, a detainee lodged a complaint with DHS/ICE
Office of Professional Responsibility, stating that he was served spoiled milk on July 30.539 An
investigation of this allegation found other detainees who also complained of being served
expired milk, but the Senior Special Agent of the Office of Professional Responsibility stated in
his November 2008 Investigation Report that corrective actions were immediately taken and that
Stewart had not had spoiled milk issues since this incident.540 Despite this assertion, there are
documented instances of expired milk being served in 2009. During the summer of 2009, Arman
Garghani was served expired milk for breakfast on July 29 and then again on August 11 and
August 12.541 During the summer of 2010, all of the men interviewed had either found rocks in
their beans or knew of people who had.542 Damon told us that in August 2010, his hamburger
meat was spoiled.543 During the summer of 2011, the vast majority of men we spoke with
reported being served rancid or undercooked chicken.544 That same summer, Mikyas Germachew
found a tooth in his chili.545 Accounts of detainees who were served expired products and who

56

found foreign objects in their food were also documented in Georgia Detention Watch’s 2009
Report.546 As evidenced by more recent interviews, this problem has not been rectified.547
“When we do get chicken for dinner, it is bloody.” -Ugochukwu Ehienulo548
The commissary does not sell any fresh produce and is very expensive.549 Ugochukwu Ehienulo
told us that it costs $1.02 for a honey bun, and that all items are taxed.550 Another detainee said
that all the food is much more expensive than it would be on the outside. In his 2 months at
Stewart, he had already spent over $100.00 on food.551
The problems with meals at Stewart are compounded by the attitude of the guards.552 Damon
said that even the best food they receive is terrible and that guards taunt them by bringing in food
and eating in front of them.553 Juan said that food was withheld from people who complained,554
and Paul said that when showed a guard undercooked food, he was told to throw it away and get
another serving.555 According to Paul, he is not given extra time to eat in this situation, and
sometimes the second helping is just as bad as the first.556
d. Voluntary Work Program
According to the Inter-American Principles on Detention: “All persons deprived of liberty shall
have the right to work.” This includes the right “to receive a fair and equitable remuneration.”557
Since detainees at Stewart are paid wages so far below the minimum wage for full-time work,
their right to fair remuneration may be violated. Stewart participates in a voluntary work
program allowing detainees to work for wages of between $1.00 and $3.00 per day for a
maximum of eight hours per day.558 Out of 28 detainees interviewed, 12 participated in the
program.559 Jobs include cleaning up cells, working in the kitchen, and barber services.560 Dyna
Khleang works as a barber and gets paid $3.00 a day. 561 He stated that for this type of work, he
was not paid enough.562
Even though the program is supposed to be voluntary, detainees’ experiences are illustrative of
its coercive nature. Omar Ponce was subjected to disciplinary action for refusing to work and for
organizing a work strike in 2010.563 He was in the segregation unit for a week before he had his
disciplinary review hearing.564 Another detainee was threatened with segregation if he refused to
work less than eight hours per day.565 This is not atypical. Josue Cervantes relayed this account
in October 2011:
“Three weeks ago, some detainees who worked at the kitchen wanted to stop working. The
guards told them that if they stopped working, they would be charged by the disciplinary
board. The guards then tried to get them to sign a document. I don’t know what it was.
The detainees refused to sign the document and shortly thereafter they were transferred
from the blue to the orange unit for a couple days as punishment.”
-Josue Cervantes566

57

In response to this account, CCA stated that the incident was not “typical” but acknowledged that
the incident “occurred on October 3. The matter was investigated and corrective action was
taken by October 6. The inmates were moved back to the correct units, any disciplinary charges
were expunged and all involved staff were appropriately counseled.”567
In addition, when the medical staff give orders for detainees to rest, these orders often go
unheeded by CCA officers. Eduardo Zuniga stated that guards threatened him with “the hole” if
he did not get up and get back to work despite medical orders to rest.568
e. Right to Free Expression of Religion
At Stewart, the right of detainees to free expression of religion is compromised in two ways:
religious services are too few and run only by religious volunteers, and CCA staff does not
accommodate detainees’ religious diets.
i. Religious Services
Religious services at Stewart are inadequate and led entirely by volunteers.569 The calendar for
the September 2011 services consisted of Catholic, Christian,570 Muslim, Jewish, and Jehovah’s
Witness services.571 There were no listed services for any other religions. The schedule of
services is determined by religious volunteers. As of September 2011, there was no Volunteer
Program Coordinator, because the previous person in charge, a Catholic chaplain, was
undergoing surgery.572
There is no chapel at Stewart; detainees have service in the mess hall. A chaplain comes on
Fridays for Christian service and on Sundays for Catholic service.573 Dyna Khleang attended
Christian service at Stewart.574 He told us that the chaplain does not speak or deliver a sermon,
but that he plays a Spanish video.575 Ugochukwu Ehienulo and Ido Yelkal reported that services
are in Spanish only, making it impossible for non-Spanish-speakers to understand.576
ii. Religious Diets
Some detainees reported that they were not afforded access to special diets to accommodate their
religious beliefs. A Jewish detainee was denied kosher meals despite his repeated requests.
According to the Detainee Manual, four diets are available: Regular Menu, Common Fare,
Kosher, and Medical. 577 Special diets are supposed to be offered to detainees with special
medical or religious needs, but the medical staff and chaplain are often skeptical and refuse to
give any special diets.578

Mikyas Germachew, coming from a Jewish family from Ethiopia, requested a kosher diet
when he entered Stewart. The chaplain refused, claiming: “there were no black Jews.”579
After filing a formal grievance, the chaplain agreed to talk with him about his religion, but
58

after asking him questions such as “what does Jesus mean to you,” the chaplain still
refused to recognize him as a Jew. The official in charge of receiving complaints at Stewart
told Mikyas that “if it was up to me, I’d put you on kosher diet, but we have to go with
what the chaplain says.”580 Mikyas eventually filed a grievance with DHS, but they had yet
to get him access to kosher food. The chaplain told Mikyas that “DHS or the warden could
tell me to approve this request, but I’m never going to approve.” In his response to the
formal complaint, the chaplain stated that Mikyas was confused about his religion, and
that he was not Jewish but Christian, and that even if his family and tribe in Africa were
legitimately Jewish, this detainee was not.581 The chaplain called Mikyas’ mother on the
phone “to verify her family’s Jewish status” and asked her questions regarding her and
Mikyas’ beliefs. He finally told her that she was Jewish, but Mikyas was not. Mikyas
knows two Caucasian detainees who have told him that they are not Jewish, but wanted the
better-quality food provided on a kosher diet. The chaplain did not question them about
their motives or their faith.582
This treatment and the chaplain’s refusal to acknowledge Mikyas’ Jewish faith violated his right
to freedom of religious affiliation and voluntary religious worship. This right is included both in
ICE’s and Stewart’s handbooks and recognized in international law and the U.S. Constitution.583
f. Limited Recreation
Detainees’ recreation time is often shorter and less frequent than what is required by ICE’s
standard on recreation.584 The recreation area consists of indoor and outdoor basketball courts, a
library, an outdoor common area, and a clay field used for soccer.585 The Head Chief of Security
Ernesto Ruiz reported that detainees at Stewart usually have an hour of recreation every day,
which exceeds the five days perweek recommendations of ICE PBNDS guidelines.586 However,
Ugochukwu Ehienulo shared that recreation never lasted more than 35 minutes.587 Numerous
interviewees stated that recreation was not always guaranteed and that on some occasions when
the facility was understaffed there was no recreation at all.588 Furthermore, when the weather is
bad, since most recreational facilities are outside, recreation is cancelled for the day.589
g. Lack of Oversight
The guards at Stewart do not provide adequate supervision of detainees during the day, and
detainees are sometimes threatened or even physically harmed by other detainees. In January
2010, a complaint was filed by a detainee stating that his cellmate drugged and sexually molested
him.590 In addition, several detainees in the low-security unit informed us that the lights are left
on at 75% power all night due to rape allegations. 591
In the high-security unit, the lack of oversight has led to a number of troubling issues and even
posed dangers to the detainees. In summer of 2011, the high-security unit was made up of
roughly 66 men, and six of the men in that unit were Africans. The other 60 were Latinos. With

59

two TVs in the common area, one was supposed to be reserved for English speakers and the
other for Spanish speakers.592 There were fights about whether both TVs will be Spanish or not
because the majority of the unit speaks Spanish. The guards rarely stepped in and enforced the
rule that there be at least one English-language channel. On one occasion the guard just left the
area during an argument.593 When the guards do try to settle the arguments, it is often by sending
everyone to their cell for the day as punishment or telling them they will be sent to their cells if
they can’t “work it out.” The small minority of detainees in this unit fighting for an English
channel sometimes have to retreat to their cells anyway. “I stay in my cell all day sometimes,”
Paul says. “It just gets so dangerous.”594 Mikyas Germachew says that he has been threatened
by members of gangs in his unit.595
4. Inadequate Medical and Mental Health Care
The medical and mental health care unit at Stewart is understaffed, resulting in many problems
including lack of adequately licensed health care professionals, delays in receiving care, and an
inadequate mental health care regime that cannot effectively treat detainees with mental
disabilities. Under the IGSA, U.S. Public Health Service is responsible for providing all heath
care services at Stewart.596 The medical unit consists of medical, dental, and psychological
services. Currently, the medical unit has seven nurses on staff who are employed through STG
contracting.597 The medical equipment and radiological services are provided to Stewart through
a Massachusetts-based services group. 598
In May 2008, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations conducted an internal review of
Stewart’s compliance with detention standards.599 The review indicated deficient findings in the
Access to Medical Care Standard. 600 Although the ACLU of Georgia was not able to obtain a
more recent review from ICE, interviews with the detainees indicated that medical care at
Stewart is still inadequate.
a. Medical Care
The medical care unit consists of medical and dental examination rooms.601 In addition, there are
two seclusion rooms for detainees with infectious diseases or for those on suicide watch. In the
dental unit, there are two dental assistants.602
i. Understaffed Medical Unit
In September 2011, the assistant warden stated that the medical unit had had no physician on
staff since August 2011, but that a physician was scheduled to start in October.603 As of December
1, 2011, there still was no physician on staff.604 In addition, the ACLU of Georgia was informed
by ICE that Stewart had been without a physician since August 2009, a period of almost two and
half years and significantly longer than what had been imparted previously by CCA.605

60

With no physician and only seven nurses on staff at the 1,752 bed facility, the ratio of prisoners
to nurses is 250:1.606
In addition to the onsite facility, detainees are sometimes sent to offsite facilities. These facilities
include: Stewart Webster Hospital, Richland, Georgia (9 miles); Columbus Regional Medical
Center, Columbus, Georgia (39 miles); Doctor's Hospital, Columbus, Georgia (39 miles); St.
Francis Hospital, Columbus, Georgia (40 miles); and Phoebe-Putney Hospital, Albany, Georgia
(57 miles) for mental health issues.607
One detainee who had surgery for a hernia in January 2010 began to have complications in late
July and had to be taken to the hospital. He stated that the medical staff at Stewart almost
dropped him off of a gurney on the way to hospital.608 When he first arrived at Stewart, Mikyas
Germachew had swollen and infected gums.609 Because detainees are not allowed a dental visit
until they have been detained for 12 months, he was told that either they could pull a few of his
teeth, or he could gargle with salt water. He chose the salt water, and was given ibuprofen for the
pain. He was never able to see a dentist or receive treatment for the infection.610
Eduardo Zuniga suffered two injuries to his legs while working at the Stewart kitchen, and
both injuries were undertreated. It is Stewart’s policy to issue special shoes for those
detainees working with heavy objects at the kitchen. The shoes have hard toes and soles
that provide better traction—the regular shoes issued are very smooth and soft-soled. Due
to a shoe shortage, Eduardo was told he would have to work in his regular shoes. His first
injury came from a cooler dropping on his foot, which shattered his toenail. The medical
staff refused to remove shards of the splintered nail from his foot. The toe became infected
and Eduardo eventually removed the shards himself. Four months later, his toenail had
still not grown back and the swelling persisted. After making numerous complaints, he was
finally able to see a doctor. Eduardo injured his knee about a month later when he slipped
on water on the kitchen floor. He was not allowed to get medical help for three days. The
nurses and medical staff called him names like “crybaby” and “little girl.” The medical
staff issued him one crutch despite the fact that medical records show he was supposed to
receive two. His armpit became bruised and blistered. He missed meals for two days
because he had to rest his arms and couldn’t get to the meal hall without the crutch. Now
back in Mexico, Eduardo continues to experience pain in his knee and is unable to walk
comfortably. He has not been able to go to a doctor since he has no way of paying for it, so
he still does not know the extent of the damage.611
ii. Unreasonable Delays in Receiving Medical Care
To access the medical unit at Stewart, detainees must fill out a Sick Call Request form.612 These
requests can take days or even weeks to be answered.613 The consensus among Stewart detainees
was that the waits for medical treatment are too long.614 The wait time for a regular visit can
range from three hours to all day.615 Men who request medical treatment have an average wait

61

time of three days. Responses to emergencies take at least an hour.616 For example, Ugochukwu
Ehienulo fractured his hand and had to go for an x-ray. It took three weeks for CCA to take him
to the nearby hospital for an x-ray.617 In October 2011, Grzegorz Kowalec fell and broke a
tooth.618 He had to wait for three days to see a member of the medical staff for this painful
emergency.619 Delays in receiving medical attention were also documented by ICE in its 2009
Conditions of Confinement Review.620 The report found that Stewart was deficient in providing
detainees with physical examinations within 14 days of arrival at the facility, in violation of
ICE’s detention standards. 621 These detainees’ accounts of delays in receiving treatment are in
clear violation of international standards. Principle 25 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules
provides that the medical staff should see daily “all sick prisoners, all who complain of illness,
and any prisoner to whom his attention is specially directed.”622
Compounding this problem is the allegation that no member of the medical staff speaks
Spanish.623 As a result, many detainees reportedly have to try to communicate their medical
issues by gesturing or trying to speak English. If there are other men waiting who can speak
English, they are told to interpret.624
Eduardo Rodriguez requested to see a nurse after he arrived because the pain medicine he had
been taking after oral surgery was not given to him once he arrived at Stewart.625 After a week of
no medication and no response to his request to see someone, he was passing out from the
pain.626 Eduardo was in visible pain while being interviewed.627
b. Mental Healthcare
The mental health wing has two mental health offices.; There is one clinical nurse and one
psychologist, but no psychiatrist.628 In September 2011, the facility was in the process of
bringing a psychiatrist on board.629 As of December 1, 2011, there was still no psychiatrist on
staff.630
Detention is shown to adversely affect detainees’ mental health.631 Mikyas Germachew is a
certified personal trainer who had always been an upbeat, outgoing, and active member of his
community.632 Since being detained at Stewart, Mikyas feels depressed and suffers from
insomnia for the first time in his life. He says this has been the worst thing to happen in his
life.633 At Stewart, he says, “I have been discriminated against, abused, and psychologically
tortured.”634 Experiences such as Mikyas’ make provision of adequate mental healthcare for
detainees all the more crucial.
i. Understaffed and Inadequate Mental Health Unit
Stewart’s lack of full-time mental health staff is troubling.635 Numerous detainees we interviewed
conveyed that they believed they were depressed. Some expressed fear over what would happen
to them and their families. Others regretted the economic and emotional strain their detention
was putting on their families and loved ones. Still others could not deal with the reality of being
62

confined in prison-like conditions. Amidst all these concerns, Stewart still has no psychiatrist on
staff. Having only one clinical nurse and one psychologist is grossly insufficient to adequately
serve the detainee population at the biggest detention center in the U.S.
ii. Treatment of Detainees with Mental Disabilities
According to Grzegorz, psychological and psychiatric treatment is only available for people who
are “dangerous or suicidal.”636 Mikyas Germachew, who has become very depressed and anxious
since his detention began at Stewart, said that the psychologist is really only available if a
detainee is suicidal or really upset. “If you’re sad, they just put you on a pill.”637 Those with
mental health problems are put into the segregation unit despite ICE’s acknowledgment that
segregation can exacerbate rather than help detainees’ mental health conditions.638 Ermis
Calderone’s case presents a clear example:
Ermis Calderone, a young man who suffers from bipolar disorder and frequent panic
attacks, arrived at Stewart in early spring 2011. Before his detention at Stewart, he had
struggled with addiction issues and depression. Both had been effectively treated through
counseling, medication, and support programs. All that ended when he arrived at Stewart.
According to Ermis, Stewart provides no programs like Alcoholics Anonymous for
recovering addicts. Less than a week after arriving at Stewart, without a support system, a
therapist, or his regularly prescribed medication, Ermis suffered a panic attack. While
waiting for a medical appointment to re-visit his medication levels, Ermis sensed a panic
attack coming. “I just wanted to take my clothes off so I could breathe, so I asked the
guard if I could be taken back to my cell.” The guard refused. As he felt his heart begin to
race and his vision blur, Ermis asked if he could at least go to the restroom. Again he was
denied. An attack set in. Ermis’ panic attacks are never violent to others, but he sometimes
will begin hitting himself in the head or striking his head against the wall. When the guard
observed this, four guards threw him to floor, cuffed him, and held to ground until he was
still. A nurse later told Ermis that he had had a stroke and that he should stop saying it
was a panic attack. An outside physician later confirmed that he did not experience a
stroke but a panic attack. 639 Although no violence or threats of violence occurred during
the episode, Ermis was placed in segregation.640 Ermis was in segregation for almost the
entire time he was detained, which was over six months.641 When the ACLU of Georgia
spoke with Ermis in September 2011, his knuckles were bruised from punching the wall of
his cell. His arms and wrists were still raw and scabbed from a recent suicide attempt.
Ermis was transferred to Stewart from North Carolina. His mother who lives in North
Carolina has been able to visit three times, but she said that the trips were harrowing and
that she had experienced great difficulty getting in to talk to her son, and that the guards
were always rude to her.642 Because of the long distance a lawyer would have to travel to
visit with Ermis, his mother tried unsuccessfully for six months to obtain a lawyer for her
son.

63

“I feel like I’m going crazy. My medicine is always changing, and it makes me crazy.
When I get upset, they just give me more medicine. I can’t tell them I’m really upset or
they just put me in a helmet and handcuffs for a few days. That’s torture! I don’t see
anybody. I don’t really care about anything. I just want to get out and get into a program
that will help me.” –Ermis Calderone 643
5. Abuse of Power
Abuse of power problems documented include: classifying detainees with no criminal record or
no violent criminal history as high security, lack of a meaningful grievance procedure, and
mistreatment of detainees by guards. Mistreatment ranged from verbal to physical abuse,
retaliatory behavior including the use of the segregation unit as a form of punishment, and abuse
of detainees with disabilities.
a. Classification Status
Upon entering Stewart, each detainee is classified as: (1) blue – low-security level, (2) orange –
medium-security level, or (3) red – high-security level. At intake, Javan Jeffrey was assessed as
a classification Level 3 – red and was placed among detainees with potentially violent felony
convictions. Javan Jeffrey only has one criminal conviction dating back to 2009 for Petit
Larceny, a class A misdemeanor under New York Penal Law 155.25. Javan filed for
reclassification on August 12, 2011, but had not yet received a response as of mid-November
2011. Paul, who had never been convicted of a felony or even misdemeanor was nonetheless
classified as Level 3 – red, apparently because of his religious background and the fact that he
was active at his mosque.644 Detainee classification is not only important because of housing but
also because it determines whether or not a detainee can participate in the work program.
Detainees classified as high-security can take on only a limited number of jobs inside the pod
and some are not allowed to work at all.645
b. Failed Grievance Procedure
The current grievance procedure deprives detainees of a meaningful opportunity to have their
grievances addressed. There are two disciplinary boards at Stewart: (1) the Unit Discipline
Committee comprised of CCA employees only, and (2) the Institutional Disciplinary Panel,
which has more authority and is comprised of two CCA officers and one ICE official.646
According to PBNDS standards and the Stewart Detainee Handbook, detainees have a right to
file grievances by filling out a grievance form.647 If a detainee files a grievance, he is sometimes
placed in segregation until he has a hearing. In addition, some detainees have mentioned that
detainees who filed grievances were subjected to other retaliatory behavior by CCA officers such
as being threatened or put in the segregation unit.648

64

Ugochukwu Ehienulo filed a grievance against an officer for calling him and two others, Ido
Yelkal and Mikyas Germachew, “Niggas.” While awaiting the hearing, he was placed in
segregation. At the hearing, the officer in charge of the disciplinary panel stated that he knew the
accused officer and that he believed the guard had used the term in a “friendly” way. When
Ugochukwu challenged this, the disciplinary head officer said that the officer would never have
used that language and accused Ugochukwu and the others of lying. The officer on the
disciplinary committee stated that Ugochukwu must have threatened the officer and found him in
violation of the disciplinary code. Ugochukwu was sent to the segregation unit for ten days for
threatening an officer. Because of this experience, Ugochukwu feels that the grievance
procedure is a joke and he is hesitant to report any other abuse. When asked why he did not file
a second grievance when another CCA officer called him a “bitch-ass Nigger,” he replied:
“Writing them up is not going to change anything. It will just make me a target.” Mikyas
Germachew was told by the grievance officer that his story was “bullshit,” and if he kept putting
in grievances, “everyone will be watching you.”649 Ido Yelkal is afraid to put in a second
grievance because he knows he will be beaten or put in “the hole.”650 Mikyas says he is sick of
filing grievances, especially since they are either ignored or followed up by the officer too late to
have any impact.651 When asked to respond to these events, CCA provided a differing account.652
Omar Ponce was charged with refusal to be counted in daily head count, refusal to work, and
organizing a work strike.653 He was in the segregation unit for a week before he had his
hearing.654 In addition, he had no knowledge of when his hearing would be scheduled. As a
result, he could not adequately prepare to defend his case and the Unit Discipline Committee sent
him to the segregation unit for four more weeks.655 Although CCA confirmed that Omar Ponce
was in segregation from June 9, 2011, to June 30, 2011, it claimed that it followed all PBNDS
requirements regarding disciplinary actions and procedures.656
In addition to in-house grievances, detainees have a right to file complaints with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG). Based on our
interviews and responses to FOIA requests, in practice there has been almost no follow-up on the
complaints.657 Javan Jeffrey mentioned that he has filed numerous complaints with ICE and
DHS OIG but has never received any responses.658 According to grievance summaries the ACLU
of Georgia obtained through FOIA requests, there were 94 complaints filed with DHS OIG by
Stewart detainees, outnumbering the number of complaints from ACDC, NGDC, and Irwin
combined.659 Complaints ranged from inadequate medical care, physical and verbal abuse, and
food and hygiene concerns to violations of due process.660 Of those 94 complaints, all but three
were administratively closed upon receipt.661 In addition, there were 4 complaints filed with
DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties between 2007 and 2011.662
c. Mistreatment by CCA Officers
Reported mistreatment by CCA officers included verbal and physical abuse. Of particular
concern is abuse that targets detainees with physical disabilities as well as threats and use of the
segregation unit as punishment.
65

i. Verbal Abuse by CCA Officers
Almost all detainees interviewed stated that they were either the subject of or witness to verbal
abuse by CCA officers. “There is a lot of verbal abuse by the guards.”663 Ugochukwu Ehienulo’s
experience, recounted above, illustrates what is often a racial aspect of verbal abuse by CCA
guards.
The two other men who were with Ugochukwu Ehienulo when they were called “Nigga,” Ido
Yelkal and Mikyas Germachew, have similar stories as Ugochukwu’s. Neither was placed in
segregation, but Ido says he was harassed by guards frequently after submitting the complaint.
Examples of the harassment that these men stated they suffered included verbal abuse,
unnecessarily invasive searches, taunting, and jokes to other guards that Ido was a
troublemaker.664 After coming back from meal time one afternoon, a guard started eying Mikyas
and chanting to the other guards, “Lemme search him. Lemme search him.” The guard did
conduct a search, and Mikyas says he “was violated” during that search.665 Ido said that one
particularly menacing guard was supposed to be moved to another unit, but he never was, and
Ido would avoid that guard whenever possible due to the harassment he experienced.666 Dyna
also told us that an officer once threatened to beat him and that all officers are disrespectful.
ii. Physical Abuse by CCA Officers
Although physical abuse was reported far less often than verbal abuse, the ACLU of Georgia
documented cases of physical abuse by guards against detainees. One incident documented by
the ACLU of Georgia is particularly troublesome.
On June 28, 2011, right before lockdown at approximately 10:45 p.m., a female officer
locked Javan Jeffrey out of his cell. When he asked her to open it back up, she accused him
of “pressing the buzzer” and would not reopen the cell until fifteen minutes later. The
officer then threatened him saying she would write him up if he “did it again.” Once Javan
was in his cell, the female officer got a male guard. The male guard entered the cell and
punched Javan on the side of his face. Javan was sent to the medical unit for treatment.
Javan presented the ACLU of Georgia with a medical chart showing a contusion and a
laceration on his left forehead, which was bruised and swollen. Since the incident, Javan
has suffered from hearing problems and loss of eyesight as a result of the injury. Javan
filed a complaint with CCA regarding this incident.667
Other lesser though still serious examples of physical abuse include accounts of guards twisting
detainees’ arms to prove their authority or disciplining detainees during count if they were
perceived not to be paying attention or to be unruly.668 Another detainee told us that when they
take longer to eat their meals, CCA officers shove them or yell at them to hurry up.669

66

iii. Retaliatory Behavior by CCA Officers
According to several detainees interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia, detainees believe that
CCA guards engage in retaliatory behavior. One detainee was stripped of his right to buy items
from the commissary and other detainees reported having been threatened or put into the
segregation unit.670
1) Segregation Unit
Interviews revealed that CCA guards use the segregation unit as punishment for detainees who
complain about the conditions of their detention. Guards threatened or actually sent detainees to
the segregation unit for filing grievances, refusing to work, complaining about water quality, and
perhaps even for speaking to the ACLU of Georgia.671
a) Conditions
The segregation unit at Stewart consists of 40 single-man cells.672 It is primarily used as a form
of punishment for disciplinary issues. 673 According to the Stewart Detainee Handbook,
disciplinary offenses are ranked into four levels based on a scale from 100 to 400.674 Depending
on the nature of the offense, per the Stewart Detainee Handbook, time spent in the segregation
unit can range from 24 hours to 60 days.675 Angel described the segregation unit as consisting of
one person per cell with food given to him, a nurse visiting him daily in his cell, a separate
recreation yard, and no television or phone.676 According to Ermis Calderone, the recreation yard
for detainees in segregation “is just a cage. It’s a tiny fence that keeps you from hanging out
with others in the yard. We aren’t allowed to talk to anyone.”677
The ACLU of Georgia requested to visit the segregation unit during our tour of the facility on
September 7, 2011, but the request was denied.678
b) Reasons for Being Placed in Segregation
Although the ACLU of Georgia was told by ICE that some detainees ask to be put in the
segregation unit as a form of protective custody, 679 Javan Jeffrey who had been in segregation six
times did not know of anyone who fit this description.680 Instead, we were told that detainees are
typically put into segregation as retaliation for complaining, filing a grievance, or not complying
with orders. Javan Jeffrey believes that as a result of the assault incident and because he filed a
grievance, he has been targeted by CCA guards.681 This was confirmed by another detainee who
told us that since Javan filed grievances, he is on the guards’ “radar” and everything he does gets
him sent to the segregation unit.682 Javan had been in the segregation unit seven times in less than
three months. 683 Javan’s wife told us that right after the ACLU of Georgia visited with Javan, he
was put back in the segregation unit for 29 days and was told that he could only make one phone
call during the entire time he was in the segregation unit. That marks Javan’s eighth time in

67

segregation. When asked to respond, CCA stated that Javan was in segregation for disciplinary
reasons.684
Jaime Lara was threatened with segregation if he refused to work less than eight hours per day.685
In 2009, Arman Garghani told the ACLU of Georgia that when detainees complained that the
shower water was dirty and turned the whole shower green, the guards sent them to the
segregation unit.686 In August 2011, Mikyas Germachew confirmed that guards still sent
detainees to segregation for complaining about the water. 687
Grzegorz Kawalec has been placed in segregation twice.688 Once, he had a dangerously high
fever, but there was no room for him in the medical center, and so he was moved to the
segregation unit.689 The second time he was sent to segregation, he stayed there for two weeks,
and the guards would not tell him why he was there.690 After two weeks, he was moved back into
the general population.691 “They said it was a mistake, and I hadn’t broken any rules.”692 He said
detainees are placed in segregation often. “Two, three weeks there is a short time. You go there
for three weeks for talking back or being ‘disrespectful.’” A month or two, he says, is standard
for more serious violations.693
c) Abuses While in Segregation
Detainees told the ACLU of Georgia that they suffered various abuses while in segregation,
including denial of recreation and/or showers.
Detainees also reported being placed in
segregation for excessively long periods of time. For example, Javan Jeffrey told the ACLU of
Georgia that while in segregation he was rarely allowed recreation, in violation of PBNDS
standards.694 Angel also told us that those in segregation were only allowed into the yard two
times the entire month he was there.695 In addition, Javan Jeffrey told us that detainees in
segregation are only allowed to shower every other day and that the meal portions are smaller.
Although showering every other day does not specifically violate ICE PBNDS, the section on
segregation states: “Detainees … will be afforded basic living conditions that approximate those
provided to the general population.”696
In spite of the stated 60-day maximum, at least two men we spoke to had been in segregation for
at least three months at a time. 697 Roberto Carillo’s account is one such example of inhumanely
long periods in segregation. Roberto was placed in the segregation unit for three months in
2011. 698 Roberto added that being in the segregation unit for that long made him suicidal.699 As a
result, CCA re-classified him from orange to red security level.700 Roberto was only let out
because he went on a hunger strike for ten days.701 In addition to Roberto Carillo’s experience,
Ermis Calderone was held in segregation for five months.702 CCA did not explicitly deny either
of these accounts, but stated that both detainees were in segregation as a result of “continuous
disciplinary issues.”703
Both of these instances violate ICE and international human rights standards. According to
PBNDS standards, the maximum amount of time a detainee can be held in the segregation unit is
68

60 days.704 This is also reiterated in Stewart’s Detainee Orientation Handbook, which says that
time in segregation should not exceed 60 consecutive days.705 According to international
standards, individuals can only be held in segregation for even shorter periods of time. The UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez, has stated that individuals should not be subjected
to more than 15 days of segregation.706 The Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of
Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas state that isolation “shall only be permitted as a
disposition of last resort and for a strictly limited time, when it is evident that it is necessary to
ensure legitimate interests relating to the institution’s internal security, and to protect
fundamental rights.”707 Thus, placing Roberto Carillo in segregation for three months and Ermis
Calderone in segregation for five months is in clear violation of Stewart’s, ICE’s, and
international standards.
iv. Abuse of Detainees with Disabilities
When Eduardo Zuniga was in a pod that housed many elderly detainees and individuals with
physical disabilities, he witnessed guards come up behind a blind man who spoke no English and
suddenly yell at him, in English.708 These verbal attacks were not in response to anything the
man had done. Juan knew of a man in wheelchair whom officers forced to sleep on the top bunk
for no apparent reason. 709

69

2. North Georgia Detention Center
Background
The North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC) is located in Gainesville, Georgia, about a 45
minute drive from Atlanta.
In March 2009, ICE contracted with CCA for 502 beds at NGDC to house female and male
immigrant detainees.710 Pursuant to this agreement, CCA entered into a contract with Hall County
Commissioners to lease NGDC.711 The agreement is for a term of five years and will expire in
2014.712 This agreement caused friction between Hall County and the City of Gainesville because
the city planned to buy the facility.713 In addition, the city did not want a long-term incarceration
facility in its downtown.714 Councilman Danny Dunagan commented that the corporation taking
over the Main Street jail is “notorious for mistreatment” of prisoners.715
Despite this tension, NGDC began housing immigrant detainees in October 2009.716 In February
2012, Hall County announced an agreement to sell NGDC to CCA.
Hall County
Commissioners’ decision not to discuss the
potential sale with Gainesville’s City
Council caused further friction between the
city and the county.717 City Manager Kip
Padgett stated that maintaining a jail in the
midtown area was not what city council
members wanted.
“Because of all the
investment and time we've put into
Midtown, we'd just hoped that they would
make the long-term use of the jail
something that was more conducive to what
we were doing.”718 Mayor Dunagan added:
"They made a decision without contacting
any of us. I'm disappointed. We don't want
a prison downtown, period." 719 As of March
21, 2012, Hall County had allowed the City of Gainesville to make an offer of $7.2 million for
the property, matching CCA’s purchase price.720 However, at the time of publication of this
report, negotiations are still ongoing.721
The highest number of non-citizen detainees NGDC has held at any one time was 472 in
December 2010.722 As of October 2011, there were 368 non-citizen detainees held at NGDC.723
Of those, 32 were female. NGDC can house up to 70 female detainees.724
Non-citizen detainee housing units at NGDC are made up of 15 pods.725 Each pod has its own
showers, toilets, and a common area equipped with a television, tables and chairs, and in-dorm
recreational activities.726 There are also two special housing units.727 The facility also has outdoor
70

recreation, a kitchen, an intake-processing center, a medical unit, and a laundry room.728 The
detention center houses three levels of detainees: (1) blue – low security, (2) orange – medium
security, and (3) red – high security.729
As of September 17, 2011, there were 11 ICE employees at NGDC.730 As of October 2011, there
were 54 CCA staff members, approximately 10% of whom spoke Spanish.731
Findings
In December 2008, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations conducted an annual review
of NGDC’s compliance with Detention Standards.732 NGDC received a rating of “acceptable”
and the investigator found that no Detention Standards were violated.733 Again in August 2009,
the Office of Detention and Removal Operations found NGDC “acceptable” and not deficient in
any standards.734
The ACLU of Georgia’s findings were very different. The ACLU of Georgia interviewed 15
individuals who were detained at NGDC. Of those, three were female. Based on accounts
relayed by the detainees, the following section lays out four areas of concern: 1) due process
concerns, 2) living conditions, 3) medical and mental health care, and 4) abuse of power. The
ACLU of Georgia’s research found many due process violations especially in cases of nonEnglish speaking detainees, inadequate living conditions which include failure of CCA staff to
provide appropriate hygiene items to female detainees, inadequate medical and mental care
where CCA staff do not ask all detainees mental health questions at intake, and abuse of power
by guards who retaliate against detainees who complain by sending them to the segregation unit.
1. Facility Due Process Concerns
a. List of Pro Bono Services not Provided to all Detainees at Intake
According to the National Detainee Handbook, immigrant detainees have a right to contact pro
bono representation.735 Despite this, three out of 15 detainees we spoke to at NGDC were not
notified about pro bono services.736 In addition to violating ICE standards, failure to notify noncitizens of local pro bono legal resources may violate detainees’ due process rights, as mentioned
above.737
b. Attorney Visits
Attorneys may visit detainees at NGDC seven days a week. 738 According to the Detainee
Handbook, family and friends’ visitation is no-contact; however, the handbook does not say
whether attorney visitations are contact visits or not. The ACLU of Georgia and other attorneys
have traditionally had only no-contact visits. This means that attorneys must speak with their
clients through a plexiglass wall using a phone. However, according to the warden of NGDC,
this policy has changed and attorneys may now request a contact visit.739
71

The current attorney visitation policy may violate attorney-client privilege. Upon entering
NGDC, attorneys must fill out the “Notification to Facility Visitors (Attorney)” form. A
Gainesville attorney described the form as follows: “I was asked to give name, address, and other
biographical information, and also asked to disclose all confidential information learned in my
interview with the detainee to the warden, which I struck out and initialed.”740 The ACLU of
Georgia was also required to fill out this form every time we met with a detainee, even though
our visit was for purposes of human rights documentation and not for representation.741 In
addition, in some cases, the CCA staff make copies of materials and documents that attorneys
bring in to give to the detainees.742 These two practices violate attorney-client confidentiality by
making CCA privy to attorney-client communications and exchanges of documents. In addition,
based on detainee interviews and review of facility procedures, it is unclear if conversations
through the telephone are monitored or recorded. In at least one case, a detainee was unable to
obtain a non-supervised non-recorded phone call with his attorney in fall of 2011.743
c. Law Library Concerns
Detainees request access to the law library by submitting a Detainee Request Form to the Unit
Manager.744 According to the Detainee Handbook, detainees can access the law library a
maximum of five times per week for one hour at a time.745 The law library has two computers,
which are equipped with Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Lexis-Nexis.746 In addition to
computers, there are legal books (Benders 2010 edition).747 There is a library aide who works in
both the law library and the regular library.748 If a detainee wishes to print something out from
the internet, he/she must make a request to the Unit Manager.749
Legal materials are available in English and Spanish but no other languages.750 This is a problem
for Dung Dang, a Vietnamese detainee who can barely understand English.751 “The books in the
law library are in English and I could only understand basic words,” he said.752
2. Inadequate Living Conditions
Living conditions at NGDC pose numerous concerns including NGDC’s location and its impact
on detainees’ ability to communicate with their family members, cell conditions and hygiene, the
segregation unit, food, voluntary work program, limited religious services, and infrequent
recreation.
a. Transfer Takes Detainees Away from Family/Community
Although only four of the 15 detainees interviewed were originally arrested out of state, transfer
of individuals to NGDC is still problematic. William Bey was arrested in October 2004 in
Portland, Oregon.753 Since then, he has been transferred three times, most recently to NGDC in
June 2011.754 Due to these transfers, William has lost contact information for his 17-year-old son
in Seattle who does not know where he is.755 Two other detainees, Manny and Carlos Vargas,
were both arrested in North Carolina, and Manny has not been able to see any family members
72

since being transferred to NGDC.756 “I feel like I’m being kidnapped and taken away from my
family,” says Carlos.757
In addition to being transferred to NGDC, detainees are also often transferred from NGDC to
other facilities.758 Detainee Fredin Toledo told us that he wishes he could stay at NGDC to be
close to his family.759 In June 2011, Fredin was notified that he was being transferred to
Stewart.760 He believed that he was being transferred in order to impair his ability to mount an
effective case against his removal.761
b. Lack of Contact Visits and Inadequate Visitation Schedule
Visitation for family members is capped at one visit per weekend for the duration of 30 minutes
to one hour.762 For those detainees whose families are in North Carolina, a visit during the
weekend for only 30 minutes is unduly restrictive based on the travel time involved. In addition,
visitation rooms at NGDC are no-contact. Eduardo Jurado stated that because of this, he is
worried for his children to come and visit him because he looks like a prisoner.763 “When my
kids are able to come visit me it will be hard. There is not a visiting room so I will only be able
to talk to them through a phone and a glass windowpane. I will not be able to hug them or
anything.”764 No-contact visits are wholly inconsistent with the civil detention model, which ICE
has claimed to be implementing.765 In addition, this policy also impacts detainees’ right to
maintain and develop family relations, as discussed above. 766
c. Phone Services
Each pod has four telephones in it.767 The phones are located in the common room of the pods.
Phone services are provided to NGDC through Talton Communications.768 Although pricing of
phone calls is not in the Detainee Handbook, William Bey told the ACLU of Georgia that he
purchased a phone card from the facility for $10.00 for 30 minutes.769 Carlos Vargas purchased a
$20.00 phone card, which allowed him to use the phone for one hour.770 Dung Dang has not been
able to contact his family in Vietnam to inform them about his detention since international calls
are too expensive.771 Although Edith Ornelas Meijia was not sure exactly how much phone cards
cost, she estimated that she spends about $100.00 per week on calls to her children.772 She
added: “The facility does not limit calls, but the amount of money my family has to spend
does.”773
Daniela Esquivela was able to purchase enough minutes to speak to her mother daily, but she
stated that the phones are hard to hear and that her mom says she sounds “far away.”774 Daniela
also added that the operator says all calls are monitored.775 In fact, the Detainee Handbook states
that all conversations are subject to being monitored; for detainees to have unmonitored attorney
calls, they must submit a Detainee Request Form to the Unit Manager.776

73

d. Cell Conditions
i. General
NGDC has a total of 25 housing units.777 The following descriptions are based on the ACLU of
Georgia’s observations during the facility tour and the information provided by facility officials.
The ACLU of Georgia was shown both male and female housing units.778 Unit 1, a male housing
unit, housed 240 detainees and had two case managers and one unit manager.779 Officers switch
between two shifts, one walking around the pod and the second doing surveillance through live
video feed.780 One of the pods in this unit had 96 detainees, 12 cells, and 8 showers. In each cell,
there is a small window, a toilet, and a desk.781 We did not see any detainees categorized as lowsecurity level housed with detainees categorized as high-security level as signified by the colorcoded prison uniforms.782 In each pod, there are mailboxes for outgoing mail, grievances, ICE
mail, and medical requests.783
In the female unit, there are three pods with 16 women per pod.784 Each pod has two showers
and two phones.785 Women are housed within the pod in a cell with two women per cell. In the
pod, there are four tables, a television, and a board with two clipboards of ICE information and
NGDC information in English and Spanish.786 The board also includes consulate numbers and
notices about sexual abuse including a toll-free number to call to report sexual abuse.787 Daniela
Esquivela described her pod as follows: 16 female detainees of blue and orange classifications,
the common area, and cells off of the common area.788 In each cell, there is a bunk bed, a toilet,
and a sink.789 There are windows in the cell but they are opaque and one cannot see out of
them.790 There are two showers in the pod.791
ii. Hygiene Concerns
The ACLU of Georgia is concerned about the low number of toilets as well as inadequacy of
hygiene supplies. In June 2011, Natalia Elzaurdia told us that for the last two days, she had run
out of toilet paper and it had not yet been replaced.792 As a temporary solution, she had asked to
borrow some from her neighbor, but could not continue to do that for much longer.793 This
problem persisted in October 2011.794 Daniela Esquivela added that it can take days or weeks for
the facility to provide toilet paper in response to requests.795 This is in violation of PBNDS on
Personal Hygiene, which provides: “Staff shall provide male and female detainees personal
hygiene items appropriate for their gender and shall replenish supplies as needed.”796 In addition,
these findings are contrary to ICE’s review of NGDC in December 2008, which found that “the
facility provides and replenishes personal hygiene items as needed” and “gender-specific items
are available.”797 As mentioned above, inadequate hygiene standards violate international law.798

74

a. Female Hygiene Concerns
Upon entering NGDC, female detainees are given a “kit.” The kit consists of four pairs of socks,
four pairs of underwear, three sports bras, three t-shirts, three uniforms, tennis shoes, and shower
shoes.799 Among the hygiene supplies provided are soap, shampoo, lotion, toothbrush and
toothpaste, and a roll of toilet paper.800 Unlike at Irwin, the underwear provided to female
detainees is new, but the sports bras are not.801 Daniela Esquivela told us that women are given a
pack of sanitary napkins for when they are menstruating, but that they must ask for more once
they run out.802 The guards only give out three or four at a time, and if detainees need more, they
have to keep going back to ask for more.803 Geraldine Ayala also added that they sometimes have
to wait to get more sanitary napkins because “they run out.”804
iii. Segregation Unit
There are separate segregation units for males and females.805 According to the NGDC Detainee
Handbook, there are two types of segregation: administrative and disciplinary.806 In the Female
Unit, there are four cells, and in the Male Unit, there are eight.807 The ACLU of Georgia visited
the Male Unit. Inside each cell there was a bunk bed, a toilet, a desk, and a small window.808
When we visited, there was no one in the segregation unit.809 Outside of the cells, there was one
phone and one shower.810
The warden of NGDC told us that detainees in the segregation unit shower on Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays.811 This is contrary to ICE’s 2008 audit which found that
“[a]dministratively segregated detainees enjoy the same general privileges as detainees in the
general population.”812 The PBNDS also provide that detainees in segregation “will be afforded
basic living conditions that approximate those provided to the general population.”813 The NGDC
Detainee Handbook states that detainees are “expected to bathe daily” for hygiene concerns.814
Allowing detainees in segregation to bathe only every other day disregards NGDC’s stated
hygiene concerns and institutes more restrictive conditions for detainees in segregation. As
mentioned above, the practice of solitary confinement is particularly problematic under
international law. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that the practice of
segregation be banned altogether as it “can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.”815
e. Food Concerns
Three types of meals are served at NGDC: regular, common fare/kosher, and medical.816 None of
the detainees we spoke with were on special diets. Meals at NGDC are served three times a day.
According to the Detainee Handbook, breakfast is served at 5 a.m., lunch at 10:00 a.m., and
dinner at 4:15 p.m. 817 This schedule posed particular concern for Natalia Elzaurdia, a pregnant
detainee. Natalia stated that “the feeding times are ridiculous; there are thirteen hours between
dinner and breakfast.”818 Although Natalia was eventually given increased portions due to her
pregnancy, she was not given meals more frequently.819 In addition, it took two or three days
75

once her request was approved for the portions to increase.820 Another detainee, Rodrigo de la
Cruz, complained about the small portions.821 He stated that he began working in the kitchen so
he could get enough to eat.822 In addition to problems with feeding times and portions, Jose Cruz
Morales complained that they only have 5-10 minutes to eat.823 Jose told the ACLU of Georgia
that in less than two months at NGDC, he had lost 26 pounds.824
Water is provided in large coolers in each pod.825 Unlike at Stewart, no interviewees expressed
complaints about the quality of the water. There is also a commissary where detainees can fill
out a form bi-weekly and purchase items, which are delivered to them.826 Daniela Esquivela said
that the commissary is very expensive and explained that a pack of cereal at the commissary
costs $4.50.827
f. Voluntary Work Program
NGDC provides a voluntary work program for detainees, which pays between $1.00 and $3.00
per day.828 Detainees cannot work in excess of eight hours daily or 40 hours weekly.829 Of the 15
detainees interviewed, five participated in the voluntary work program.830 Of those, all worked
in the kitchen and none were female.831 Kitchen work pays $2.00 a day and detainees typically
use the money to buy extra food from the commissary or to buy phone cards. 832
As mentioned above, payment of $1.00 to $3.00 per day may violate the Inter-American
Principles on Detention, including the right “to receive a fair and equitable remuneration.”833
g. Religious Services
Religious services at NGDC are provided through the Chaplaincy Office and by community
volunteers.834 According to the warden, NGDC employs a chaplain and has approximately 25
volunteers.835 Services are typically held in the pods or in an open housing unit.836 There are
Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian services.837 Services are offered in Spanish and Bible
Study classes are also offered.838
h. Recreation
Recreation at NGDC consists of two outdoor general population recreation yards and a special
housing unit recreation yard for the female and male units.839 The outdoor recreation area was a
courtyard with a basketball hoop but nothing else, not even benches or chairs.840 Under ICE
PBNDS, recreation is to be provided a minimum of five days per week.841 However, two female
detainees said that they receive far less recreation time than that.842 Geraldine Ayala told the
ACLU of Georgia that she was only allowed outdoor recreation Monday through Wednesday.843
Daniela Esquivela told us that during one week in October she did not leave her pod once for
recreation because it was too cold.844 Instead, according to Daniela, recreation was held in her
pod where there was nothing to do but walk around.845 This is in violation of the Recreation
PBNDS, which states: “Detainees will have daily opportunities to participate in leisure-time
76

activities outside their respective cells or rooms.”846 The requirement also specifically states that
“indoor recreation may not be substituted for outdoor recreation.”847
In a little over a month at NGDC, William Bey had seen recreation denied to others as
punishment.848 This is in direct violation of the Recreation section of PBNDS, which provides
that recreation cannot be denied as punishment.849
3. Inadequate Medical and Mental Health Care
The medical and mental health units at NGDC face serious barriers in providing adequate care
because of the small size of the staff and absence of full-time professional staff.850 This results in
undue delays in the provision of treatment to the detainees and an inability to communicate with
foreign-language speaking detainees, as many staff are not bilingual.851 In addition, the mental
health care staff does not consistently ask mental health questions at intake,852 which causes some
people with mental disabilities to go untreated. Those with mental disabilities are often put in
segregation in lieu of receiving treatment. 853
a. Medical Care
All medical staff at NGDC are CCA employees.854 The medical unit has a general health area
and a dental area.855 A nurse practitioner is at the facility five days per week.856 The medical
director is on the premises four hours per week and is also available on an on-call basis.857 The
dentist is there 16 hours per week.858 There are two observation cells: one is a medical
observation cell where detainees on suicide watch are put and the second is a negative pressure
cell.859 If a detainee needs medical assistance, he/she fills out a Sick Call Request.860 The ACLU
of Georgia was told that a patient is typically seen within 24 to 48 hours.861 In addition to the
paper-slip system, the medical staff goes to the pods twice weekly and does pill call.862 For
outside care, NGDC has a contract with the North Georgia Medical Center and a second contract
with the Habersham County Hospital for tuberculosis.863
i. Understaffed Medical Unit
NGDC does not employ a doctor on a full-time basis; only nurse practitioners who are there five
days per week.864 When the ACLU of Georgia visited NGDC, there were only two nurses on the
premises.865 The ACLU of Georgia believes that this number is too low to adequately serve a
facility with a capacity of 502 detainees. The problem with failing to employ a doctor at the
facility is highlighted by Natalia Elzaurdia’s experience:

77

When Natalia Elzaurdia was detained in May 2011, she and her fiancé were expecting their
first child. At intake, Natalia told the nurse at the medical unit that she was four months
pregnant. The nurse then conducted a urine test, and told Natalia that she was not
pregnant. Natalia asked her to call the Gwinnett County Detention Center where she had
previously taken two pregnancy tests. The nurse refused to call and conducted a chest xray against Natalia’s protestations. Natalia asked for a blood test instead. The next day a
blood test confirmed she was pregnant.
Natalia had requested to see a gynecologist as soon as she entered NGDC. At the time of
the interview, days after she put in her request, she had yet to see a gynecologist. “I put in
requests to two nurses and my deportation officer and still my concerns have not been
addressed. I experience cramps in my abdomen daily. I want an ultrasound; I haven’t
been given one yet and I’m four months pregnant.” Although she requested to see a doctor,
Natalia only saw nurses. Natalia’s family wrote to the warden and other NGDC officials, as
well as DHS regarding Natalia’s treatment, but never received a response.866
ii. Detainees Face Unreasonable Delays in Receiving Medical Care
The ACLU of Georgia found that detainees face unreasonable delays in receiving medical care.
Although we were told that detainees are usually seen within 24 to 48 hours of putting in a
request, detainees informed us that under-staffing leads to much longer delays.867 In June 2011,
Bibi, entered NGDC.868 At intake, Bibi informed the nurse that he was HIV positive and needed
daily medication.869 Despite this, Bibi told the ACLU of Georgia that it took ten weeks for him
to begin receiving the necessary medication. 870 In July 2011, Carlos Valdez Vargas informed us
that when he had a cold it took three days after putting in a request for him to see a nurse and to
receive medication. 871 Edith Ornelas Mejia put in a request in July 2011 to get a pap smear and
she was told it would take at least two weeks. 872 Geraldine Ayala told the ACLU of Georgia that
she complained for two months of pain due to gallstones and that the nurse at NGDC refused to
send her to the hospital.873 As a consequence of her not receiving treatment on a timely basis,
Geraldine became feverish one night and began throwing up.874 She was brought to the medical
unit three times that night before being taken to the hospital for surgery.875
Natalia Elzaurdia’s story as told above is yet another example of unreasonable delays in
receiving medical care.876 As stated in the previous section, these delays are in violation of
Principle 25 of U.N. Standard Minimum Rules which states that prisoners who are sick should be
seen daily. 877
iii. Medical Unit Has Dearth of Spanish Speaking Staff
Throughout 2011, detainees reported difficulties communicating with staff in the medical unit
due to the language barrier. Edith Ornelas Mejia characterized the medical staff as “just barely
bilingual”878 and Jose Cruz Morales stated that the staff only spoke English.879 He elaborated that
when he went to the medical unit during intake, the nurse only spoke English during a routine
78

medical exam.880 Carlos Valdez Vargas added that when he went to the medical unit, not only did
the staff not speak Spanish, but there was no interpreter present.881 According to the detainees we
spoke to, these language barriers lead to a lack of proper communication.882 Without being able
to properly communicate with the medical staff, it is impossible for the detainees to receive
adequate medical treatment. According to Principle XX of the Inter-American Principles on
Detention, detention facility staff should be trained in cultural sensitivity.883 The majority of the
staff at NGDC should be able to speak Spanish, since it is the primary language for the majority
of the detainees.
b. Mental Health
The Medical Unit at NGDC also includes a mental health unit. There is one psychiatrist who is
on the premises four hours per week and also available on an on-call basis.884 The ACLU of
Georgia believes that having one psychiatrist on a part time basis for 502 detainees is insufficient
to adequately meet detainees’ mental health needs.
i. Insufficient Mental Health Staff
It is well-documented that detention in general causes a myriad of mental health problems.885
Throughout our interviews, detainees expressed feelings of depression, anxiety, and stress. Since
entering NGDC in March 2011, Eduardo Jurado experienced anxiety and insomnia due to the
stress of being away from his family and being unable to provide for them.886 He stated: “I am
really nervous about my family and what is going to happen to them. I provide for them so I
don’t know who will take care of them. If I get deported then my kids who were born here will
have to go back to Mexico with me. At night I am just thinking all the time. I’m thinking about
my family.”887 These types of feelings are prevalent among detainees at various immigration
detention facilities including NGDC according to detainee interviews. The ACLU of Georgia is
concerned that one psychiatrist cannot adequately provide care to hundreds of detainees when
he/she is only present at the facility for four hours per week.
ii. At Intake, Medical Staff Fails to Ask Mental Health Questions
According to Initial Admission procedures in ICE’s National Detainee Handbook, detainees must
undergo a thorough medical examination, which includes an assessment of physical and mental
health.888 However, four detainees we spoke to explicitly stated that they were never asked
mental health questions at intake.889 These detainees had been admitted between April and July
2011. 890 Only one interviewee stated that the medical staff asked her mental health questions at
intake.891

79

iii. Treatment of Detainees with Mental Disabilities is Punitive Rather than
Care Oriented
NGDC lacks effective treatment measures for detainees with mental disabilities. The National
Detainee Handbook states that “all potentially suicidal or severely depressed individuals are
treated with sensitivity and receive proper referrals for assistance.”892 In addition, the NGDC
Detainee Handbook urges detainees to talk to their Unit Manager if they are depressed or
suicidal.893 However, when Natalia Elzaurdia told the CCA staff that she was suffering from
anxiety and depression, she was not provided with any treatment. 894 Natalia told us that she
knew of other female detainees who experienced emotional difficulties due to being away from
their children, all of whom had problems getting help.895 When asked what type of mental health
care is provided at NGDC, Natalia replied that treatment is “negligible.”896 She added that instead
of receiving treatment, detainees are just put in segregation. 897
Among the detainees we spoke to, Daniela Esquivela was the only one who was offered any type
of counseling.898
4. Abuse of Power
Unlike at Stewart, detainees we spoke with at NGDC did not complain of prevalent verbal and
physical abuse. While some detainees complained of guards telling them to hurry up while
eating or to “pay attention” during count, these complaints do not seem to rise to the level of
verbal abuse.899
i. Retaliatory Behavior from Guards
Detainee Johnny told the ACLU of Georgia that “if you complain you will be a primary
target.”900 The biggest concern expressed was retaliatory behavior from guards such as denying
recreation to detainees or putting detainees in segregation. Manny told us that he knew of a
fellow detainee who was taken to the “hole” (segregation unit) for three days during the winter of
2011 for arguing with an officer who claimed he threatened her.901 Edith Mejia stated that she
does not complain because she fears retaliation from the guards.902
ICE PBNDS specifically states that: “A detainee may be placed in Disciplinary Segregation only
after being found guilty, through a formal disciplinary process, of a facility rule violation.”903
Placing detainees in segregation for minor infractions without a disciplinary hearing violates this
standard.

80

3. Irwin County Detention Center
The ACLU of Georgia’s research of Irwin revealed many of the same concerns as documented in
other facilities and noted in the previous sections: Irwin’s remote location inhibits detainees
ability to find representation and be able to communicate and visit with their families; living
conditions are substandard; female hygiene is an area of particular concern; and detainees often
go untreated or receive inadequate treatment because of understaffed medical and mental health
units.
Background
The Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin) is a 1,201-bed facility located in Ocilla, Georgia, a
rural community more than three hours south of Atlanta.904 It was not until December 2010 that it
began to house immigrant detainees.905 According to the Intergovernmental Service Agreement
(IGSA) between the United States Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, ICE, and
Irwin County, federal immigration detainees are housed at Irwin at a per diem rate of $45.00.906
The agreement states that the period of performance is effective upon the date of signature of
both parties and remains in effect unless terminated by either party with written notice.907 The
facility houses female and male immigrant detainees in addition to U.S. Marshals Service
detainees and county prisoners.908 There are currently approximately 300 U.S. Marshals Service
detainees and 40 county prisoners being held at the facility. The capacity for immigrant
detainees is 512 and in September 2011, the facility was at only half capacity.909 As of
September 2011, 65 percent of the immigration detainees were male and 35 percent female.910
The staff is comprised entirely of those employed by Detention Management, LLC.911
Findings
There were many detainee accounts attesting to serious and systematic problems with living
conditions, medical attention, and treatment of detainees at Irwin.
1. Facility Due Process Concerns
a. Non-English Speaking Non-Citizens at a Disadvantage
Just as non-English speaking detainees are at a disadvantage during the removal process, they are
also at a disadvantage at the detention center where they cannot understand the facility’s rules
and regulations or communicate with the guards. Each detainee the ACLU of Georgia
interviewed was given a detainee handbook, but many non-English speakers were given the
handbook only in English.912 Non-English speaking detainees are then at the mercy of cellmates
and English speaking friends to translate the material.913 Being denied information on rules and
pro bono services not only makes daily life difficult and confusing, but detainees may miss
opportunities to secure much-needed legal representation.

81

Without the provision of interpreters, detainees are forced to rely on translations imparted by
others not professionally trained or suited for this role. One detainee, Veronica, had to rely on
other detainees interpreting for her instead of being provided an interpreter. 914
The warden of Irwin said that approximately 20 percent of the staff was bi-lingual and that in
addition to Spanish speaking staff, there were those who spoke German and French.915 While
this percentage is larger than that at ACDC,916 it still violates regional human rights standards
which provide that detention facility staff should be trained in cultural sensitivity.917
b. Listing of Pro Bono Legal Services and Legal Rights Presentations
Not Provided to All Detainees
Many detainees interviewed were aware of pro bono legal services they could utilize, and some
had participated in presentations by Catholic Charities.918
However, others had not been
provided with a listing of pro bono services. When Maria Francisco arrived at Irwin, she
requested a pro bono attorney but was told there was “no point; you will be deported anyway.”919
She never saw a presentation or list of attorneys.920 Maria who does not have an attorney would
be especially in need of such services. She said a judge has issued a final order of removal, but
she did not really understand what was happening or what was decided in court. 921 Failure to
provide listings of pro bono attorneys to detainees violates their due process rights to fair judicial
proceedings under international law.922
As discussed in the ACDC section below, absence of legal rights presentations has been shown to
have a negative impact on an immigrant’s case.923 The failure to provide all detainees with
listings of pro bono attorneys and legal orientation presentations violates their right to due
process and access to justice, specifically ICE PBNDS on group presentations on legal rights
which states: “Detainees will have access to information and materials provided by legal groups.
Organizations will be permitted to distribute information in response to specific legal
inquiries.”924
c. Attorney Visits
The ACLU of Georgia and other attorneys have had difficulty with the attorney visitation policy
at Irwin.

82

On Thursday, December 2, 2011, Chaka Washington traveled to Irwin to interview
detainees. Upon arrival, Ms. Washington, a licensed Georgia attorney, was informed that
she would not be allowed to meet with any of the detainees because the detention center
required consent from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prior to every
visitation.
Upon receiving this information, the ACLU of Georgia contacted ICE
representative Pamela J. Reeves. After Ms. Reeves spoke with Irwin officials, Ms.
Washington returned to the facility and provided officers with a listing of the names of the
detainees with whom she wished to meet, only to be informed by the officers that she and
an accompanying interpreter would not be able to meet with any detainees that day
because “too much was going on” and that, if they left the names of the detainees with the
officers, they could schedule a meeting with them the following day.925
Upon further
inquiry with ICE, the ACLU of Georgia was informed that there was a lockdown at the
facility that day.926
On December 6, 2011, the Captain of Irwin, Joshulyn Davis, stated to the Irwin staff : “Effective
immediately Attorney visits for ICE will be non contact visits.”927 This new policy is
problematic, because as stated in the Stewart and NGDC sections, no-contact visits violate
attorney-client confidentiality and are wholly inconsistent with a civil detention model.
There are also concerns about monitoring of detainee phone calls to their attorneys. Dulce
Bolanos-Estrada, who had an attorney provided to her through Catholic Charities, had only met
with her in person once.928 Although she had been able to talk to her attorney over the phone, her
phone calls were monitored and she was not been able to secure a private line to have a
confidential conversation.929 This directly violates attorney-client confidentiality and ICE’s
policy which states that “facilities may not monitor any call to an attorney.”930
d. Law Library Concerns
Although Irwin’s Detainee Handbook states that the law library is open Monday through Friday
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., detainees have had difficulty accessing the law library.931 Dulce BolanosEstrada wanted to visit the law library, but there was a wait period while her request was
processed.932 “You have to specifically ask the guards and schedule [a time to visit]. They are
not very helpful.”933 At the time of the interview with the ACLU of Georgia, Dulce had been
waiting for almost a week to visit the library.934 Maria Francisco was completely unaware that
there was a law library or access to legal materials provided.935 Florent Kalala complained that
for over 250 detainees at the facility, there are only two working computers in the law library.936
In January 29, 2012, two detainees drafted a petition which 25 other detainees signed.937 The
petition highlighted the long delays in gaining access to the law library, researching and writing
legal documents, printing the documents, and mailing the documents.938 According to the
petition, accessing the law library, printing documents, and mailing documents all must go
through a formal request system, which can take weeks.939 This cumbersome process paired with

83

only two working computers highlights the difficulties detainees face in preparing for their
removal hearings.
The ACLU of Georgia asked to see the law library during its September 2011 tour to document
what materials were present, but the request was denied.
2. Inadequate Living Conditions
a. Transfers Taking Detainees Away from Family and Community
Even when transferred from one facility to another within the state, transfers can be hard on
detainees and their families. Ignacio Morales and his family lived about half an hour outside of
Atlanta. When he was detained at the Cobb County jail, he was still able to see his five-year- old
daughter.940 At the time he spoke with the ACLU of Georgia, he had been detained at Irwin for
eight months and had not seen his family at all during that time because of the distance.941 Jose
Ponce says that the real problem with being detained at Irwin is its remote location.942 He has
only been able to communicate with his family by phone and that they have not been able to visit
him in the two months he has been detained. 943 Dulce Bolanos Estrada was transferred from
NGDC to Irwin, which is much farther from her friends and family making it harder for them to
visit with her. 944 Norberto Neira has four children, two of whom are under 18; the youngest is
just five years old.945 His children are suffering terribly from the separation, and he believes that
his five year old will need to see a psychologist to work through this.946 When his wife and
children come to visit him, the entire lobby is disturbed by the youngest child’s crying; his “sobs,
cries, screams [are] so loud.”947 Article XXV of the American Declaration requires that states
“shall take into account the need of persons to be deprived of liberty in places near their family,
community, their defense counsel or legal representative, and the tribunal or other State body that
may be in charge of their case.”948 In addition, the IACHR has noted that: “Visiting rights are a
fundamental requirement for ensuring respect of the personal integrity and freedom of the
inmate.” As such, if transfer strips detainees of this right, which it has been shown to do for
detainees transferred to Irwin, it may violate their human rights.949
b. Phone Services
Irwin’s handbook states that phone calls to attorneys and family members are monitored and are
capped at 15 minutes per call.950 Like in other facilities, the cost of placing calls to outside the
facility is extremely high, and many detainees spend all their money on phone calls alone.951
Veronica pays $30.00 to $40.00 on phone calls every month,952 and Jovita Campuzano Jimenez
says it costs her $5.00 for one 15 minute call and that she will spend over $50.00 per month
trying to talk to family members.953 Sometimes, she says, there is a busy signal, but she is still
charged the full amount.954 Particularly at Irwin, with detainees living so far away from loved
ones, access to a functioning and affordable phone system is a necessity.

84

c. Cell Conditions
i. General
The detention center houses three levels of detainees: (1) blue – low-security, (2) orange –
medium-security, and (3) red – high-security. Level 3 detainees are kept separately from level 1
detainees.955
A total of 16 immigration units house detainees at Irwin.956 There are eight male and eight
female units at Irwin. Each unit has 32 beds and is divided into a common area and two or fourperson cells.957 The cells each have a shower, washbasin, and toilet.958 At intake, in addition to a
medical screening that consists of a list of questions, a TB test, and a medical exam, hygiene
items, uniforms, and bedding are distributed.959 As of fall 2011, only one non-ICE detainee was
being detained in the immigration units. There are also three phones in each unit, tables for
meals/recreation, and two televisions, one in Spanish and one in English.960
Jose Ponce says that being detained in prison-like conditions is “like being a caged animal.”961
Some units have difficulty maintaining a stable temperature.962 Temperatures fluctuate from
extremely hot to extremely cold.963 In the two months Maria Francisco had been detained at
Irwin, her unit had lost air conditioning three times.964 “The heat is unbearable,” she said. 965
ii. Hygiene Concerns
Detainees often have to wait longer than one week to get clean sheets, towels, and pillowcases.966
A clean change of undergarments and socks are not easy to come by either. “It’s very gross. We
have to wash them in our own cells,” says Dulce Bolanos Estrada.967 Maria Francisco also
washes her clothes in the sink. They are supposedly washed, she says, but come back smelling
bad and looking dirty.968 When towels, sheets, and other linens are changed, they are not clean.969
Insufficient washing of linens and undergarments at Irwin violates international human rights
standards.970
iii. Segregation
On a tour of the facility on September 30, 2011, the ACLU of Georgia requested to visit the
segregation unit but was denied access. We were informed that the segregation unit has 84 beds,
and that in September 2011, it was less than 1/3 full.971 The warden of Irwin told the ACLU of
Georgia that most everyone placed in segregation was there for administrative reasons, such as
protective custody. 972 At least two detainees, however, provided a different account.973
Angela Kelley did not know why she was being sent to segregation; “they just told me to go.”974
Even though detainees are usually held in segregation for a period of four days to a week,975
Angela was placed in segregation for much longer, and she felt much less safe in segregation.976
At the time of the interview, March 10, 2011, Angela Kelley had been in segregation for almost a
85

month.977 With lesser access to showers and phone, Angela felt lonely and threatened “because
of the guards.”978 She was also denied recreation the entire time she was in segregation.979 This
is contrary to the policy outlined in the Irwin Detainee Handbook, which states that “inmates/
detainees confined to the special housing unit will be afforded one hour of recreation seven days
a week.”980
Florent Kalala was placed in segregation twice for disciplinary infractions between September
2011 and January 30, 2012.981 During his time in segregation, Mr. Kalala told the ACLU of
Georgia that there is a list on the segregation unit’s wall, which states what privileges are
revoked in segregation.982 The privileges that are revoked include showering every day as well
as access to the commissary, the law library, and recreation.983 Mr. Kalala stated that when he
was in segregation in October 2011 for four days, he was denied access to the commissary and
denied recreation.984
Although the ACLU of Georgia was not able to see the segregation unit firsthand, restricted
access to showers and phone and denial of recreation violates the PBNDS, which provide that
detainees in segregation “will be afforded basic living conditions that approximate those
provided to the general population.”985 As stated in previous sections, the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that the practice of segregation be banned altogether as
it “can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”986
d. Food Concerns
Three types of food options are available to detainees at Irwin: regular, kosher, and common
fare.987 All meals are provided through satellite feeding in the units.988 Three meals per day are
served, and breakfasts are served as early as 4:30 in the morning.989 The commissary sells food,
snacks, and bottles of water when meals are not being served.990
According to detainee interviews, the food provided to detainees at Irwin is inadequate in
quantity and subpar in quality.991 Dulce Bolanos Estrada has lost 15 pounds since being detained,
and has been served undercooked and rancid food.992 “There is not enough food. A very small
amount is given to each of us.”993 Maria Francisco too has been served rancid food.994 She also
says the food is undercooked at times, and she has found hair in her food.995 One detainee found
what looked like a worm in her food, and Veronica found a plastic glove in her meal.996 Maria
Francisco had lost ten pounds in the two months she had been in Irwin in spite of spending
around $10.00 per week on extra food at the commissary and Veronica had also lost ten pounds
since her arrival at Irwin, even after spending around $30.00 per week at the commissary.997 In
five weeks, Jovita Campuzano Jimenez had lost 24 lbs. 998
Jose Ponce was transferred to Irwin in October 2011.999 He is diabetic, but does not receive
medically appropriate meals.1000 Instead, he is served general population food, which he says
“has a lot of carbs.”1001 Jose told us that since they have not changed his diet, “I just try to eat the
veggies, but they don’t give me enough.”1002 Florent Kalala, who has high blood pressure, also
86

does not receive a medically appropriate diet.1003 Mr. Kalala told the ACLU of Georgia that the
food is incredibly salty and that whenever he eats it, the sodium causes his blood pressure to
rise.1004
Additionally, detainees do not have enough time to eat their meals. 1005
Most detainees
1006
interviewed said they were given less than ten minutes to eat.
Norberto Neira said he has
1007
often been given less than five minutes to eat.
Hunger Strike at Irwin
In January 2012, the ACLU of Georgia received a letter through family members of
detainees at Irwin. The letter stated that detainees were staging a hunger strike to protest
the conditions at Irwin beginning Wednesday, January 25, 2012.1008 The letter further
stated: “This is our Right to be tak[en] care of with respect, dignity, and to be treat[ed] like
human beings, not animals.”1009 The letter continued “they feed us wors[e] than dogs,” “the
taste of excess salt in the food makes us want to throw up,” and that the cost of food at the
commissary is too high.1010 The letter also expressed concern over delays in receiving
medications, guards being disrespectful to the detainees, and the high price of phone
cards.1011
When the ACLU of Georgia interviewed Florent Kalala and Jose Ponce on January 30,
2012, we learned that on Wednesday, January 25, 2012, a significant number of detainees in
their pod participated in the hunger strike.1012 Florent Kalala stated that nothing had
changed as a result of the hunger strike and the food was still as inedible as ever.1013
e. Voluntary Work Program
The work program at Irwin is not compensated.1014 The “volunteers,” as the detainees are called,
have duties that range from cleaning and kitchen duty to distributing clothing to new arrivals.
Detainee interviews revealed that the work of the volunteers is poorly monitored at times, which
has resulted in reports of abuse and discrimination dealt out to other detainees.1015 “All the
volunteers yell,” Veronica says, “but the guards do, too.”1016
f. Recreation
Recreation is both indoor and outdoor at Irwin and includes volleyball, soccer, jump-rope, and
access to an inside basketball court. Detainees are supposed to be allowed recreation a minimum
of five times per week.1017 However, Jose Ponce told us that he is allowed outside into a caged
field only three times per week.1018 This is in direct violation of ICE standards contained in the
Detainee Handbook stating that “if a period of detention is expected to last longer than 72 hours
then detainees will have an opportunity for one hour of outdoor recreation per day, five days per
week.”1019

87

g. Inadequate Supervision
In spite of the number of detainees who know little or no English, guards are not bilingual, and
other detainees often have to help interpret for them.1020 Handbooks are given out in English to
detainees who do not know English, and medical exams and interviews are conducted in English
without any interpreters present. 1021 Disciplinary rules are posted in Spanish, but these posters do
not include many pieces of information that are outlined in detail in the handbook.1022
During the intake process, detainee “volunteers” help distribute uniforms, undergarments,
hygiene items, and linens to men and women arriving at the facility.1023 Language barriers, a lack
of available interpreters, and a lack of oversight have caused problems. Veronica, a non-English
speaker, was issued soiled undergarments at intake.1024 She asked a detainee in the work program
if she could have clean ones.1025 He refused and told her to wear what she was given. Thinking
she had to obey this person, Veronica wore the soiled undergarments, which led to a serious
infection that ultimately left scars on her legs and genitals.1026 She found out later that he was not
a guard, but she says she could not figure out who else to ask, and no one else was available for
questions at the time of her intake.1027
Other detainees interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia said that they also suffered when guards
did not adequately supervise the kitchen staff who consequently did not prepare meals correctly.
Norberto Neira said that certain detainees working in the kitchen would not make anything more
than peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for meals, and on those days, detainees would not get hot
meals at all.1028
In the summer of 2011, a female unit, which consisted of mostly Spanish speaking women, was
disrupted by arguments that kept arising over the two TVs in the unit. A detainee wanted to play
two English speaking channels, and when others complained, an English speaking detainee told
them that “this is America and the TVs would be in English.”1029 The guard did not intervene or
enforce the rules, and said nothing when the English speaking detainee began yelling at other
women.1030 “Most fights are about the microwave or TV, and we just have to go to our cells.”1031
With such weak supervision, many detainees have felt they have nowhere to turn when they have
a problem. Veronica said another detainee was threatening her and trying to fight and Veronica
did not know where to go or whom she could ask for help.1032
h. Substandard Treatment of Non-English Speaking Detainees
Dulce Bolanos-Estrada, who speaks English and Spanish, says that she tries to interpret for
others who do not speak English when she can.1033 “I think,” Dulce says, “people who do not
speak English are taken advantage of by the guards.”1034 Ignacio Morales does not speak English
well, and as a result, he has struggled to understand the rules, medical procedures, and what he
needs to do if he has a grievance.1035 Although he was given a detainee handbook when he
arrived at Irwin, it was in English. Ignacio, who was taking pain medication twice daily for an
88

oral surgery he had undergone before arriving at Irwin, was not given his medication after
arriving. At the time we spoke with him, he had been there for over a week and had passed out
once because of the pain.1036 With a Spanish/English dictionary, Ignacio submitted a request to
see a dentist, and all he was able to write was “my teeth hurt.”1037 Ignacio did not know the name
or the role of the person to whom he gave the form, and he was unaware that he could file
grievances with anyone.1038 He says he feels like he is just being ignored, and complaining
would only bring him harm.1039 Jovita Campuzano Jimenez has similar thoughts about being
ignored and being helpless to address the problem. “No one speaks Spanish. I have to find
another detainee who can translate for me. That makes it very difficult and frustrating.”1040 As
mentioned, lack of Spanish speaking staff violates the Inter-American Principles on Detention.1041
3. Inadequate Medical and Mental Care
The Medical Unit provides both medical care and mental healthcare.1042 Unlike at the other
immigrant detention centers in Georgia, dental care is provided off-site.1043 The medical staff is
employed from the Correctional HC Company. The unit contains observation rooms and
treatment rooms. 1044 During a tour of the facility, the ACLU of Georgia was told that there was a
doctor on site as well as a physician’s assistant. In addition, there are 11 nurses who are both
Licensed Practical Nurses and Registered Nurses. 1045 The medical staff provides medical
assistance to all prisoners and detainees housed in Irwin. In the mental health unit, there is a
psychiatrist and a licensed social worker who are on call 24/7.1046 A detainee can get in to see a
member of the medical staff by requesting a visit through a sick call and filling out a form in
either English or Spanish. In the event of a need for emergency care, the nearest hospital is the
Irwin County Hospital, which is less than ten minutes away under normal driving conditions.1047
a. Medical Care
i. Unreasonable Delays in Receiving Medical Care
Detainees at Irwin face unreasonable delays in receiving medical care, according to detainee
interviews. The case of Dulce Bolanos Estrada, who was diagnosed with cancer in July 2009,
provides an illustrative example.1048 In spring of 2011, with three more months of chemotherapy
to undergo, Dulce was detained at Irwin. At intake, she says they administered a TB test and
asked her some questions at which point she told them she had cancer.1049 She was not given a
physical exam or a visit to the doctor that day, and over a week later, she was still waiting to see
a doctor. All she was given was hydrocodone for the pain.1050 “It has been a year since my last
exam. I am in pain,” she said.1051 “They do not monitor my condition…. [The doctor] is never
here.”1052
Jovita Campuzano Jimenez requested medical care when she arrived at Irwin because she was in
pain after being in an automobile accident.1053 “I have repeatedly asked for an x-ray for really
bad pain I have in my head from the accident. I have yet to receive anything. I have really
blurred vision. The doctor is never in. I have just been ignored.”1054
89

Although Ignacio Morales told the nurse at intake that he needed his pain medicine for his
mouth, and although his medical records indicated this as well, he still had not received his
medicine over a week after his arrival.1055 Similarly, Jose Ponce told the nurse at intake that he
was diabetic and had high blood pressure, but it took three weeks for him to start receiving his
medication.1056 Peter Obande Jacobs, who is also diabetic and has high blood pressure, stated
that he did not receive medication until six days after he entered the facility.1057
After putting in requests and filing complaints for over a month because she could not see a
member of the medical staff, Angela Kelley went on a hunger strike that lasted six days. At the
end of that period, she was finally able to see a nurse.1058
As stated in previous sections, delays in receiving medical care exceeding one day violate
international human rights principles.1059
ii. Linguistic Barriers in Medical Unit
According to detainee interviews, no staff member of the medical unit is able to provide
interpretation for detainees who do not speak English well or at all.1060 Although interpretation
can be secured through a phone service, few of the Spanish speaking detainees interviewed were
aware of this option.1061 Jovita Campuzano Jimenez has tried to use the translation service, but
she still felt frustrated. “Here, none of the medical staff can speak Spanish, but when I asked for
an x-ray over the phone with the interpreter, I still got no response.”1062 Ignacio Morales could
not receive pain medicine prescribed for his mouth, leaving him frustrated. “No one here speaks
English. Communication has been very difficult.”1063
When Maria Francisco first arrived at Irwin, she did not know she was talking to a member of
the medical staff until someone took her blood.1064 “There was no interpreter, and I had no idea
why or what was happening. Even if you go because you’re sick they ignore you.”1065 Although
Irwin claims they provide medical request forms in both Spanish and English, neither Ignacio
Morales nor Veronica were aware of this, and were forced to submit requests on forms they could
not read.1066 As mentioned above, this practice violates human rights standards.1067
b. Mental Health
Like the other facilities, Irwin lacks non-punitive treatment, such as off-site counseling, for
detainees with mental disabilities. This results in many detainees being afraid to voice their
mental health concerns because they do not want to be sent to segregation. 1068
i. Treatment of Detainees with Mental Disability
Many detainees we spoke to are afraid to voice their mental health concerns because they believe
that instead of receiving treatment, they will be placed in segregation. Many detainees suffer
90

from depression, anxiety, insomnia, and other emotional difficulties, often for the first time in
their lives. The detainees we interviewed were generally afraid to talk about their mental health,
or simply did not believe any good would come of talking to a mental health professional.1069
Dulce Bolanos Estrada has been experiencing increasing feelings of depression since she was
detained, but she is afraid to tell anyone about it.1070 “I will never tell [the guards] about it
because they will put you in the mental ward, which is much worse.”1071 Jovita Campuzano
Jimenez agreed with this statement when she said she would do anything to prevent being put in
the “mental hospital section.”1072 The practice of putting detainees with mental health problems
in segregation clearly deters detainees from seeking treatment, resulting in conditions going
untreated. In 2009, ICE itself acknowledged that segregation is “not conducive to recovery” and
recommended stopping the usage of segregation cells to house detainees with mental health
disabilities.1073 In addition, mental healthcare providers have advised ICE that segregation is not
an appropriate setting for long-term placement of detainees with mental disabilities and often
exacerbates mental illness.1074 This is also supported by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture’s
recommendation that the practice of segregation be absolutely banned in the case of those with
mental disabilities, as mentioned above.1075
4. Abuse of Power
a. Verbal Abuse
According to a number of interviewees, the guards at Irwin frequently yell or snap at the
detainees.1076 Veronica does not know what the guards are saying since they always speak in
English, but she, like others interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia, is afraid to complain to them
for fear of being yelled at or thrown into segregation.1077 “Officers often scream at me,” says
Jovita, who does not understand what they are saying and many times does not even know what
she has done to provoke them. 1078 In addition to the hostile environment established by the
guards, detainees who work in the facility yell at other detainees.1079
b. Retaliatory Behavior from Guards
Detainees at Irwin are very afraid of retaliatory behavior from the guards if they complain or
misspeak.1080 Over two-thirds of the detainees interviewed expressed fear and concern at the
possibility of complaining. Threats of being yelled at, of being placed in the mental health unit,
or of being thrown into “the hole” dominate their thoughts when they consider complaining. 1081
Maria Francisco was afraid to complain, especially because once she was threatened with being
placed in “the hole.”1082 Her friend was sent to segregation for four days for complaining too
much.1083 After having her requests continually denied for medical treatment for blurred vision
and headaches, Jovita Campuzano Jimenez is still afraid to complain. “[I]f you complain, it only
gets worse.”1084

91

c. Grievance Procedure
Most detainees interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia were provided little or no information
about the grievance procedures at Irwin. Indeed, in some cases, detainees were unaware of the
existence of a grievance procedure at all. The lack of knowledge most interviewees, especially
those who did not speak English, had about the grievance procedure at Irwin was shocking.
Maria Francisco, Jovita Campuzano Jimenez, and Ignacio Morales were completely unaware that
they could submit a written grievance.1085 All three were also afraid to complain to the guards, so
they just remained silent.1086 “I was told at orientation I could verbally complain, but nobody
does,” Jovita said.1087 Even those who are aware of the procedure, however, are afraid to use it
because of the retaliation they may be subjected to as detailed above.
Angela Kelley submitted many complaints, but she says there was never any follow up.1088
Failure to provide responses to grievances violates detainees’ rights to “receive a prompt
response within a reasonable time.”1089

92

Women Detainees at Irwin
Women in immigration detention facilities including the Irwin County Detention Center face
particularly painful circumstances.
Victims of Abuse
Women often end up in detention because they were victims of abuse. Over half the women we
interviewed had been victims of domestic violence.1090 Veronica and Maria Francisco said they
had never called the police when they were being beaten by their partners because they were
afraid of being arrested and deported, which would hurt not only them but their children as
well.1091
Maria’s husband actually threatened to call ICE and have her deported if she
complained about the beatings. She believed him and never called for help.1092 Her worst fears
came true as she was finally arrested after police arrived at her home in response to a domestic
violence call.1093
Separation from Children and Family
Many of the women we interviewed were worried for their children because they were no longer
with any immediate relatives or living at their own homes. Dulce Bolanos Estrada who fled to
Georgia from New Orleans to escape an abusive husband has never been convicted of a crime.
Now that she is detained, her young children (two, five, and seven), all of whom are U.S.
citizens, are staying with relatives because she was their only caregiver. Her detention, she says,
has torn apart the home she kept together. It seriously hurt the children and noticeably impacted
them in a negative way.1094 Clara, who had already received her final removal order, was terrified
that her children, U.S. citizens, would be sent to their abusive father or put in state custody
because she was told she would be deported regardless of the dates of her pending custody
case.1095 Because she could not afford an attorney, she had many questions about the future wellbeing and rights of her children, and she had no idea to whom she could turn. 1096 Maria
Francisco’s four young children, two of whom are still too young to even attend school, are U.S.
citizens. They have been living with a relative since Maria’s detainment. She does not know
what she will do if she is deported. 1097 She wants her children in good schools, and she says they
deserve to go to American schools since they are American.1098 She had not seen her children at
all in the two months she had been detained. 1099 Angela Kelley had not seen her baby, who was
still in North Carolina, since 2009.1100
Veronica’s children, all three of whom are U.S. citizens, are now back in Mexico because she had
no family or friends who could provide a safe place for her children to live.1101 A non-profit
organization in her community, which is over four hours north of Ocilla, helped find family in
Mexico where the children could stay until Veronica was released.1102 At the time we spoke with
her, Veronica had been detained for almost four months, and the extent of her record was a ticket
for driving without insurance or a license.1103 Of the seven women interviewed by the ACLU of

93

Georgia, Jovita Campuzano Jimenez is the only woman whose children are still living with a
parent.1104
Hygiene
The underwear women receive upon arrival is often used, even showing stains or signs that it is
not properly washed.1105 As noted above, Veronica was issued soiled undergarments at intake and
she asked a detainee working through the work program if she could have clean ones.1106 He
refused and told her to wear what she was given.1107
As a result of wearing the soiled
undergarments, Veronica developed a serious infection that ultimately left scars on her legs and
genitals.1108 Irwin is the only facility where the ACLU of Georgia documented the practice of
issuing used and dirty underwear to female detainees.
In the spring of 2011, a rash broke out in one unit, and most of the women had painful bumps on
their chests.1109 In July 2011, another women’s unit had a similar rash outbreak, and one woman
had the rash spread across her back and side.1110 None of the women interviewed ever found out
why these outbreaks occurred, or what exactly the women had contracted.
Medical Needs
The medical needs of women at Irwin have been ignored, and as a result, treatable, even minor,
problems have become major complications for some women in ICE custody at Irwin.1111
For example, detainee Angela Kelley suffered serious pain due to a lack of medical care for
complications from breast implants.1112 Shortly after her arrival, she began to feel pain and
requested to visit the doctor.1113 This request was never granted.1114 Finally, as a result of writing
to authorities outside of Irwin, the facility allowed her to go to an off-site consultation. She was
given antibiotics and pain medicine. Once she was placed in segregation, however, she had no
access to medical help for her breast condition.1115 A month after being placed in segregation,
and after repeatedly complaining and filing requests, she was able to visit the medical unit, and it
was discovered that a breast implant was leaking. It was determined that she needed to have
surgery to remove the implant, but no surgery was ever scheduled. Her breast became swollen
and painful, and she was unable to lift her arm. At the time of her release in August 2011, she
still had not had an operation and was in severe pain due to the leaking implant. 1116

94

4. Atlanta City Detention Center
The ACLU of Georgia found that ACDC violates detainees’ due process rights by failing to
provide detainees with legal orientation presentations according to both international law and
ICE guidelines.1117 As documented in other facilities, living conditions are also problematic and
ACDC houses high-security detainees with low-security detainees in violation of ICE
standards.1118 The medical and mental health units lack adequate staff, especially Spanish
speaking staff, and detainees with mental health disabilities are put in segregation in lieu of
receiving treatment. Finally, there is evidence of physical and verbal abuse by corrections
officers, and there exists no adequate grievance procedure to address detainees’ complaints.
Background
Federal prisoners began to be housed at the Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC) pursuant to
an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) between the United States Marshals Service
and Atlanta City Department of Corrections signed on April 1, 2002.1119 According to the IGSA,
more than 1,000 federal prisoners would be housed at the facility including adult male and
female prisoners and male and female non-citizens detainees.1120 These individuals would be
housed at ACDC at a per diem rate of $53.07 per prisoner.1121 The agreement was to remain in
effect indefinitely, at the mutual option of termination by either party.1122 On February 1, 2006, a
modification to the IGSA increased the per diem rate from $53.07 to $68.00. 1123
The U.S. Marshals have a separate contract with ICE to house 300 immigrant detainees at
ACDC.1124 As of July 21, 2011, there were 110 immigrants detained at ACDC.1125
Findings
On May 13-15, 2008, the ICE Office of Detention and Removal Operations assigned Creative
Corrections to perform an Annual Detention Review of ACDC.1126 ACDC received a rating of
“good” and was found to be compliant with various standards.1127 In contrast, from 2009 to
2012, the ACLU of Georgia found many violations of not only ICE standards but
constitutional1128 and international human rights standards.1129 The ACLU of Georgia interviewed
12 detainees at ACDC. We interviewed two of those detainees three times between 2010 and
2012.1130 All of the detainees we spoke to were male. The following section recounts their
experience at ACDC.
1. Facility Due Process Concerns
The ACLU of Georgia documented numerous due process concerns at ACDC, including the fact
that the great majority of guards at ACDC only speak English, making communication between
non-English speaking detainees and guards difficult; lack of pro bono legal presentations; and a
failure to keep law library reference materials up to date

95

a. Non-English Speaking Non-Citizens at a Disadvantage
As of July 21, 2011, ACDC employed 309 guards, only three of whom spoke Spanish.1131 Officer
Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, stated that since so few guards spoke Spanish, it was normal
for other detainees to serve as interpreters.1132 Officer Bond also added that it is difficult to hire
bilingual guards since they are not paid extra for being bilingual nor is it a qualification for the
job.1133 Damien Alvarez was put into segregation for interpreting for another detainee.1134 Now,
despite the shortage of Spanish speaking officers, Damien refuses to interpret for others for fear
of being placed in segregation again.1135 The severe shortage of Spanish speaking staff makes it
difficult for the majority of detainees to communicate with the staff at ACDC. This problem is
compounded by Damien Alvarez’s experience of being disciplined for translating for other
detainees.
As mentioned above, a lack of Spanish speaking staff violates detainees’ rights to have access to
duly-trained and qualified personnel while in detention.1136 At the very least, the Inter-American
Principles on Detention require that staff be able to speak Spanish since the majority of detainees
speak only Spanish. Since less than one percent of the guards at ACDC speak Spanish, this
violates not only detainees’ rights to have trained and qualified personnel, but also their due
process rights if they cannot communicate effectively.
b. Absence of Pro Bono Legal Presentations
Despite being located in the heart of Atlanta, the facility lacks a legal orientation program.
Unlike at NGDC or Stewart, which have “Know Your Rights” presentations, none of the
immigrants interviewed at ACDC said that they had attended any type of legal rights
presentation.1137 This violates ICE PBNDS on legal rights groups’ presentations, which states as
an expected outcome: “Detainees will have access to information and materials provided by legal
groups. Organizations will be permitted to distribute information in response to specific legal
inquiries.”1138 This also violates ICE’s recommendation that a Legal Orientation Program should
be expanded to all facilities.1139 ICE’s 2008 review of ACDC documented that no group legal
presentations had been conducted within the last 12 months; the review, however, determined
group legal rights presentations to be “acceptable.”1140
Lack of legal rights presentations has been shown to negatively impact an immigrant’s case. In
2010, less than 20% of detained non-citizens had legal representation. 1141 A 2011 study, headed
by a federal judge, found that immigrants with lawyers are five times more likely to win their
cases than those without.1142 The study found that an immigrant's access to an attorney can be as
important as the facts in his or her case.1143 This direct link between representation and ability to
obtain relief makes it even more imperative for detention centers to provide legal rights
presentations for all detainees, especially those who are proceeding on their own without
assistance of counsel.

96

c. Attorney Visits
ACDC does offer contact visits for attorneys, making it the only immigration detention facility in
Georgia currently doing so. However, as detailed below, there are concerns about monitoring
detainees’ phone calls to their attorneys.
d. Law Library Concerns
The library contains legal books, typewriters, a copy machine, and a computer.1144 Detainees are
allowed to make free copies of legal documents.1145 The rules for use of the legal center are
posted near the computer.1146 The librarian sends out a list everyday for detainees to sign up.1147
A maximum of ten detainees are allowed in per hour; the time they get to spend on the one
computer depends on how many other detainees are present.1148 One computer for a facility that
can hold up to 300 detainees is clearly inadequate.1149 According to Sherwin Andrews, when he
used the law library in spring 2009, all of the books were from 2007.1150 This violates ICE
PBNDS standard of maintaining up-to-date materials.1151 ICE also specifically recognized this
problem in October 2009 and recommended that: “Legal reference materials should be current
and complete.”1152 However, to the best of the ACLU of Georgia’s knowledge, this problem had
not been rectified as of March 30, 2012.
2. Inadequate Living Conditions
Detainees at ACDC expressed numerous problems with their living conditions. Communication
and visitation with family members are inadequate because phone calls are very expensive, lack
privacy, and are monitored. Family visitation is also unduly restrictive since detainees are only
allowed no-contact visits, which are limited to 20 minutes. The ACLU of Georgia found
numerous problems with cell conditions including mixing detainees of all security levels
together, hygiene concerns, and segregation unit conditions. We also documented various food
concerns, including detainees not receiving proper medical or religious diets. There are concerns
about adequate religious services and a non-compensated work program. Finally, there is no
opportunity for detainees to have outdoor recreation at ACDC.
a. Phone Services
Numerous detainees mentioned problems with the phones at ACDC.1153 Almost all detainees
whom we spoke to stated that the phones were expensive. Behrouz Salamat stated that he is
practically incapable of speaking to family members because the phone cards cost $30.00 for ten
minutes.1154 Edwin Edgold Omoregbe agreed, saying that at $3.00 per minute, the phones are
very expensive.1155 In addition to complaining about the price of the phone, Yassine Sanhaji
added that there was no privacy for using the phones.1156 Andy Mathe added that the calls are
monitored and sometimes drop all day long.1157

97

ACDC’s practice of monitoring all calls violates attorney-client confidentiality.1158 In the ACDC
Handbook, there is a provision where attorneys wishing not to have their attorney-client
conversations recorded can make requests in writing to the Facility Commander to have their
telephone numbers blocked from the monitoring process.1159 However, it is unclear whether or
not these requests by attorneys are respected, and even if they are, the policy does not provide an
option for a detainee to similarly request to have a call to an attorney blocked from monitoring.
This also directly violates ICE’s policy on telephone access to attorneys. The ICE National
Detainee Handbook specifically states that “facilities may not monitor any call to an attorney.”1160
In addition, ICE has recommended that “privacy shields to mute telephone conversations and
protect the privacy of an attorney-client phone call should be installed on all of the phones that
detainees use.”1161 However, it is unclear if privacy shields have been installed at ACDC.1162
b. Lack of Contact Visits
According to the ACDC Inmate/Detainee Handbook, visitations are scheduled for Wednesdays
and Sundays according to the detainee’s last name.1163 Detainees are allowed up to three adult
visitors twice a week and all visits are limited to 20 minutes.1164 Visits are no-contact.1165
Hamid Karimiha complained he had difficulty hearing his wife and daughter through the
plexiglass.1166 There is a small opening at the bottom of the window, so sometimes he would
have to resort to talking to his family members through that in which case he would not be able
to see them.1167
As noted above, no-contact visits are inconsistent with the civil detention model which ICE has
claimed to be instituting1168 and contrary to regional human rights standards.1169
c. Cell Conditions
The housing units are located on the fifth floor of the building. Females and males are housed
separately in different wings.1170 The common areas of each housing unit contain tables, two TVs
(detainees choose channels, including Spanish ones), two water fountains, and six phones.1171
There are seven showers, one of which is accessible by people with disabilities.1172 The showers
contain very small doors that would only cover the lower midriff section of a person’s body.1173
In the women’s housing unit, only women officers may supervise; however, in the men’s housing
unit, supervisors of either gender are allowed.1174 Detainees are allowed showers on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and on the weekend. 1175
Every housing unit contains a bulletin board where notices for library hours, phone usage, and
pro bono services, as well as rules and procedures about sexual abuse and other issues are
posted.1176 There are also forms and a facility grievance box as well as a grievance box
accessible only to ICE. ICE officers pick up contents once a week.1177 The ACLU of Georgia is
not aware of any emergency grievance procedures.

98

The cells are small and contain two beds, a wooden table, a sink, and a toilet (both porcelain).1178
There is also a buzzer to call supervising officers.1179
i. Housing of Detainees of Various Security Classifications
Together
Detainees are classified into three security levels: green, yellow, and red, with red indicating the
highest security level.1180 According to the ACDC Detainee Handbook and the ICE National
Detainee Handbook, detainees classified as green are not to be housed with detainees classified
as red. However, according to detainee George Edigin, “everyone is mixed together.”1181 In
2009, George told the ACLU of Georgia that detainees classified as red were mixed with
detainees classified as green for many months.1182 Andy Mathe, a detainee classified as green,
stated that most detainees in his unit have green armbands but one has red.1183 This not only
violates ICE and ACDC’s stated policy but also makes detainees fear for their safety.1184
Andy added that he and other immigrant detainees were initially placed in the general population
and were only moved to the immigrant detainee unit after complaining.1185 Principle XIX of the
Inter-American Principles on Detention dictates civil detainees’ right to be separated from
prisoners serving time for criminal convictions.1186 ACDC’s practice of housing immigration
detainees with general population prisoners violates this Principle.
ii. Hygiene Concerns
At intake, male detainees receive an airplane-sized toothbrush and toothpaste, a bar of soap, a
roll of toilet paper, a pair of flip flops, a washcloth, and two jumpsuits.1187 Officer Bond stated
that detainees sometimes receive a pillow if there are any in stock.1188 Detainees must purchase
shampoo, additional toothpaste, and underwear.1189
Damien Alvarez had numerous hygiene concerns at ACDC.1190 He stated that the men are not
given deodorant and since they can shower only every other day, the cells often smell bad.1191 He
added that they are only given one roll of toilet paper every Monday and are not given any more
if they run out.1192 In addition, towels are changed once a week and Damien said that they look
dirty and make his skin itch.1193 Equally troubling, two detainees complained of being given old
and recycled razor blades.1194 This is in direct violation of ICE’s policy which requires that
razors be disposable and provided on a daily basis so that they are not shared.1195 The rationale
for this is to prevent the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.1196 Also, as
noted above, international and regional human rights standards include the right to hygiene as
part of a detainee’s right to humane treatment while in custody.1197
Towels that are not
adequately sanitized and reused razor blades that could spread communicable diseases violate
this right.
Richard Hylton was told that he should shower every day for medical reasons, but he was not
allowed to do so at ACDC since detainees are only allowed to use the communal showers three
99

times a week.1198 Instead of having access to the shower to wash an infected area, he was forced
to wash in the sink.1199
This inability to shower every day even for medical reasons is
problematic, especially given the alternative of washing an infected private area in the communal
sink.1200
iii. Segregation Unit
The segregation and special housing units are located on the fourth floor; there are separate units
for female and male detainees.1201 There is only one detainee per cell. 1202 The doors for the cells
are made of metal instead of wood and the walls are concrete.1203 Instead of cots, detainees must
sleep on a raised slab.1204 There are also rooms that are used predominantly for suicide watch;
detainees held in these rooms are not allowed to have sheets but are given a special suit to
wear.1205 According to Officer Bond, detainees from the general population and detainees with
mental health problems are also housed in this unit.1206 Other detainees may be brought here as
result of a disciplinary proceeding.1207
Detainees in segregation are only allowed out of their cells one at a time for one hour per day.1208
At that time, they have access to an indoor recreational court as well as phones and TVs.1209
Behrouz Salamat told us that the segregation unit “smells bad” and that there was too much
noise.1210 Yassine Sanhaji added that the cells are like portable toilets and are very unsanitary.1211
Yassine was put in the segregation unit for going on a hunger strike protesting his lack of
medical attention in 2010 and was kept inside for 23 hours per day for six days. 1212 Damien
Alvarez was put in segregation three times during his detention in 2011.1213 He told the ACLU of
Georgia that the only book available to detainees in segregation is the Bible, the unit smells of
urine, and most people detained there have mental disabilities.1214 He added that detainees with
mental disabilities at the segregation unit screamed constantly, refused to shower, flooded the
toilets causing them to overflow into other cells, and threw feces out of their food slots.1215
Damien had to complain for five days to get a toothbrush and toothpaste while he was in
segregation.1216 The ACLU of Georgia witnessed firsthand detainees in segregation screaming
and constantly lighting up the buzzer without receiving any reaction from the guard on duty.1217
The ACLU of Georgia is concerned about the practice of segregation at ACDC and the inhumane
conditions that detainees are subjected to while in segregation. As noted above, this practice
poses particular concern in the cases of detainees with mental health problems who are placed in
segregation in lieu of receiving care, in light of the recommendation by the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Torture that the practice of segregation be absolutely banned in the case of those
with mental disabilities.1218

100

d. Food Concerns
Immigrant detainees we spoke to voiced numerous concerns about the quality, quantity, and
times of meals.1219 Andy Mathe told the ACLU of Georgia that breakfast is at 4 a.m., lunch at 11
a.m., and dinner at 4 p.m., leaving 12 hours between meals.1220 He also added that they are only
given five to ten minutes to eat.1221 Ebong Enobony said that he was always hungry even after
eating because they are never given enough food.1222 Damien Alvarez added that they are only
given enough to keep them alive.1223
Andy Mathe told the ACLU of Georgia that the water tastes like sewer water and that he never
drinks it.1224 Edwin Edgold Omoregbe stated that the food is very poor and that he once found a
cockroach in his food.1225 Yassine Sanhaji complained of being served expired milk.1226
Three detainees we spoke to have had problems receiving religious or medically appropriate
meals at ACDC.1227 Andy Mathe is allergic to pork and soy and stated that his dietary needs were
not accommodated.1228 He was served the same meals as other detainees and had to trade with
others to get enough food. 1229 Richard Hylton, a diabetic detainee, was merely given a lowsodium diet.1230 Yassine Sanhaji requested a halal diet as a practicing Muslim.1231 However, he
was given “common fare” (vegetarian) instead of a halal diet. 1232 The chaplain told him that it
was too expensive to provide religious diets such as kosher, so they do not provide them.1233 This
is consistent with ICE’s 2009 Detention Standards Review which found that a vegetarian menu
was provided for detainees with religious diets.1234 Yassine Sanhaji added that although he was
allowed to observe Ramadan in 2010, there was a nine-day delay in processing his request to
ensure that he received meals at appropriate times. 1235
The chaplain of ACDC acknowledged to the ACLU of Georgia that the only dietary provision
they make for detainees of various faiths is to put everyone on a “common fare” or vegetarian
diet, rather than providing religiously appropriate diets.1236 This violates ICE PBNDS on Food
Service, which states that “special diets and special ceremonial meals will be provided for
detainees whose religious beliefs require the adherence to religious dietary laws.”1237
ACDC’s failure to accommodate detainees’ legitimate dietary restrictions further violates their
right to humane treatment while in detention.1238 In addition, improper nutrition threatens
detainees’ health and well-being.
There is a commissary at ACDC but almost all detainees interviewed said that it was very
expensive.1239 George Edigin added that items at the commissary cost three to four times more
than they ordinarily would.1240 Edwin Edgold Omoregbe spent $20.00 to 30.00 at the commissary
per week.1241 In an effort to supplement his diet to meet his diabetic needs, Richard Hylton spent
over $800.00 at the commissary in just over two months.1242

101

e. Work Program
There is no voluntary work program at ACDC. According to the ACDC Detainee Manual,
however, all detainees are required to participate in cleaning of their assigned housing unit.1243
This is different from Stewart and NGDC where detainees who choose to work are provided with
payment.1244 The ICE Detainee Handbook notes that local or state-owned jails would not allow
detainees to participate in the work program.1245 The ICE Detainee Handbook also acknowledges
that because of this, detainees will not “necessarily receive monetary compensation for [their]
work.”1246 As such, detainees at ACDC are still required to do work but are not compensated,
posing particular concern for indigent detainees who may be in need of funds to purchase phone
cards or items from the commissary.
f. Religious Services
Religious services are held in the program room in each unit, which can be used for prayers if
nothing else is scheduled.1247 Prayer blankets are available to be checked out, but cannot be kept
with the detainees.1248
ACDC has a chaplain on staff, but religious services are also heavily dependent on volunteers.1249
Yassine Sanhaji, a practicing Muslim, expressed his frustration that during one week in 2010, the
Imam simply did not show.1250
g. Recreation
The indoor recreation room at ACDC consists of a small court with a soccer ball, a basketball
hoop, and two large windows.1251 There is no gym equipment available. The court may be
accessed at any time that detainees are allowed in the common area.1252 Although ICE states that
there is an outdoor recreation area,1253 ACDC’s “outdoor” recreation is not a truly outdoor area,
but instead consists of a large enclosed cement area with an opening blocked by bars on one of
the walls.1254 Cristian Morales and Edwin Edgold Omoregbe specifically complained about the
fact that detainees are never allowed outside.1255 Lack of outdoor recreation is a direct violation
of ICE standards which state that “if a period of detention is expected to last longer than 72 hours
then detainees will have an opportunity for one hour of outdoor recreation per day, five days per
week.”1256 The requirements also specifically state that “indoor recreation may not be substituted
for outdoor recreation.”1257 In addition, ICE recognized that access to outdoor recreation was
“critical” to detainee health and wellbeing in its 2009 Detention Report.1258
3. Inadequate Medical and Mental Care
At intake, detainees receive a medical screening.1259 There is one room for a mental health
screening and two others for basic physicals.1260 The facility employs one doctor and 38 nurses.
We were told that the doctor and one nurse are always on call.1261 The physician is at ACDC
Monday through Friday during normal business hours.1262 The ACLU of Georgia was told that
102

there are usually four to six nurses in the facility.1263 As acknowledged by Officer Bond, the
Assistant Major of ACDC, most of the medical staff are not bilingual.1264 However, they have a
dial system for interpreters in every language.1265
One dentist is also available Monday through Friday and he conducts annual screenings of
detainees.1266 Any emergency is sent to Grady Hospital.1267 According to a nurse we spoke with
at the facility, Nurse Anderson, medical staff at the facility can request that detainees be moved
through Transport Authorization Request (TAR).1268 She said that a detainee should be approved
by ICE to be moved within minutes.1269
a. Medical Care
i. Lack of Dental Examination at Intake
Of the 12 interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC, three detainees specifically
mentioned that they did not have a dental examination upon entering the facility. This violates
ICE PBNDS on medical examinations, which states that they should include a routine dental
examination.1270
ii. Physical Exams Often Conducted Days After Detainees’ Arrive
Medical examinations are often conducted days or weeks after detainees arrive. Edwin Edgold
Omoregbe was not seen until a month after he arrived at the facility in 2010.1271 In 2011, it took
Damien Alvarez ten days before he had a physical exam conducted.1272 Also in 2011, Richard
Hylton did not have a physical until three weeks after he arrived at ACDC. 1273
This delay in initial health screenings violates both ICE’s and ACDC’s standards along with
regional and international human rights standards. According to the ICE and ACDC Detainee
Handbooks, it is imperative that detainees are screened immediately after entering the facility
before they are released into the general population.1274 This is still a requirement even if
detainees are transferred from another detention facility to ACDC.1275 Principle IX of the InterAmerican Principles on Detention further provides that: “All persons deprived of liberty shall be
entitled to an impartial and confidential medical or psychological examination…immediately
following their admission to the place of imprisonment or commitment.”1276
iii. Unreasonable Delays in Receiving Medical Care
Detainees receive medical help by filling out a medical request form. This form must be
received and permission granted before a detainee can receive treatment. Damien Alvarez found
this process frustrating because even if he needed something as simple as a Tylenol for a
headache, he had to file a request that could take three to four days to process, making it
pointless.1277 Ebong Enobony has sickle cell anemia.1278 It took more than a week for him to
have one of his prescriptions refilled.1279 In addition, since there is only one doctor on staff, he
103

has had to wait up to a week to see the doctor.1280 There are also long delays for receiving
emergency care. In November 2011, Jag1281 began to experience painful swelling in his legs.
The condition worsened to the point that he could not put weight on his legs and he developed
blisters that were so big that if he touched them they would burst.1282 Jag put in an emergency
medical request on a Saturday.1283 However, he did not receive treatment over the weekend.1284 It
was not until the following Tuesday that Jag was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital where he
was hospitalized for four days.1285 Jag’s experience indicates that there is not always a nurse and
doctor on call, contrary to assertions of the ACDC staff.1286 These instances of detainees waiting
for days or weeks to receive medical treatment violate international standards, which state that
medical staff should attend to detainees who complain of a medical condition daily.1287
Richard Hylton arrived at ACDC on May 17, 2011. Richard has Type 2 diabetes. When he
first arrived at ACDC, his blood sugar level was tested twice a day but the frequency of
testing soon changed to once per week. Richard worried about his health because he was
not able to monitor his blood sugar levels as consistently as he should. In addition, he is
supposed to be on a diet appropriate for diabetics, but was placed on a low-sodium diet
instead. Richard filed informal and formal complaints about his diet, but did not receive
any meaningful responses. In order to maintain his blood sugar levels, Richard bought
food from the commissary.
Upon arrival at ACDC, Richard had a small wart on his groin. Since then, it grew and
began to accumulate puss and blood. After numerous complaints, he was finally taken to
Grady Hospital. The doctor at Grady diagnosed it as HPV and gave him a prescription
and a bacterial cream. The doctor also recommended that he see a dermatologist, which he
was not been allowed to do. The doctor told him to wash the wart every day to keep it
clean. Detainees at ACDC are not allowed to shower every day, so Richard could not clean
his wart daily.1288 The ACDC doctor told him to wash his groin area in the sink. He tried to
do this but felt incredibly embarrassed since everyone in his unit could see him. Richard
also added that the infected wart smelled bad and that the other detainees complained
about the smell.
Richard also had a swollen left leg and his toes near his nails blackened since entering
ACDC. He asked to see a foot specialist numerous times, but as of July 29, 2011, he still
had not received medical attention or treatment. Richard specifically asked to see a
podiatrist for his foot but his request was denied.1289
On February 10, 2012, Richard’s attorney received a response to his August 22, 2011
complaint to U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties regarding Richard’s medical care and medical diet.1290 Although the response
stated that Richard was to be placed on a “diabetic diet within two days of his arrival at the
facility,”1291 Richard states that he was placed on a low-sodium diet, which is only
appropriate for people with high blood pressure and not those with Type 2 diabetes.1292 As
a result, Richard could only eat the meals provided to him sparingly and in the ten months
104

he was detained at ACDC, he spent over $4,000.00 at the commissary on food to ensure that
he was able to keep his insulin levels up.1293 Additionally, the response stated that Richard
received surgery for his wart on September 1, 2011.1294 The ACLU of Georgia notes that it
took three and half months for him to receive adequate care.1295
b. Mental Health
Although ACDC staff told the ACLU of Georgia that there are two psychiatrists at the facility
and that the facility is in the process of hiring another, detainees reported that mental healthcare
was not provided at ACDC.1296 According to detainee Edwin Edgold Omoregbe, any mental
health questions require referrals to Grady Hospital. 1297
i. Failure of Medical Staff to Ask Mental Health
Questions at Intake of All Detainees
Although some detainees mentioned that they were asked mental health questions during intake,
such as whether or not they had thoughts of killing themselves, this is not a uniform practice.1298
Edwin Edgold Omoregbe was not asked any mental health questions during his intake in spring
2010.1299 This is in direct contrast to ICE’s finding in 2008 that at ACDC, “detainees receive a
mental-health screening upon arrival.”1300
ii. Insufficient Provision of Mental Healthcare at the Facility
Yassine Sanhaji suffers from depression and receives medication.1301 Instead of receiving care
and medication at the facility, he must be sent to Grady to receive his anti-depressants.1302
Cristian Morales also requested anti-depressants at entry screening.1303 In order to receive
medication, he was taken to Grady Hospital, where he was held in restraints for more than a day
before he saw a doctor.1304 Cristian added that the floor of the holding cell at Grady was covered
in urine and that it took 48 hours total to get his prescription.1305 Cristian did not actually begin
receiving his medication until a week later.1306
iii. Treatment of Detainees with Mental Disabilities is Punitive Rather
than Care Oriented
Since mental health issues are generally addressed by staff at Grady Hospital rather than at
ACDC, there is limited treatment for detainees at the facility. Instead of treatment, detainees say
that those with mental health problems are placed in segregation.1307 Richard Hylton was told by
the guards that if he did not eat, he would be put in segregation “with the crazy people.”1308 The
practice of placing detainees with mental disabilities in segregation is in direct violation of ICE’s
National Detainee Handbook, which requires all potentially suicidal or severely depressed
individuals be “treated with sensitivity and receive the proper referrals for assistance.”1309

105

In October 2009, ICE itself acknowledged that segregation is “not conducive to recovery” and
recommended that ICE stop using segregation cells.1310 In addition, mental healthcare providers
have advised ICE that segregation is not an appropriate setting for long-term placement of
detainees with mental disabilities and often exacerbates mental illness.1311 In 2011, the Assistant
Inspector General recommended that time limits should be established for holding detainees with
mental disabilities in segregation. 1312 However, despite ICE’s concurrence with this
recommendation, detainees with mental disabilities are still not receiving proper treatment and
are instead are placed in segregation.1313 In addition, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights Principles requirements for “involuntary seclusion,” such as having segregation
authorized by a competent physician and notifying a family or legal representative, are not met at
ACDC.1314
4. Abuse of Power
The ACLU of Georgia found that guards overstep their authority by being verbally and
physically abusive to detainees, retaliating against detainees for small infractions, and failing to
respond to detainees’ grievances in a meaningful way.
a. Physical/Verbal Abuse
Two detainees complained of verbal abuse from the guards.1315 Specifically, Damien Alvarez
said that verbal abuse was prevalent particularly towards non-English speakers.1316 He added that
he has been called a “spick” and a “wetback.” Cristian Morales also was called a “roach” by an
officer.1317
One detainee reported physical abuse at ACDC.1318 Andy Mathe recounted that one day he was
sitting in his cell talking to another detainee when a guard walked in.1319 The other detainee did
not stop talking and the guard told him to get up and put his hands on the wall.1320 When he did
so, the guard kicked his legs to spread them further apart and the detainee fell on the floor and
banged his head.1321
b. Retaliatory Behavior by Guards
Detainees believe that guards are unnecessarily harsh on the detainees for small infractions.1322
Cristian Morales told the ACLU of Georgia that detainees are put in segregation for 30 days for
small disciplinary problems such as not making their beds.1323 Edwin Edgold Omoregbe added
that the guards do not treat detainees well and will put someone on lockdown for even the
slightest infraction.1324
c. Grievance Procedure
Five detainees interviewed by the ACLU of Georgia had filed grievances. None of the detainees
we spoke with seemed satisfied with the grievance process.1325 In 2009, Ebong Enobony wrote a
106

grievance to ICE and never got a response.1326 In 2010, Cristian Morales filed a grievance
against the guard who called him a “roach” but he never received a response.1327 Behrouz
Salamat submitted a grievance when he was not given a razor but stated that no one responded in
“any substantial way.”1328 In 2011, Yassine Sanhaji also filed a grievance, but he claims that the
whole process is faulty because ICE always sides with officials at the facility.1329 When we asked
Damien Alvarez if he or any other detainees received any responses to their grievances, he
replied “it never happens.”1330 Along with the inadequacy and lack of transparency of the
grievance process, some detainees are also afraid to use it. Andy Mathe told the ACLU of
Georgia that he does not feel comfortable filing grievances because he does not want any the
guards to have anything to use against him.1331
Inadequate grievance procedures violate detainees’ right to an effective grievance procedure.
The fact that two detainees filed grievances but never received any type of response violates their
right to “receive a prompt response within a reasonable time.”1332 In addition, in 2009, ICE’s
Detention Standard Review found that there was no adequate grievance procedure in place for
those who are “illiterate, disabled, or non-English speaking.”1333

107

Detainee Deaths at Georgia Detention Centers
From 2003 until October 2011, 126 detainees died while in ICE detention.1334 Three detainees
have died in Georgia detention centers while in ICE custody between 2008 and 2011: Pedro
Gumayagay, Roberto Medina Martinez, and Miguel Hernandez.1335 All three of these deaths
occurred at facilities run by Corrections Corporation of America. 1336
On January 29, 2008, Pedro Gumayagay died while detained at Stewart.1337 According to ICE,
Pedro Gumayagay’s death was caused by metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lungs.1338
The next year, another man perished while detained at the Stewart Detention Center. Roberto
Medina Martinez, who had been in the U.S. for twelve years, was 39 years old when he died in
ICE’s custody on March 11, 2009. He left behind his wife and three children.1339 Roberto
Medina Martinez died of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that is usually caused
by a viral infection and is often treatable.1340
An investigation conducted per a request by the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
revealed that upon intake, on February 18, 2009, Mr. Medina’s chest x-ray indicated that he had
low lung volumes and lower lobe atelectasis, which is a collapse of portions of the lung.1341 The
physician who conducted the investigation classified atelectasis as a serious medical need and
one which “without timely medical intervention will cause … death.”1342 Despite clear evidence
of this condition, neither the nurse nor the physician assistant referred Mr. Medina for
treatment.1343 In addition, staff erroneously noted in Mr. Medina’s file that his x-ray was
normal.1344
The possibility for medical intervention to address the infection prior to Medina’s death was lost
when, in violation of medical standards, the facility’s physician failed to review his intake
medical examination information.1345 An investigation conducted following the death discovered
that the physician was systematically failing to conduct reviews of medical examination
information, thereby jeopardizing the health of the entire detention center population.1346 When
asked why the physician did not review Medina’s medical examination, the physician stated that
“she felt overwhelmed and wouldn't possibly have the time to review all Physical Examinations
performed by RNs.”1347
Miguel Hernandez, a 54 year-old El Salvadorian national detained at NGDC, died on April 28,
2011. 1348 On the day he died, Miguel complained of “severe left calf pain, which started three
days ago after shackles were too tight during a transfer from other facility,” and had an elevated
temperature of 101.1 degrees Fahrenheit and was taken to the Northeast Georgia Medical Center
(NGMC).1349 He was released back to NGDC later that day.1350 While in a medical holding cell
back at NGDC, Miguel Hernandez began to suffer from pain and shortness of breath.1351 He
became disoriented, began foaming at the mouth and vomiting, and then lost consciousness.1352
At approximately 8:25 p.m., medical transport was called to bring him to NGMC and at 8:45
p.m., a medical emergency was called.1353 A nurse at NGDC began to administer CPR while
108

waiting for the ambulance to arrive.1354 EMS arrived at approximately 8:50 p.m. and the
ambulance departed at 9:24 p.m.1355 Miguel Hernandez was admitted to the emergency room at
9:41 p.m. and was pronounced dead on arrival.1356 An investigation launched by DHS OIG found
that Miguel Hernandez had suffered an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).1357 Miguel
Hernandez’s death marked the eighth death in ICE custody in fiscal year 2011.1358

109

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
A. Conclusions
This report documents various serious abuses in Georgia detention centers requiring immediate
action. For the reasons set forth in the report, the conditions documented by the ACLU of
Georgia violate detainees’ constitutional and human rights as well as ICE standards.
These findings also confirm the problems inherent to detention of immigrants in privately run
detention centers. There is deep-seated tension between the profit-making aims of CCA and
Detention Management, LLC and what the American values of justice and liberty demand –
humane conditions for those detained and releasing immigrants who pose no danger or flight
risk.
B. Recommendations
1. Overall Recommendations
·

Mandatory detention of immigrants must end;

·

ICE should employ greater use of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that immigrants who
pose no danger or flight risk are released from detention;

·

ICE should provide meaningful bond hearings to all eligible detainees;

·

ICE should make greater use of alternatives to detention, especially community-based
approaches;

·

ICE should promulgate a set of strengthened detention standards which are binding on all
facilities holding immigrant detainees;

·

ICE should terminate contracts with facilities that fail to meet its standards.
a. Due Process

·

Apprehended non-citizens should have the opportunity to consult with legal counsel
before consenting to a stipulated order of removal;

·

Adequate interpretation must be provided throughout the deportation process by qualified
and independent interpreters who are not detainees themselves;

·

Lists of pro bono and consulate numbers must be up-to-date and distributed to every
detainee upon his or her detention;

·

Law libraries must be made more accessible;

110

·

Information in law libraries must be up-to-date with access to updated online legal
information;

·

Visits with attorneys should be contact visits so as to not violate attorney-client
confidentiality through having the guards exchange documents between attorneys and the
detainees;

·

Attorney-client calls must not be monitored under any circumstances.
b. Transfer of detainees

·

ICE should stop transferring out-of-state detainees to Stewart and Irwin given their
remote locations and inadequate access to legal representation.
c. Living Conditions

·

ICE should promptly require that all facilities abide by at least the 2008 PBNDS,
including through renegotiation of existing contracts, and also set short-term target dates
for implementing the 2011 PBNDS standards in all facilities;

·

Visits with family and friends should be contact visits to better fit a civil detention model;

·

Phone cards should be reasonably priced and when detainees cannot afford a phone card,
they should be allowed to use the phone on a pro bono basis;

·

Facilities should always provide detainees with new underwear;

·

Facilities should have a bilingual guard present in every unit and during every shift in
order to facilitate communication with the detainees, and all unit managers should be able
to speak Spanish;

·

The food quality must improve significantly, and in particular, care must be taken to
ensure that detainees are not served expired or undercooked food;

·

Detainees must be provided with medically and religiously appropriate diets;

·

Meals should be served at regular meal hours and detainees should be given adequate
amounts and time to eat;

·

All detainees including those in segregation must be afforded outdoor recreation at least
five days per week.
d. Medical and Mental Care

·

Medical unit staff should be bilingual and stop using other detainees as interpreters;

111

·

Each facility should employ at least one doctor and one psychiatrist to work a minimum
of five days per week at each facility;

·

Detainees with mental disabilities should not be put in segregation under any
circumstances;

·

Detainees seeking non-emergency care should be seen within 48 hours.
e. Abuse of Power

·

The grievance process must be made more transparent and accessible. This would
include providing detainees with a copy of any grievance forms and decisions of the
disciplinary committee. In addition, complaints filed with the Department of Homeland
Security’s Office of Inspector General or its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
should be responded to, even if DHS OIG or CRCL ultimately decide not to take action.
Segregation
o Detainees should not be placed in segregation for more than 15 days per
recommendation of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture;
o Safeguards must be put in place to ensure that segregation is not used as a means
of retaliation by the guards and that regular evaluations of detainees in
segregation are performed by mental health professionals with the authority to
recommend an end to segregation.

2. Facility-Specific Recommendations
a. Stewart Detention Center
·

Stewart Immigration Court should end mass deportation hearings;

·

ICE should stop detaining immigrants at this facility given the extent of the violations
and the remote location of the facility.
b. North Georgia Detention Center

·

The facility’s administration should modify the “Notification to Facility Visitors
(Attorney)” form so that it clearly states that confidential information must be released to
the warden only in the event that it would affect the security and the welfare of the
facility population;1359

·

A gynecologist must be employed for female detainees, even if it is only on an on-call
basis;

112

·

Detainees who choose to enroll in the voluntary work program must be paid minimum
wage.
c. Irwin County Detention Center

·

ICE should stop detaining immigrants at the Irwin County Detention Center given its
remote location and the fact that it does not fit ICE’s new detention model focusing on
civil detention at facilities closer to urban centers;

·

Plans for a courtroom with telephonic appearances at the Atlanta Immigration Court must
not go forward;

·

Detention Management, LLC staff should provide new underwear to female and male
detainees and not used or dirty underwear;

·

Detention Management, LLC should replace the current law library system with one that
allows detainees to access, research, write, print, and mail legal documents without long
delays.
d. Atlanta City Detention Center

·

The City of Atlanta Department of Corrections should provide outdoor recreation to
detainees;

·

ICE should require the City of Atlanta Department of Corrections to abide by ICE
PBNDS as a baseline for treatment of detainees at the Atlanta City Detention
Center.1360 1361

113

END NOTES
·
1

In this report, the term “alien” will not be used unless quoting direct language. Instead, the term “non-citizen” or
“immigrant” will be used throughout the report. For more information on the dehumanizing effects of constant usage
of the terms “alien” and “illegal alien,” see e.g., Kevin R. Johnson, “Aliens” and the U.S. Immigration Laws: The
Social and Legal Construction of Nonpersons, 28 Univ. of Miami Inter-American L. Rev. 263 (1996-97).

2Global

Detention Project, United States Detention Profile (Jan.-June 2007), http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/
countries/americas/united-states/introduction.html.

3 U.S. IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Fact Sheet: Detention Management (Nov. 10, 2011), http://
www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/detention-mgmt.htm.
4

Heather C. West et. al, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2009, 34.
App. Table 20 (2010) (6.8% of adult state prisoners and 16.4% of adult federal prisoners in private prisons in 2009);
Detention Watch Network, The Influence of the Private Prison Industry in Immigration Detention,
www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/ (49% of immigration detainees in private facilities in 2009).

5

The human rights standards cited in this report are derived from regional and international treaties, conventions,
declarations, and customary international law.

6

Corrections Corporations of America, Stewart Detention Center (2008), http://www.cca.com/facility/stewartdetention-center; see also Jeremy Redmon, Stewart Facility Houses More Illegal Immigrants than Any Other State,
ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION, January 17, 2011.
7

Corrections Corporation of America operates the Stewart Detention Center and the North Georgia Detention
Center. Detention Management, LLC operates the Irwin County Detention Center.

8

From 2008 to 2012, the ACLU of Georgia interviewed a total of 68 detainees: 28 at the Stewart Detention Center
(Stewart); 15 at North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC); 13 at the Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin); and 12
at the Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC). One Irwin detainee was interviewed twice, in 2011 and 2012. Two
ACDC detainees were interviewed three times between 2010 and 2012. The vast majority of interviews were
conducted in person at the four detention centers. Additional information was obtained through speaking to
detainees’ families and reviewing documentation provided by detainees and their families. Detainees interviewed
included those who had received their Notice to Appear (NTA) and were awaiting removal hearings, those who
were issued orders of removal and were awaiting deportation, and those filing for different forms of relief including
voluntary departure, cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal.

9

Human Rights First, Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.S. Immigration Detention System (2011), http://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and-Jumpsuits-report.pdf; see also Dr. Dora Schriro,
U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations 2 (Oct. 6, 2009),
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.
10 Detainees at all four detention centers are housed in large rooms, some with individual cells for sleeping, with
communal sinks, toilets, and showers. Detainees wear colored jumpsuits and are under constant supervision of
guards.
11

Concerns include inadequate living conditions such as overcrowding and hygiene concerns, poor water and food
quality, mistreatment of detainees by guards, and insufficient medical and mental health care.
12

Corrections Corporation of America, Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facility/stewart-detentioncenter; see also Jeremy Redmon, Stewart facility houses more illegal immigrants than any other state, ATLANTA
JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, January 17, 2011.
13 According

to one report, facilities operated by private prison companies currently house nearly 50% of the more
than 30,000 immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at any given time. Detention
Watch Network, The Influence of the Private Prison Industry in Immigration Detention, http://
www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/privateprisons.
14

Stewart Detention Center, North Georgia Detention Center, and Irwin County Detention Center.

114

15

Corrections Corporation of America, 2010 Letter to Shareholders, 1(2010).

16

See David Shapiro, American Civil Liberties Union, Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass
Incarceration 5-6 (Nov. 2011), www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf. The report states that
only the private prison industry benefits from these facilities while privatized detention costs governments,
communities, and taxpayers.
17

Id.

18

Based on interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia from 2008 to February 2012 with detainees, detainees’
family members, immigration attorneys, and firsthand observations of the facilities.
19

See American Civil Liberties Union, Slamming the Courthouse Doors: Denial of Access to Justice and Remedy in
America 21 (Dec. 2010), http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/HRP_UPRsubmission_annex.pdf.

20

Id.

21

Id.

22 Interview with Angela Kelley conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin County Detention Center on March 10,
2011; Interview with Gainesville-based immigration attorney conducted by ACLU of Georgia on March 22, 2011.
23 Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin County Detention Center
on March 10, 2011 and Interview with Atlanta-based attorney conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28,
2011.
24

TRAC Immigration, U.S. Deportation Outcomes by Charge, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/
court_backlog/deport_outcome_charge.php. In 2011, Georgia had the third largest number of deportation orders
behind only Texas and California.

25

Interviews with Paul and Ido Yelkal conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011 and August
13, 2011. For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul.
26

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

27

Interviews with Pedro Guzman Perez and Dyna Khleang on July 6, 2010 and September 27, 2011 conducted by
the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
28

Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

29 Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistance Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
30

Interview with Dung Dang by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

31

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility on September 30, 2011.

32

Interview with Damien Alvarez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on August 3, 2011.

33

Other areas of concern include deportation officers not speaking detainees’ language. See part VI. “Findings”
section A. “Removal Due Process Concerns” subsection (b)(iii); “Foreign Language Speaking Detainees are at a
Disadvantage during the Removal Process.” Another concern is medical staff not asking intake questions in
detainees’ language. See NGDC section (3)(a)(iii) “Medical Unit has Dearth of Spanish Speaking Staff.” And lastly,
availability of law library textbooks only in English. See NGDC section (1)(c) “Law Library Concerns.”
34

Email from Joshulyn Davis, Captain of Irwin, Re: Attorney Visits (Dec. 6, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU of
Georgia during an attorney’s visit to Irwin on December 7, 2011.

115

35

Email from Pamela Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 19,
2011). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
36

Based on a copy of the attorney visitation form received by ACLU of Georgia during its October 28, 2011 visit to
NGDC. A more detailed discussion of this form is included in the NGDC section 1(b) on “Attorney Visitation.”
37

Interview with Omar Ponce conducted by ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 21, 2010.

38

This information was provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of
ACDC on July 29, 2011.
39

For a full discussion of these standards refer to section (V)(c) “Legal Standards of Detention” in “Regional and
International Human Rights Standards.”
40

Human Rights Watch, A Costly Move: Far and Frequent Transfers Impede Hearings for Immigrant Detainees in
the United States 22 (June 2011), http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0611webwcover.pdf.
41

Id. at 20.

42 Interviews conducted at Stewart by the ACLU of Georgia on August 17, 2009, June 21, 2010, July 6, 2010, June
17, 2011, August 1, 2011, September 24, 2011, and September 27, 2011.
43

Interview with Ignacio Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

44 Josue Cervantes told us that the phone costs approximately $5.00 for twelve minutes out of state or for twenty-six
minutes in state at Stewart. Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011. At
NGDC, Dung Dang has not been able to contact his family in Vietnam to inform them of his detention since
international calls are too expensive. Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on
April 15, 2011.
45

Based on detainee interviews and the ACLU of Georgia’s own observations during facility tours in 2011.

46

For example, the Detainee Handbook at NGDC states that all conversations are subject to being monitored; for
detainees to have unmonitored attorney calls, they must submit a Detainee Request Form to the Unit Manager. North
Georgia Detention Center Detainee Handbook 2 (March 2011 Revision). ACDC and Irwin also have similar
practices. See Atlanta City Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook 22 (August 2010 Revision); Irwin County
Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook 8 (effective August, 2011).
47

Interview with Andy Mathe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 11, 2011.

48

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011 and October 17, 2011.

49

Interview with Javan Jeffrey on September 7, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.

50

Interviews with George Edigin and Andy Mathe on July 7, 2009 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC.

51 Interviews with Roberto Carillo on July 25, 2011 and Ermis Calderone on September 24, 2011, conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
52

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

53 For example, the Warden of NGDC told the ACLU of Georgia that detainees in the segregation unit shower only
on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Based on information from Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and
observations by the ACLU of Georgia during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
54 Interview with Javan Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on September 27, 2011 at Stewart. In response to
this allegation, CCA stated that at no time has Stewart lost water to the entire facility or for an extended period of
time. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

116

55

Interviews with Dulce Bolanos Estrada on March 10, 2011 and Veronica on July 22, 2011, conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at Irwin. For purposes of this report, Veronica wished to be referred by her first name only.
56

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to by her first name only. Interview with Veronica
conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.
57

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011, and Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at
NGDC on October 21, 2011.
58 Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011. In response
to this, CCA stated that hygiene items are distributed on an as needed basis. Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar.
29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
59 When asked to respond, CCA denied that Stewart had any unusual, pervasive, or chronic food issues. Email from
Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
60 Observed during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Stewart on September 7, 2011. Also confirmed by email from Pamela
Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 1, 2011). Obtained by the
ACLU of Georgia via email.
61

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone; observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011; and Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on
September 30, 2011.
62

Interview with Ermis Calderone, Eduardo Zuniga, and Grzegorz Kowalec at Stewart.

63

Interview with Geraldine Ayala by Gainesville-based attorney on behalf of the ACLU of Georgia on November
25, 2011.
64

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at the Irwin County Detention
Center on March 10. 2011.
65

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, Management of Mental Health Cases in
Immigration Detention 15, OIG-11-62 (Mar. 2011).
66

Based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No. 2011-150 filed July 29, 2011. Of the six
complaints that were not closed without any further action, two were from ACDC, one from Irwin, and three from
Stewart.
67

Instances of physical abuse were reported at Stewart and ACDC.

68

Interview with Javan Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

69

Interview with Javan Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

70 Phone Interview with Mrs. Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on September 12, 2011. When the ACLU
of Georgia spoke to Mrs. Jeffrey in January 2012, we learned that Javan Jeffrey was deported in early December.
Mrs. Jeffrey told us that Javan was kept in the segregation unit until he was deported in December 2011. Phone
Interview with Mrs. Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on January 3, 2012. CCA did not directly dispute
this stating that “Detainee Jeffrey was in segregation for disciplinary reasons.” Email from Michael Swinton,
Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
71 Interviews with Arman Garghani on August 17, 2009 and Mikyas Germachew on August 13, 2011, conducted by
the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
72

Interview with Jaime Lara conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 14, 2010.

73

Nina Bernstein, Immigration Detention System Lapses Detailed, N.Y. TIMES, Dec 3, 2009.

117

74

Id.

75

Id. This figure is based upon ICE’s capacity of 33,400 detention beds. See also U.S. DEP‘T OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional
Budget Justification 57 (2011), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-congressional-budget-justificationfy2012.pdf.
76 National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention: Runaway Costs for Immigration Do Not Add
Up to Sensible Policies 1(August 2011).
77 U. N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the
United States of America, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 para 34 (Mar. 5, 3008) (prepared by Jorge Bustamante); see also
Detention Watch Network, The History of Immigration Detention in the U.S., http://
www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/node/2381.
78

Limited exceptions exist that allow for an immigrant’s release before a credible fear determination, including a
medical emergency or a necessary law enforcement objective. 8 C.F.R. § 1235.3(b)(2)(iii).
79

Id.

80

Virginia E. Sloan, Sharon Bradford Franklin, and Laura Olson, The Constitution Project, Recommendations for
Reforming our Immigration Detention System and Promoting Access to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings 13
(Oct. 2009), http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/359.pdf.

81

Migration Policy Institute, Through the Prism of National Security: Major Immigration Policy and Program
Changes in the Decade since 9/11 (Aug. 2011), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS23_Post-9-11policy.pdf; see
also Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Under the
Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations (2011), http://
www.chrgj.org/projects/docs/undertheradar.pdf.

82

Judy Greene & Sunita Patel, The Immigrant Gold Rush: The Profit Motive Behind Immigration Detention
(submitted to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants) (quoting Steve Logan, CEO of Cornell
Corrections, a U.S. Private prison company in a Third Quarter 2011 conference call with analysts).

83

TRAC Immigration, Tracking Outcomes of ICE Deportation Filings, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/263.
Thus far, during FY 2011, there have been only two occasions where ICE alleged that individuals had engaged in
terrorist activities; charges in both cases were dismissed; see also TRAC Immigration, Immigration Backlog Rises
for Another Year, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/269/. According to TRAC, in 2011, a mere 8.3 percent of
the pending caseload was made up of cases which ICE defines as “criminal,” meaning those charged with
misdemeanors or felonies, actions adverse to national security, or aiding terrorism.

84

Georgia is one of a number of states which have passed or attempted to pass bills similar to the infamous Arizona
anti-immigrant bill, SB 1070. HB 87 would compel all people in the state of Georgia, citizens and non-citizens alike,
to carry identification documents on them at all times in order to avoid being detained by the police while proving
their immigration status. The law authorizes the police to demand the identification documents of anyone subject to
an "investigation." Furthermore, this “show me your papers” law gives police officers discretion in choosing who
should be subjected to an investigation of immigration status and in determining what undefined information (other
than a narrow list of enumerated identification documents) is "sufficient" to prove one's identity. This will inevitably
lead to the profiling of anyone who looks or sounds "foreign." These provisions put police officers in the position of
relying on stereotypes and characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or accent in deciding whom to stop and investigate,
and what information is deemed "sufficient" to establish identity. Immigration Impact, States that Passed Arizonastyle Immigration Laws Now Face Costly, Uphill Legal Battles, Immigration Impact (June 2011), http://
immigrationimpact.com/2011/06/03/states-that-passed-arizona-style-immigration-laws-now-face-costly-uphill-legalbattles/; see also ACLU of Georgia, Fact Sheet on House Bill 87, “Show Me Your Papers Provision”, http://
www.acluga.org/news/2011/03/02/aclu-of-georgia-fact-sheet-on-house-bill-87-%E2%80%9Cshow-me-your-papers
%E2%80%9D-legislation; American Civil Liberties Union, Preliminary Analysis on House Bill 87, www.acluga.org/
GeorgiaHB87PreliminaryAnalysis.pdf.

118

85

TRAC Immigration, Detention of Criminal Aliens: What Has Congress Bought? Table 1, http://trac.syr.edu/
immigration/reports/224; see also U.S. DEP‘T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget Justification 102, Table 38, http://
www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-congressional-budget-justification-fy2012.pdf. Of the 387,242 non-citizens
removed in 2010, 218,710 or 57% did not have criminal records. Within the first nine months of 2010, only
approximately 17% of those non-citizens removed were convicted of serious crimes. See also Michele Waslin,
Redefining Criminality: Untangling DHS’ Record High Deportation Numbers, Immigration Impact (Oct. 19, 2011),
http://immigrationimpact.com/2011/10/19/redefining-criminality-untangling-dhs%E2%80%99s-record-highdeportation-numbers; TRAC Immigration, ICE Targets Fewer Criminals in Deportation Proceedings (Dec. 5, 2011),
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/268.

86

Human Rights First, Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.S. Detention System 22 (2011), http://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and-Jumpsuits-report.pdf.

87

Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
(Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.
88 Andrea

Black, ICE, Obama Cannot Build Their Way Out of Detention Crisis, NEW AMERICA MEDIA, March 13,
2011, http://newamericamedia.org/2011/03/ice-obama-cannot-build-their-way-out-of-detention-crisis.php.

89

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. (116 Stat.) 2135.

90

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Endgame: Office of Detention and Removal Strategic Plan,
2003-2012, Form M-592 (Aug. 15, 2003).

91

Detention Watch Network, Endorse the Campaign, http://detentionwatchnetwork.org/DND_endorse.

92 Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
12 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.
93

Id.

94

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due
Process 61-62 (Organization of American States Dec. 2010).

95 Sarah Kate Kramer, Criminal Alien Program Likely to be limited in New York City Jails (Oct. 4, 2011), http://
news.feetintwoworlds.org/2011/10/04/criminal-alien-program-likely-to-be-limited-at-new-york-city-jails.
96

Id.

97

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Criminal Alien Program, http://www.ice.gov/criminal-alienprogram.
98

Congress has made its priority for removing such individuals clear by declaring that ICE “should have no greater
immigration enforcement priority than to remove deportable aliens with serious criminal histories from the United
States ….” House Committee on Appropriations, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2010, 11th Cong., 1st Sess, 2009, H.
Rep. 111-157, 49-50.
99

Brian Doherty, Criminal Alien Program: Capturing Mostly Non-Criminals (Oct. 7, 2009), http://reason.com/blog/
2009/10/07/criminal-alien-program-capturi.

100

Id.

101

See, e.g., University of California—Berkeley, The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity &
Diversity, The C.A.P. Effect 2,4 (Sept. 2009), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/policybrief_irving_FINAL.pdf.
102 Aarti

Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz and Lisa Chavez, University of California—Berkeley, The Chief Justice Earl
Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and
Due Process, 1 (Oct. 2011), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.

119

103 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Secure Communities, http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities.

104 Aarti

Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz and Lisa Chavez, University of California—Berkeley, The Chief Justice Earl
Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and
Due Process, 1 (Oct. 2011), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
105

Id. at 2. See also IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Secure Communities, http://www.ice.gov/
secure_communities.
106

Immigration Policy Center, Secure Communities: A Fact Sheet (Oct. 2010), http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/
just-facts/secure-communities-fact-sheet.
107 Aarti

Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz and Lisa Chavez, University of California—Berkeley, The Chief Justice Earl
Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and
Due Process 1-2 (Oct. 2011), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
108

Id. at 2.

109

Id.

110

National Immigration Forum, Secure Communities, http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/
Secure_Communities.pdf.
111

Id.

112 Aarti

Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz and Lisa Chavez, University of California—Berkeley, The Chief Justice Earl
Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and
Due Process 2 (Oct. 2011), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
113

Id. at 4.

114

Id. at 9.

115 Id. at 9; see e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Memorandum From John Morton, Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal
of Aliens (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf; Dr. Schriro, U.S.
DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration Detention Overview and
Recommendations 2, 4 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf.
116

Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Letter to President Obama Calling for Moratorium (May 5, 2011), cited in
National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Insecure Communities: Press Packet (Mar. 2011), http://ndlon.org/pdf/
scommbrief.pdf, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf.
117

Julia Preston, States Resisting Program Central to Obama’s Immigration Strategy, N.Y. TIMES, May 25, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us/06immigration.html.

118

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Task Force on Secure Communities Findings and Recommendations (Sept.
2011), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac-task-force-on-secure-communities-findings-and-recommendationsreport.pdf; see also Julia Preston, Deportation Program Draws More Criticism, N.Y.TIMES, September 15, 2011.

119 Immigration reform: Scrap Secure Communities, L.A. TIMES, December 19, 2011, http://www.latimes.com/news/
opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20111219,0,4821047.story; see also Congressman Jose Serrano, Letter to Director of
ICE, John Morton objecting to Secure Communities Policy (Aug. 10, 2011), http://serrano.house.gov/press-release/
serrano-objects-new-secure-communities-policy. Criticisms have mounted since the program has been shown to also
lead to the detention of U.S. citizens. Aarti Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz and Lisa Chavez, University of California—
Berkeley, The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, Secure Communities by the Numbers:
An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process, 1 (Oct. 2011), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/
Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf; see also Julia Preston, Immigration Crackdown Also Snares
Americans, N.Y. TIMES, December 14, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/measures-to-capture-illegal-aliens-nab-citizens.html?pagewanted=all.

120

120

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (Aug. 18, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm.
121

Id.

122

Id.

123 Southern Poverty Law Center, Racial Profiling, http://www.splcenter.org/publications/under-siege-life-lowincome-latinos-south/2-racial-profiling; see also Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, The
Persistence of Racial Profiling in Gwinnett: Time for Accountability, Transparency, and an End to 287(g) (Mar.
2010), www.acluga.org/gwinnettracialreportfinal.pdf; Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Terror
and Isolation in Cobb: How Unchecked Police Power under 287(g) Has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public
Safety 7 (Oct. 2009), www.acluga.org/racial%20profiling%20Cobb.pdf.
124Detention

Watch Network, Letter to President Obama Demanding an End to the 287(g) Program (Aug. 25, 2009),
http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/node/2458.

125

Daniel González, Arpaio to Be Investigated Over Alleged Violations 16, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, September 26,
2009, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/11/20090311investigation0311.html; see also
Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Terror and Isolation in Cobb: How Unchecked Police Power
under 287(g) Has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public Safety 7 (Oct. 2009), www.acluga.org/racial
%20profiling%20Cobb.pdf.

126 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (Aug. 18, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm.
127U.S.

DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Secretary Napolitano Announces New Agreement for State and Local
Immigration Enforcement Partnerships & Adds 11 New Agreements (July 2009), http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/
releases/pr_1247246453625.shtm; see also Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Terror and
Isolation in Cobb: How Unchecked Police Power under 287(g) Has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public
Safety 7 (Oct. 2009), www.acluga.org/racial%20profiling%20Cobb.pdf.

128

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program
Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws, GAO-09-109 (Jan. 30, 2009), http://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-109; see also U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General,
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements (Mar. 2010), www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_10-63_Mar10.pdf.

129 Brantley Hargrove, Rhode Island Gov. Ends 287(g) Agreement With State Police, THE NASHVILLE SCENE,
January 6, 2011, http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/01/06/rhode-island-gov-ends-287g-agreementwith-state-police; see also Immigration Policy Organization, Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws Through
287(g), http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/local-enforcement-immigration-laws-through-287g-program.
130

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section
287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act, http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm.
131

Id; see also Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, The Persistence of Racial Profiling in Gwinnett:
Time for Accountability, Transparency, and an End to 287(g) 5 (March 2010), www.acluga.org/
gwinnettracialreportfinal.pdf; Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Terror and Isolation in Cobb:
How Unchecked Police Power under 287(g) Has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public Safety (Oct. 2009),
www.acluga.org/racial%20profiling%20Cobb.pdf.
132

Id.

133

Id.

134

Id; see also Detention Watch Network, Letter to President Obama Demanding an End to the 287(g) Program
(Aug. 25, 2009), http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/node/2458.

121

135

See Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Terror and Isolation in Cobb: How Unchecked Police
Power under 287(g) Has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public Safety 1(Oct. 2009), www.acluga.org/racial
%20profiling%20Cobb.pdf; Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU Foundation of Georgia, The Persistence of Racial
Profiling in Gwinnett: Time for Accountability, Transparency, and an End to 287(g) 8 (March 2010),
www.acluga.org/gwinnettracialreportfinal.pdf.
136

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Findings Letter (Dec.
15, 2011), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/mcso_findletter_12-15-11.pdf; see also Jacques Billeaud,
Feds Issue Scathing Report against AZ Sheriff, ASSOCIATED PRESS, December 15, 2011, http://hosted.ap.org/
dynamic/stories/U/US_ARIZONA_SHERIFF_CIVIL_RIGHTS?
SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.
137 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Findings Letter (Dec.
15, 2011), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/mcso_findletter_12-15-11.pdf.
138 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney, (Dec. 15, 2011),
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20111215-napolitano-statement-doj-maricopa-county.shtm.
139

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, FY 2012 Budget in Brief (2012), www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget-bibfy2012.pdf.

140

Keith Rushing, Rights Groups Say New 287(g) Program in TN and SC to Lead to Bias, Rights Working Group
(Mar. 21, 2012), http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/content/rights-groups-say-new-287g-program-tn-and-sc-leadbias.
141

U. N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the
United States of America para 59, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 (Mar. 5, 3008)(prepared by Jorge Bustamante).

142

Id. at para 60.

143

Id.

144

Id. at para 61.

145

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Home Land Security Immigration Plan Press Release (Apr. 2006), http://
www.pacificasynod.org/HomeLandSecurity.pdf.

146

Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration
Detention Overview and Recommendations (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/icedetention-rpt.pdf.

147

INA §§ 235(b)(1)(A)(i) & (ii), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) & (iii).

148

INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), 8 U.S.C. §§ 235(b)(4)(iii), 1235(b)(4)(ii).

149

Human Rights First, U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking Protection, Finding Prison 37-38 (Apr. 2009),
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detention-report.pdf.
150

See Felice D. Gaer & Richard D. Land, Let’s Reform Detention System for Asylum Seekers, HOUSTON
CHRONICLE, December 14, 2011, http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Let-s-reform-detention-system-forasylum-seekers-2403563.php; see also: UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
Report on Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal (2005), http://www.uscirf.gov/government-relations/otheradvocacy-materials/3395-uscirfs-expedited-removal-study.html.
151 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 Jan. 4, 2010), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/pdf/11002.1hd-parole_of_arriving_aliens_found_credible_fear.pdf.
152

INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(ii).

122

153

8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b).

154

Id.

155

Id.

156 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Fact Sheet: Worksite Enforcement, http://www.ice.gov/news/
library/factsheets/worksite.htm.
157

Id.

158

Id.

159 Andorra

Bruno, Immigration-Related Worksite Enforcement: Performance Measures, http://assets.opencrs.com/
rpts/R40002_20110301.pdf.
160

Id. at 7.

161

Id.

162

Judy Greene and Sunita Patel, The Immigrant Gold Rush: The Profit Motive Behind Immigrant Detention 2,
submitted to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants.

163

Id at 1.

164

U.S. DEP‘T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, Fiscal
Year 2012 Congressional Budget Justification 925 (2011), www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-congressional-budgetjustification-fy2012.pdf - 2011-02-14.

165

Donald Kerwin and Serena Yi-Ying Lin, Migration Policy Institute, Immigrant Detention: Can ICE Meet Its
Legal Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities? 6 (Sept. 2009), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/
detentionreportSept1009.pdf.
166

Chad C. Haddal & Alison Siskin, Congressional Research Service, Immigration-Related Detention: Current
Legislative Issues 12 (2010); see also David Shapiro, American Civil Liberties Union, Banking on Bondage: Private
Prisons and Mass Incarceration (Nov. 2011), www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf.
167

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010
(June 2011), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement-ar-2010.pdf.

168

Pew Hispanic Center, U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade (Sept. 1,
2010), http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=126.

169

Id.

170

Virginia E. Sloan, Sharon Bradford Franklin, and Laura Olson, The Constitution Project, Recommendations for
Reforming our Immigration Detention System and Promoting Access to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings 14
(Oct. 2009), http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/359.pdf.
171

Id.

172 Detention Watch Network and Mills Legal Clinic, Community-Based Alternatives to Immigration Detention 9
(Aug. 2010), http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/clinics/immigrantsrights/pdf/DWN_ATD_Report_FINAL.pdf.
173

Donald Kerwin & Serena Yi-Ying Ling, Migration Policy Institute, Immigrant Detention Can ICE Meet Its Legal
Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities? 7 (Sept. 2009), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/
detentionreportSept1009.pdf.
174

Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to
Sensible Policies (Aug. 2011), http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf.

123

175

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Secure Communities Quarterly Report (May 14, 2010), http://
ccrjustice.org/files/10.%202nd%20Quarter%20FY2010%20Report%20to%20Congress%20(part%201%20of
%202).pdf.

176

David Shapiro, American Civil Liberties Union, Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration
(Nov. 2011), www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf.
177

See Paul Ashton, Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison
Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies (Jun. 22, 2011), http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2614.
178 Detention Watch Network, The Influence of the Private Prison Industry in the Immigration Detention Business 1
(May 2011), http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/detentionwatchnetwork.org/files/ PrivatePrisonPDFFINAL%205-11-11.pdf.
179

Id. at 14.

180

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Fact Sheet: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request 10 (Feb. 14, 2011) http://
www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1297696999494.shtm.

181

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, List of Deaths in ICE Custody, October 2003 - October 31,
2011, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/detaineedeaths2003-present.pdf.
182 American

Civil Liberties Union, Immigration Detention Analysis (Aug. 2010), http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/
2010-8-6-ImmigrationDetentionAnalysis.pdf.
183 American

Civil Liberties Union, DHS Announces 11 Previously Unreported Deaths in Immigration Detention
(Aug. 17, 2009), http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-prisoners-rights-prisoners-rights-prisoners-rights/dhsannounces-11-previously.
184

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Unlocking Liberty: a Way Forward for U.S. Immigration and
Detention 11 (Oct. 2011), http://www.lirs.org/site/c.nhLPJ0PMKuG/b.7514601/k.68E6/
Alternatives_to_Detention.htm.
185

Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration
Detention Overview and Recommendations 20 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/icedetention-rpt.pdf.

186

ISAP has a capacity for 6,000 non-citizens daily and consists of using telephonic reporting, radio frequency, and
global positioning tracking in addition to unannounced home visits, curfew checks, and employment verification. Id.
at 20.
187

ESR, which has a capacity for 7,000 non-citizens daily, consists of telephonic reporting, radio frequency, and
global positioning tracking and unannounced home visits by contract staff. Id.
188

EM, which has a capacity for 5,000 non-citizens daily, relies upon telephonic reporting, radio frequency, and/or
global positioning tracking. Id.
189

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ICE Detention Reform: Principles and Next Steps (Oct. 6, 2009), http://
www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/reform-2009reform.htm.

190

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Secure Communities Quarterly Report (May 14, 2010), http://
ccrjustice.org/files/10.%202nd%20Quarter%20FY2010%20Report%20to%20Congress%20(part%201%20of
%202).pdf.

191

Id.

124

192

See Vera Institute of Justice’s Appearance Assistance Program (AAP) and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service Program. For more information, see Vera Institute of Justice, Testing Community Supervision for the INS: An
Evaluation of the Appearance Assistance Program 2, Volume I (Aug. 2000); LIRS Unlocking Liberty: A Way
Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy (Oct. 18, 2011), http://www.lirs.org/atf/cf/%7Ba9ddba5ec6b5-4c63-89de-91d2f09a28ca%7D/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.PDF.
193

Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration
Detention Overview and Recommendations 2, 4 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/
ice-detention-rpt.pdf; see also Rania Khalek, How Private Prisons Game the System, ALTERNET, December 1, 2011,
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/how_private_prisons_game_the_system/.

194

Id. at 19.

195

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Fact Sheet, ICE Detention and Reform: Principles and Next Steps (Oct. 6,
2009), http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1254839781410.shtm.

196

Id.

197

Sian OFaolain, Rights Working Group, A Decade of Detention: A Post-9/11 Immigrant Dragnet (Sept. 13, 2011),
http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/content/a-decade-detention-post-911-immigrant-dragnet.
198

Corrections Corporation of America, Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facility/stewart-detentioncenter; see also Jeremy Redmon, Stewart facility houses more illegal immigrants than any other state, ATLANTA
JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, January 17, 2011; Gwyneth Stuart, Cashing in on a Crackdown (July 28, 2011), http://
clatl.com/atlanta/georgias-thriving-private-prison-industry-boost-from-new-immigration-law/Content?oid=3700500.
199 Corrections Corporations of America, Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facility/stewart-detentioncenter/; see also Gwyneth Stuart, Cashing in on a Crackdown (July 28, 2011), http://clatl.com/atlanta/georgiasthriving-private-prison-industry-boost-from-new-immigration-law/Content?oid=3700500.
200

Id.

201 Corrections Corporations of America, Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facility/stewart-detentioncenter.
202

North Georgia Detention Center Detainee Handbook, 2 (revised 3/2/11); ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility
on October 21, 2011.
203 Jeremy Redmon, Consolidation effort sends detainees to Georgia, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION,
December 16, 2010, http://www.correctionsone.com/homeland-security/articles/3083565-Consolidation-effortsends-detainees-to-Georgia.
204 U.S. IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Secure Communities: IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Statistic
through September 30, 2011 5 (2011), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/sc-stats/nationwide_interoperability_statsfy2011-to-date.pdf.
205

Id at 19-20.

206

U.S. IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Secure Communities: Activated Jurisdictions (updated
January 24, 2012) 5, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/sc-activated.pdf; see also Jeremy Redmon,
Fingerprinting program targeting illegal immigrants now running across Georgia, THE ATLANTA JOURNALCONSTITUTION, December 8, 2011, http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/fingerprint-programtargeting-illegal-1254409.html.
207 U.S. IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Secure Communities: IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Statistic
through December 31, 2011 4 (2011), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/sc-stats/nationwide_interoperability_statsfy2012-to-date.pdf.
208

Id. at 10-13.

125

209

Id. at 11.

210

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section
287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act (Sept. 2, 2011), http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm.
211

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 287(g) Master Statistics: Identified Aliens for Removal (Oct.
31, 2010), www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/287g-masterstats2010oct31.pdf.
212Human

Rights Watch, A Costly Move: Far and Frequent Transfers Impede Hearings for Immigrant Detainees in
the United States 1 (June 2011), http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0611webwcover.pdf.
213

Id. at 22.

214

Id. at 20.

215

Id. at 31.

216

Id. at 17.

217

Id. at 18.

218

Id. at 1.

219

Id. at 26.

220

Id. at 27.

221

Id. at 3.

222

Id.

223

General Board of Pension and Health Benefits, Faith-Based Investors Take a Closer Look at Private Prisons, On
Your Behalf (July 2011), http://www.gbophb.org/sri_funds/oyb/201107.asp?print=y.
224

Id.

225

Corrections Corporations of America, CCA Facilities and Locations, http://www.cca.com/facilities/?state=GA.

226

Id.

227

Id.

228

Based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No. 10-1427, filed Dec. 3, 2009.

229

For a full discussion on Roberto Medina Martinez’s death, refer to the section below on “Detainee Deaths at
Georgia Detention Centers.”
230

Phillip Mattera, Mafruza Khan, and Stephen Nathan, Corrections Corporations of America: A Critical Look at Its
First Twenty Years iv-v (Dec. 2003), http://brentdharris.com/files/cca_report.pdf (December 2003); see also Lauren
Markham, Vigil at Stewart Detention Center to Call for Human Treatment of Detainees (Nov. 17, 2010), http://
news.change.org/stories/vigil-at-stewart-detention-center-to-call-for-humane-treatment-of-detainees.
231 Rebecca Boone, ACLU suing Corrections Corp. of America, ASSOCIATED PRESS, March 11, 2010, http://
www.correctionsone.com/treatment/articles/2017869-ACLU-suing-Corrections-Corp-of-America.
232

Nina Bernstein, Immigrant’s Death Shows Hard Path to Detention Reform, N.Y. TIMES, August 4, 2011, http://
www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/nyregion/21detain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp.

233

Many detainees at Stewart relayed accounts regarding being placed in segregation as retaliation by CCA guards.
See Stewart Detainee Interviews: Javan Jeffrey, Jaime Lara, Arman Garghani, Mikyas Germachew, and Grzegorz
Kowalec conducted by the ACLU of Georgia.

126

234

Jeremy Redmon, Consolidation effort sends detainees to Georgia, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION,
December 16, 2010, http://www.correctionsone.com/homeland-security/articles/3083565-Consolidation-effortsends-detainees-to-Georgia.
235

Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 78 (1976).

236

8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(2); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(11)(A), which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security “to make payments from such funds appropriated for the administration and enforcement of the
laws relating to immigration, naturalization and alien registration for necessary clothing, medical care, necessary
guard hire, and the housing, care, and security of persons detained by the Service pursuant to Federal law under an
agreement with a State or political subdivision of a State.”
237

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2000 Detention Operations Manual, http://www.ice.gov/
detention-standards/2000.
238

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Fact Sheet: ICE Performance Based National Detention
Standards (Nov 20, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/detention_standards.htm.
239

Id.

240

Id.

241 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008; PBNDS states that “Procedures in italics are
specifically required for SPCs and CDFs. IGSAs must conform to these procedures or adopt, adapt or establish
alternatives, provided they meet or exceed the intent represented by these procedures.”
242

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Detention Reform Accomplishments, http://www.ice.gov/
detention-reform/detention-reform.htm.

243

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Fact Sheet: ICE Detention Standards (Feb. 24, 2012), http://
www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/facilities-pbnds.htm.
244

Id.

245 Although

the format of PBNDS 2011 mirrors PBNDS 2008’s seven categories, the ACLU of Georgia notes that
PBNDS 2011 added sections under Part 4 – Care including “Medical Care for Women” and “Significant SelfHarm.” U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based
National Detention Standards, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2011/.
246

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).

247

Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 78 (1976).

248

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

249

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1993).

250

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). 837 (1994).

251

See Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100 (1903); see also Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565, 568–69 (6th
Cir. 1975).
252

See Aguilera-Enriquez, 516 F.2d at 568. Notably, the ACLU is currently litigating a class action lawsuit on
behalf of immigration detainees with mental disabilities in Arizona, California, and Washington, who because of
their disabilities lack the mental competence to represent themselves in removal proceedings. In December 2010,
the district court ruled on plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction and held that the Rehabilitation Act requires the
government to provide a “qualified representative” for two individual plaintiffs who are part of the class. FrancoGonzalez v. Holder -- F.Supp.2d --, 2010 WL 5874537 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 27, 2010). The district court granted class
certification in November 2011 and unsealed the order in December 2011.

127

253

INA § 241(a)(2). Congress included this provision in IIRAIRA after government findings that immigration
authorities were able to remove only 13% of removable non-citizens when such individuals were released prior to
their planned removal from the United States. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, Memorandum from Glenn A. Fine, Inspector
General, DOJ, to Michael J. Garcia, Acting Commissioner, INS (Feb. 25, 2003).
254

INA § 241(a)(1).

255

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, ICE’s Compliance with
Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal From the United States 3 (Feb. 2007).

256

See Virginia E. Sloan, Sharon Bradford Franklin, and Laura Olson, The Constitution Project, Recommendations
for Reforming our Immigration Detention System and Promoting Access to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings 26
(Oct. 2009), http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/359.pdf. India, Pakistan, China and Haiti routinely hold
detainees in post-removal detention for more than a year. For nationals of entirely “non-cooperative” countries—
countries such as Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, with which the United States has no repatriation agreement—detention
times are shorter because it is readily established that removal is not foreseeable. U.S. DEPT’ OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, ICE’s Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of
Removal From the United States 11-13 OIG-07-28 (Feb. 2007).
257

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); see also U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur
on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the United States of America para 21, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 (Mar. 5,
3008)(prepared by Jorge Bustamante).
258

8 C.F.R. § 241.4(e). DHS may consider a number of factors in determining flight risk or danger, including
whether the detainee has been disciplined while in custody, the severity and nature of any past criminal convictions,
the detainee’s mental health, evidence of rehabilitation, the detainee’s ties, if any, to the United States, and any other
relevant information; 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(f).
259

8 C.F.R. § 241.4(k)(4)(i); U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, ICE’s Compliance
with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal From the United States 4, OIG-07-28 (Feb. 2007); 8
C.F.R. § 241.13(c).

260

United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment No. 21, Article 10, Humane Treatment of
Prisoners Deprived of their Liberty, para 3,UN Doc. HRI/Gen/1/Rev.1 (1994).
261

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR] entered into force,
March 23, 1976. The United States ratified the covenant on June 8, 1992; see also Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Ongoing Struggle for Human Rights-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.udhr.org/
history/timeline.htm.
262

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, S. Exec. Doc. O, 81-1
(1949), 78 U.N.T.S. 277, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?
src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en.
263

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 21, December 1965, G.
A. res. 2106, entered into force January 4, 1969, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?
src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en.
264

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [hereinafter CAT],
adopted December 10, 1984, G.A. res. 39/46, U.N. Doc. A/39/51, entered into force June 26, 1987, ratified by the
United States on October 21, 1994.
265

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, July. 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150,
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf. Note that the U.S. has not ratified the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, but only the 1967 Protocol which provides a definition of “refugee” and removes
geographical and time limits of the original Convention, which limited the treaty’s application to WWII European
refugees. See United Nations Committee on Human Rights, The War Behind Which Refugees Can Shelter, http://
www.unhcr.se/SE /Protect_refugees/pdf/magazine.pdf.

128

266

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, at 71, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 1st plen. mtg., U.N. Doc.
A/810 (Dec. 12. 1948); see also The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, History of the Document, http://
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml; International Standards that Relate to Detentions, Corrections, and
Prisons, http://inprol.org/files/CR10002.pdf.
267

United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, August 30, 1955, G.A. Res. 45/11, UN
Doc A/RES/45/110 (Dec. 14, 1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html [Hereinafter “UN
Standard Minimum Rules”]; see also United Nations, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Imprisonment, GA Res. 43/173, UN Doc.A/RES/43/173 (Dec. 9, 1988), http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/
5468479.39491272.html [Hereinafter “UN Body of Principles”].
268

Organization of American States, Who We Are, http://www.oas.org/en/about/who_we_are.asp.

269

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is a commission of the Organization of American
States (OAS) and made up of seven elected members. The IACHR’s mandate is “to promote respect for human
rights in the region” and it “acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this matter.” This mandate comes from the
OAS charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. In 2008, the IACHR was concerned by the response
to 9/11 by the United States government, which had led to an almost doubling of the ICE detainee population from
2001 to 2008. This increase, the IACHR considered, warranted an investigation to ensure that these large numbers of
detainees were being treated humanely and that the practices and policies involved in their detention were
“compatible with the United States’ obligations in the area of human rights.” After working with the U.S. to organize
tours of facilities, the IACHR in 2009 toured six facilities located in Arizona and Texas. Concluding its
investigation, the IACHR was “troubled by the lack of a genuinely civil detention system,” “disturbed by the impact
that detention has on due process,” and “disturbed that the management and personal care of immigration detainees
is frequently outsourced to private contractors.” See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on
Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process 4 - 6 (Organization of American States Dec. 2010);
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, IACHR Publishes Report of
Immigration in the United States (Mar. 17, 2011), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/
2011/21-11eng.htm.
270

Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S.T.S. no. 36,
1144 U.N.T.S. 123; see also Multilateral Treaties – American Convention on Human Rights, http://www.oas.org/
juridico/english/sigs/b-32.html.
271 American

Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Official Rec., OEA/Ser.L./V./II.23, doc. 21 rev. 6
(1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser. L.V/II.
82, doc. 6 rev. 1(1992), http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=413.
272

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons
Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles
%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm [Hereinafter “IACHR Principles and Practices”].
273See American

Convention on Human Rights (Nov. 21, 1969), 1144 U.N.T.S. 143. American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man art. 1, O.A.S. Official Rec., OEA/Ser.L./V./II.23, doc. 21 rev. 6 (1948), reprinted in Basic
Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser. L.V/II.82, doc. 6 rev. 1(1992),
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=413; see also Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 3; ICCPR art. 9,
para. 3.
274 American

Convention on Human Rights art. 8, which states that “every person has the right to a hearing, with due
guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established
by law . . . for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature”; see also
ICCPR art. 13.
275

ICCPR art. 10, para. 1; see also United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment No. 21, Article
10, Humane Treatment of Prisoners Deprived of their Liberty para. 3, UN Doc. HRI/Gen/1/Rev.1 (1994).
276

Int’l Covenant on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, December 21, 1965, G.A. Res. 21/06,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

129

277

ICCPR art.7, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm; see also CAT art. 1, para. 1, http://www.hrweb.org/
legal/cat.html.
278

Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 14, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948), http://
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr.
279

U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, UNHCR’s Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to
the Detention of Asylum Seekers (Feb. 1999), www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3c2b3f844.pdf.
280

U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the
United States of America para 21, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 (Mar. 5, 3008)(prepared by Jorge Bustamante).

281

U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, EOIR Immigration Court Listing (as of January 2012), http://www.justice.gov/eoir/
sibpages/ICadr.htm#GA.

282

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/sibpages/lgd/about.htm. The Hon. Barry Chait was sworn in on November 2011.
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/press/2011/IJInvestiture11182011.pdf
283

U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, Executive Office for Immigration Review, FY 2010 Statistical Yearbook. Executive
Office for Immigration Review, Figure B2-B3 (Apr. 2010) [hereinafter “DOJ 2010 Year Book”], www.justice.gov/
eoir/statspub/fy10syb.pdf.

284

Id.

285

TRAC Immigration, U.S. Deportation Outcomes By Charge (Jul. 26, 2011), http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/
immigration/court_backlog/deport_outcome_charge.php.
286

Id. Georgia had the third largest number of deportation orders in 2011 behind only Texas and California.

287

DOJ 2010 Year Book, http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/statspub/fy10syb.pdf.

288

Id. at G1.

289

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011 and August 13, 2011. Barriers to
legal representation at Stewart include lengthy average periods of detention, the facility’s remote location which
limits the number of available attorneys and contributes to higher fees, and failure of the facility to provide adequate
information about pro bono representation.
290

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

291

TRAC Immigration, U.S. Deportation Outcomes By Charge (Jul 26, 2011), http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/
immigration/court_backlog/deport_outcome_charge.php.
292

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on March 22, 2011.

293

For purposes of this report, this attorney wished to remain anonymous. Interview with Atlanta-based immigration
attorney conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28, 2011.
294

This is based on interviews with attorneys, detainees, and Program Director of Catholic Charities Immigration
and Legal Services, Jennifer Bensman, as well as court handouts provided to the ACLU of Georgia by Macon-based
attorney.
295

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 27 (Last Updated Apr. 2011).

296

This program is funded by a grant from the Vera Institute of Justice. Phone Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia on November 11, 2011.
297

Id.

298

Id.

130

299

Interview with Atlanta-based attorney conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28, 2011.

300

Phone Interview with Atlanta immigration attorney conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on October 26, 2011.

301

Id.

302

See INA § 240(b)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(c).

303

For purposes of this report, this attorney wished to be referred to as Duane. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia on March 22, 2011.
304

Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
6-9 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final,pdf; see also U.S. DEP’T OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of the Inspector General, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policies and
Procedures related to Detainee Transfers 1, OIG-10-13 (Nov. 2009), http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/libarary/
P4225.pdf.
305

Interview with Atlanta-based attorney by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28, 2011.

306

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Juan. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 21, 2008.
307

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009.

308

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

309

Id. In late August 2011, Ido received his final order of removal to his home country and wrote to the ACLU of
Georgia that he would be flying out any day. He was afraid for his life.
310

Id.

311

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 6, 2010.

312

Id.

313

Id.

314

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

315

Id.

316

Id.

317

Interview with Josue Cervantes conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011. The ACLU
of Georgia sought a response to these statements from the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) on
March 31, 2012. Lauren Alder Reid, Counsel for Legislative Affairs, stated that EOIR could not comment on
specific allegations related to EOIR without having reviewed the entire report first. Email from Lauren Alder Reid,
Counsel for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice-EOIR (Apr. 5, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia
via email.
318

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

319

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

320

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 21, 2010.

321

Interview with Carolina Antonini conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28, 2011.

322

Id.

323

Id.

131

324

For purposes of this report, this attorney wished to be referred to as Duane. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia on April 13, 2011.
325

Elise Foley, Immigrant Freed from 19-Month Detention: “I treat my dogs much better than the detainees are
treated” (Jul 18, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/immigrant-freed-fromdetention_n_863893.html.
326

Id.

327

Id.

328

Id.

329

Id.

330

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 14, 2010.

331

Id.

332

Interview with Atlanta-based attorney conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on April 13, 2011.

333 American

Convention on Human Rights art. 8; see also, ICCPR art. 14; UN Body of Principles, princ. 10-18
(Dec. 9, 1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm.
334

Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

335

Id.

336

Id.

337

Interview with Cristian Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

338

Id.

339

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from the EOIR on March 31, 2012. Lauren Alder
Reid, Counsel for Legislative Affairs stated that EOIR could not comment on specific allegations related to EOIR
without having reviewed the entire report first. Email from Lauren Alder Reid, Counsel for Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Department of Justice-EOIR (Apr. 5, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
340

See Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100 (1903); see also Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565, 568–69 (6th
Cir. 1975).
341

Id.

342

American Convention on Human Rights art. 8 states that “every person has the right to a hearing, with due
guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established
by law . . . for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature,”
www.hrcr.org/docs/American_Convention/oashr.html. ICCPR art. 13 includes a right to fair deportation procedures.
“An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present covenant may be expelled therefrom only in
pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national
security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by,
and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by
the competent authority,” http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.
343

U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the
United States of America para 34, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 (Mar. 5, 3008)(prepared by Jorge Bustamante), http://
www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/chap.6.htm; see also Detention Watch Network, The History of Immigration
Detention in the U.S., www.detentionwatchnetwork.org.
344

Email from Julio Moreno, The Fogle Law Firm (Jan, 10 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

132

345

Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

346

Interview with Jose Cruz Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on May 11, 2011.

347

Interview with Fredin Toledo conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 3, 2011.

348

Id.

349

Interivew conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2011.

350

Interview with Fredin Toledo conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 3, 2011.

351

Id.

352

Id.

353

See David Shapiro, American Civil Liberties Union, Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass
Incarceration (Nov. 2011), www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf.
354

Interview with Edith Ornelas Mejia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

355

Id.

356

Id.

357

Id.

358

Id.

359

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

360

Id.

361

Id.

362

Since Spanish is the most frequently spoken language at immigration court, at over 66 percent, during FY 2010,
the majority of non-citizens encounter this same problem. See DOJ 2010 Year Book, http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/
statspub/fy10syb.pdf.
363

ICCPR art. 13; American Convention on Human Rights art. 9.

364

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on September 30, 2011.

365

Id.

366

Interview with Dulce Bolanos-Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. In
response to these statements regarding the holding cell conditions, ICE stated that “the cells are cleaned daily and
the occupancy of each cell is monitored by supervisor.” Email from William McCafferty, Assistant Field Office
Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
367

Interview with Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011.

368 As

of September 16, 2011, there were 71 ICE employees at Stewart and 11 at NGDC. The numbers of ICE
employees at Irwin and ACDC were not provided. Based on response to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No.
2011-12787 filed Aug. 8, 2011.
369 As

mentioned earlier, stipulated orders of removal are problematic because they allow for expedited deportation
of non-citizens without a hearing before an immigration judge. Detainees who sign these orders are often unaware of
the rights they are giving up or the potential consequences that may result. See American Civil Liberties Union,
Slamming the Courthouse Doors: Denial of Access to Justice and Remedy in America 21 (Dec. 2010), http://
www.aclu.org/files/assets/HRP_UPRsubmission_annex.pdf.

133

370

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.

371

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
372

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 22, 2011.

373

Id.

374

Interview with Luis Ventura conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 15, 2011.

375

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
376

Interview with Carlos Vargas conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

377

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
378

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011. The ACLU
of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE responded that they either
did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they were precluded from
disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty, Assistant Field Office
Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
379

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

380

Id.

381

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
382

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

383

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
384

Interview with Angela Kelley conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

385

Id. Angela Kelley is an LGBT detainee. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on
March 20, 2012 to which ICE responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that
due to privacy concerns they were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email
from William McCafferty, Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via
email.
386

Interview with Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE responded that
they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they were precluded
from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty, Assistant Field Office
Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

134

387

See Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100 (1903); see also Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565, 568–69 (6th
Cir. 1975); American Convention on Human Rights art. 9; ICCPR art. 13.
388

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); see also U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur
on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the United States of America para 21, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 (Mar. 5,
3008)(prepared by Jorge Bustamante).
389

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.
390

Id.

391

Id.

392

Interview conducted by ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

393

Id. Ido was sent back to a country where his family members had been persecuted, kidnapped, and even
murdered for their political stance. He was terrified of being sent back, as he was convinced that he would be
murdered after arriving in his home country, just as his father and uncle had been.
394

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 6, 2010.

395

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

396

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
397

Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

398

Id.

399

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to by her first name only. Interview conducted by
the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.
400

Id.

401

Id.

402

Corrections Corporation of America, Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facility/stewart-detentioncenter; see also Jeremy Redmon, Stewart Facility Houses More Illegal Immigrants than Any Other State, ATLANTA
JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, January 17, 2011.
403

Corrections Corporation of America, Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facility/stewart-detentioncenter.
404

Out of 28 detainees interviewed, nine were transferred from out of state. Of those, six were transferred from
North Carolina.
405

Information provided by Assistant Warden Dennis Hasty to the ACLU of Georgia during the September 7, 2011
tour of the facility.
406

CCA also stated that during the tour, the ACLU of Georgia walked by the law library but did not ask to see it
until the end of the tour, at which point officials determined that it would not be appropriate to go back through the
facility to see the law library. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of
Georgia via email.
407

Intergovernmental Service Agreement No. DROIGSA-06-0003 between Stewart County and Corrections
Corporation of America 1 (Jun. 30, 2006).

135

408

Facility Management Executive Approval Form, 1. Although the ACLU of Georgia did not receive a renewal
contract as part of its FOIA request, Stewart is still run by CCA as of January 2012.
409

Information provided to the ACLU of Georgia by Natasha Metcaffe, Vice President of Partnership Development
at CCA. Phone Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on February 9, 2012.
410

Intergovernmental Service Agreement No. DROIGSA-06-0003 between Stewart County and Corrections
Corporation of America 2 (Jun. 30, 2006). In March of 2008, the rate was increased pursuant to a contract
modification to a per diem rate of $60.50. Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract No. P0004 between
Stewart County and ICE (Mar. 5, 2008).
411

Id. at 3-4.

412

Id. at 4.

413 Areas

of concern include: 1) Due Process, 2) Living Conditions, 3) Medical and Mental Health Care, and 4)
Abuse of Power.
414

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 10 and July 18, 2010.

415

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards, Admission and Release (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
416

Interview with Carolina Antonini conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28, 2011.

417

For purposes of this report, this attorney wished to be referred to as Duane. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia on April 13, 2011.
418

Interview with Carolina Antonini conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on March 28, 2011.

419

When provided with an opportunity to respond, CCA stated: “This interview occurred during a shift change.
During that time, approximately fifty (50) officers were clocking in and out, going to their post assignments, and
passing information to each other. When the noise issue was brought to the attention of management, it was handled
immediately, and the area was appropriately quiet.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
420

Interview with Javan Jeffrey on September 7, 2011 and Ugochukwu Ehienulo on September 27, 2011 conducted
by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
421

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 21, 2010. CCA responded to this allegation by
stating that there was no record of Mr. Ponce’s filing a grievance related to this matter. CCA added that detainees are
permitted up to three visits to the law library per week as a matter of routine. Extra law library time is permitted,
using the same request system. Detainees with court deadlines are given priority. Email from Michael Swinton,
Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
422

The ACLU of Georgia notes that it requested to visit the law library during the facility tour but was denied
access. The information about the number of computers is based upon interviews with detainees.
423

Interview with Javan Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

424

Interview with Pedro Perez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 6, 2010.

425

Interview with Ugochukwu Ehienulo conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

426

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).

427

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).

136

428

When provided with an opportunity to respond, CCA stated: “Detainees are free to conduct research in the law
library. There is s printer available for their use, as well as paper and writing materials.” Email from Michael
Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
429

Human Rights Watch, A Costly Move: Far and Frequent Transfers Impede Hearings for Immigrant Detainees in
the United States, Table 2, 20 (June 2011), http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0611webwcover.pdf.
430

Id.

431

Id.

432

Id.

433

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009, June 21, 2010, July 6, 2010, June
17, 2011, August 1, 2011, September 24, 2011, and September 27, 2011.
434

Human Rights Watch, A Costly Move: Far and Frequent Transfers Impede Hearings for Immigrant Detainees in
the United States 30, Table 11 (June 2011), http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0611webwcover.pdf.
435

Id.

436

Out of 28 detainees interviewed, nine were transferred to Stewart from out of state. Of those, six were transferred
from North Carolina.
437

IACHR, X & Y (Argentina), Report No. 38/96 (Merits), Case No. 11.506, para. 96 (October 15, 1996), http://
www.cidh/oas/org/annualrep/96eng/Argentina11506.htm.
438

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

439

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
440

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

441

The closest motel is Kay-Lyn Kourt, eight miles away in Richland. See http://clatl.com/atlanta/georgias-thrivingprivate-prison-industry-boost-from-new-immigration-law/Content?oid=3700500. The one notable exception to this
dearth of guesthouses in Lumpkin is El Refugio. Alterna launched this hospitality house in 2010 to better serve
families and friends of Stewart detainees. At El Refugio, visitors receive free meals and lodging as well as emotional
and spiritual support. Volunteers staff the house and visit with detainees at the detention center. Group visitations can
be coordinated by volunteer house leaders, and in addition to providing housing for families and friends of
detainees, El Refugio provides housing for attorneys and other human rights workers who must drive long distances.
For more information, see http://www.alternacommunity.com/get-involved/our-work/in-georgia/el-refugio.
442

Interview with Pedro Perez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 6, 2010. The ACLU of Georgia
sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE responded that they either did not
have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they were precluded from disclosing
detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty, Assistant Field Office Director (Mar.
26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
443

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 26 (last updated April 2011).

444

Id.

445

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 6, 2010; see also Logan’s Dad Blog, http://
www.logansdad.org/pedros-story.php.
446

Follow-up Phone Interview with Mrs. Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on October 31, 2011.

137

447

Id.

448

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 10 (last updated April 2011).

449

Id. at 12, 20.

450

Id. at 21. According to the Stewart Warden, CCA detainee phone services are now provided by Securus. Email
from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
451

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 17, 2011.

452

Id.

453

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011.

454

Id.

455

Id.

456

Id.

457

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 17, 2011.

458

Id.

459

Id. Grzegorz also mentioned three other people in his unit had done the same. In response to these statements
regarding phone rates, CCA reiterated that they do not control the phone rates. Email from Michael Swinton,
Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
460

Id.

461

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009.

462

Id.

463Six

of 28 interviewees’ family members lived in North Carolina; at least one detainee’s family members lived
abroad.
464

Email from Pamela Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 1,
2011). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
465

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 5 (last updated April 2011).

466

Id.

467

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 2 (last updated April 2011); also based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia
during facility tour on September 9, 2011.
468

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 36 (last updated April 2011).

469

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011.

470

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Raul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on April 6, 2011.
471

Id.

472

Id.

138

473

See IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XI-XIII, X, XVIII (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/
English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm; see also UN Body of Principles (Dec. 9,
1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm; UN Standard Minimum Rules (Dec. 14, 1990), http://
www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.
474

Georgia Detention Watch, Report on the December 2008 Humanitarian Visit to the Stewart Detention Center 6,
www.acluga.org/Georgia_Detention_Watch_Report_on_Stewart.pdf.
475

Id.

476

Id.

477

When asked to respond to these allegations, the Warden stated that the pods are clean and the number of inmates
per pod meets all applicable standards. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the
ACLU of Georgia via email.
478

Interview with Mikyas Germachew conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

479

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 8 (last updated April 2011).

480

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011.

481

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

482 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.ICE.
483

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Frank. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on August 11, 2010.
484

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011. The Facility responded to both of
these allegations by acknowledging that “there was an instance in which the hot water boiler was broken and parts
had to be ordered for the repair,” but that repairs are completed in a timely manner and that “during this time, a
shower schedule was put in place so that hot showers were available to the affected detainees. The scheduled [sic]
was delivered and explained to all units impacted by the shower schedule.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden
(Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
485 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
486

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

487

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on August 25, 2011.
488

Id.

489

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009.

490

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011. The facility’s response to these
allegations was that there were no records of complaints concerning water quality. CCA added that all medical care
matters are handled by ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC), formerly Division of Immigration Health Services. Email
from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. The Warden also
refrained from commenting on any medical issues pertaining to particular detainees based on privacy laws.
491 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 3 (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
492

Id.

139

493

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Damon. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on April 19, 2011.
494

For the purpose of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Juan. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 12, 2010.
495

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 6, 2010.

496

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 11, 2010.

497

CCA acknowledged that the ratios in the pod described are actually 1:12.4 – 1:13.2 for toilets and 1:13.7 - 1:14.7
for wash basins. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via
email.
498

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Raul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on April 6, 2011.
499

Id. CCA claims that all units are provided with adequate cleaning supplies. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden
(Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
500

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

501

Id.

502 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 3 (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008. CCA stated that at no time has
Stewart lost water to the entire facility or for an extended period of time claiming that; “Water services may be
interrupted due to required repairs. When that occurs, the detainee population is informed of the reason for the
interruption in service and the expected time frame for the repairs. If showers are impacted, a shower schedule is
established.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
503

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

504

Interview with Mikyas Germachew conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

505

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011. In response, CCA stated that “all
laundry, linens, and blankets are washed and exchanged on an as needed basis.” Email from Michael Swinton,
Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
506

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.
507

Id.

508

Id.

509

Id.

510

Id.

511

Interview by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

512

Id.

513

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011. CCA denied that detainees were given mattresses without stuffing. Email from
Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
514

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 11, 2010 and September 27, 2011.

140

515

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interviews with Paul (July 25, 2011),
Mikyas Germachew (August 13, 2011), and Ido Yelkal (August 13, 2011) conducted by ACLU of Georgia at
Stewart. In response, CCA disputed the allegations that there were water quality issues. Specifically, CCA stated that
the water quality was tested by an independent third party and that the water meets both county and state criteria.
Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
516

Verified by almost all interviewees.

517

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.

518

Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

519

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

520

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Damon. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on April 19, 2011.
521

Interview with Ido Yelkal conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

522

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on November 18, 2011.

523

Interview with Mikyas Germachew conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

524

Id.

525

Id.

526

Id.

527

Confirmed by Ido Yelkal and Eduardo Zuniga. Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on
August 13, 2011 and June 17, 2011.
528

The facility responded that detainees are given twenty minutes to eat. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden
(Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
529

Interview with Ido Yelkal conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

530

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on March 25, 2011.

531

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

532

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

533

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 3, 2011.

534

Id.

535

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

536

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

537

Interviews with Dyna Khleang (September 27, 2011) and Eduardo Zuniga (June 17, 2011) conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
538

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Felix. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on August 11, 2010.
539

Investigation Reports Form Detention Center, STEWART/Unknown/Incident Critical/Significant/LUMPKIN,
STEWART, GA, based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No. 11-12787, filed Aug. 8, 2011.
540

Id.

141

541

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009.

542

Interviews with Angel on July 14, 2010, Frank on August 11, 2010, and Jose Nunez on March 25, 2011
conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
543

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Damon. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on April 19, 2011.
544

Interviews with Dyna Khleang on September 7, 2011, Javan Jeffrey on September 7, 2011, and Ugochukwu
Ehienulo on September 27, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
545

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

546

Georgia Detention Watch, Report on the December 2008 Humanitarian Visit to the Stewart Detention Center 5-6,
www.acluga.org/Georgia_Detention_Watch_Report_on_Stewart.pdf.
547 Although

CCA denies that is has any unusual, pervasive, or chronic food issues, it does acknowledge that
“occasional food issues are inevitable” but it states that the staff deals with issues immediately. Email from Michael
Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
548

Interview with Ugochukwu Ehienulo conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

549

Based on Interview with Javan Jeffrey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

550

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

551

Interview with Josue Cervantes conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011.

552

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Damon. Interview conducted by the ACLU
of Georgia at Stewart on April 19, 2011.
553

Id.

554

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Juan. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 12, 2010.
555

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.
556

Id. In response, CCA stated that “the food at Stewart is handled according to applicable regulations. The most
recent sanitation grade from the state was a 97%. At no time is food withheld from a detainee for any reason. Many
staff members, including the Warden, eat the food prepared at the Stewart dining facility. Again, detainee
complaints about food are handled by the staff immediately.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
557

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XIV (Mar. 14, 2008),
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.
558

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 24 (last updated April 2011).

559

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009, July 6, 2010, August 11, 2010,
March 25, 2011, April 19, 2011, June 17, 2011, August 13, 2011, September 24, 2011, and September 27, 2011.
560

Id.

561

Interview with Dyna Khleang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

562

Id. The rate of $1.00 to $3.00 per day for full-time work falls well below the current national minimum wage.

563

Interview with Omar Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 21, 2010.

142

564

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Assistant Warden Dennis Hasty on March 20,
2012, but no response was provided by either Assistant Warden Hasty or Warden Swinton.
565

Interview with Jaime Lara conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 14, 2010.

566

Interview with Josue Cervantes conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 19, 2011.

567

Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

568

Interview with Eduardo Zuniga conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 17, 2011. In response,
CCA stated that it had no evidence of this incident. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained
by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
569

Interview with Ido Yelkal on August 13, 2011, and Dyna Khleang and Ugochukwu Ehienulo on September 27,
2011, conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
570

When asked what “Christian” services meant, Assistant Field Office Director Pamela Reeves stated that:
“‘Christian Service’ means a Christian Service that is open to all. Services conducted may or may not reflect
a ‘protestant’ religious tradition.” Email from Pamela Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for
the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 1, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
571

Based on the September 2011 Religious Services Calendar provided to the ACLU of Georgia on the September 7,
2011 tour of the facility.
572

Information provided by Assistant Warden Dennis Hasty to the ACLU of Georgia during the September 7, 2011
tour of the facility.
573

Based on the September 2011 Religious Services Calendar provided to the ACLU of Georgia on the September 7,
2011 tour of the facility.
574

Interview with Dyna Khleang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

575

Id.

576

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011 and September 27, 2011.

577

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 6 (last updated April 2011).

578

The facility did not comment on medical diets, which are prescribed by IHSC. As to religious diets, the facility
stated that it is in compliance with PBNDS. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the
ACLU of Georgia via email.
579

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009, July 6, 2010, August 11, 2010,
March 25, 2011, April 19, 2011, June 17, 2011, August 13, 2011, September 24, 2011, and September 27, 2011.
580

Id.

581

Id.

582

Interview with Mikyas Germachew conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011. In
response, CCA stated that the facility followed all of applicable requirements for religious diets. Email from Michael
Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
583

I.

See Stewart Detainee Handbook, 41 (last updated April 2011); ICCPR art. 1; ICCPR art. 5 ; U.S. CONST. amend.

584

ICE PBNDS on recreation states that detainees shall receive a minimum of one hour of outdoor recreation on a
daily basis, weather permitting. See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE
Performance Based National Detention Standards Recreation (Dec. 2, 2008), . http://www.ice.gov/detentionstandards/2008.

143

585

Observed by the ACLU of Georgia during the September 7, 2011 tour of the facility. Also supported by detainee
interviews.
586

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards Recreation (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
587

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

588

Interview with Josue Cervantes conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on October 14, 2011.

589

Interview with Dyna Khleang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011. When
asked about these statements CCA responded; “Stewart fully complies with PBNDS requirements regarding
recreation. Recreation call is conducted daily, weather permitting. The use of the recreation areas, including the
outdoor field, gym and hardtop area, are rotated on an equal basis. The recreation schedule for the month is posted
in all units on the first day of the month in both English and Spanish.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar.
29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
590

Complainant alleged that his/her roommate first drugged him, then pulled down his/her pants and applied cream
to his/her buttocks. (Complaint Received: 1/20/2010), http://www.aclu.org/maps/sexual-abuse-immigrationdetention-facilities.
591

See Interview with Ido Yelkal conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

592

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011; Interviews with Mikyas Germachew and Ido Yelkal by the ACLU of Georgia at
Stewart on August 13, 2011.
593

Id.

594

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.
595

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011. Regarding this situation, CCA
provided the following response: “All pods have two televisions – one which plays in English and one which plays
in Spanish. The remotes are controlled by the pod officers. Stewart takes a number of steps to make sure that all
detainees are treated fairly and that all detainees are safe. Gang activity is supposed to be reported by the detainees
and there are several posters throughout the living areas listing the confidential hot line number to use. Stewart has
received no calls regarding the issue described.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by
the ACLU of Georgia via email.
596 Agreement

# DROIGSA-06-0003. Agreement Between Stewart County and Corrections Corporation of America,
3. According to CCA, currently, ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC), formerly known as Division of Immigration
Health Services, provides all medical and mental health care at the facility. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden
(Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. Stewart’s IGSA specifically states, however, that
“Behavior problems (detainee who is not diagnosed as psychotic) and suicide observation will be the responsibility
of the PROVIDER.” Intergovernmental Service Agreement No. DROIGSA-06-0003 4 (Jun. 30, 2006).
597

Information provided by Assitant Warden Dennis Hasty to the ACLU of Georgia during tour of the facility on
September 7, 2011.
598

Id. When given an opportunity to respond to the statements regarding medical and mental health care at Stewart,
CCA declined, stating that services are provided by ICE Health Services (IHSC) and applicable privacy laws. Email
from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
599

Office of Detention and Removal Operations, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review 1 (May 13-15,
2008).
600

Id.

601

Observed by the ACLU of Georgia during its September 7, 2011 tour of facility.

144

602

Information provided by Assistant Warden Dennis Hasty to the ACLU of Georgia during tour of the facility on
September 7, 2011.
603

Id.

604

ICE Assistant Field Office Director Pamela Reeves advised the ACLU of Georgia that the physician elected not
to come but that the ICE medical staff were still soliciting applicants to fill the position. Email from Pamela Reeves,
Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 1, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU
of Georgia via email.
605

Id.

606

CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot respond.
In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
607

Head Chief of Security during tour of facility on September 7, 2011; also confirmed by email from Pamela
Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 1, 2011). Obtained by the
ACLU of Georgia via email.
608

Interview with Ugochukwu Ehienulo conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

609

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

610

Id. CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot
respond. In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
611

Interview with Eduardo Zuniga conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 17, 2010 and Phone
Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on November 16, 2011. Although the facility declined to address the
medical concerns, it did state that “CCA provides boots to all detainees who work in the kitchen. They are ordered
on a regular basis. As an example, in 2011, CCA ordered 75 pairs of boots. Detainee Zuniga never filed a grievance
or made a formal or informal complaint about a lack of boots or any injuries suffered in the kitchen.” Email from
Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
612

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 37 (last updated April 2011).

613

CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot respond.
In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
614

This is also supported by the findings of Georgia Detention Watch, Report on the December 2008 Humanitarian
Visit to the Stewart Detention Center, www.acluga.org/Georgia_Detention_Watch_Report_on_Stewart.pdf.
615

Interview with Jorge Matilde Catalan conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 21, 2008.

616

Based on interviews with Ermis Calderone on September 24, 2011, Eduardo Zuniga on September 24, 2011, and
Grzegorz Kowalec on June 17, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
617

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

618

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on November 11, 2011.

619

Id. CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot
respond. In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
620

Condition of Confinement Review Worksheet (Stewart, July 23-25, 2009), based on response received to ACLU
of Georgia FOIA Request No. 11-12787, filed Aug. 8, 2011, 12.

145

621

In fact, the report found that medical records for the majority of detainees (17 out of 30) showed that they did not
have a physical examination completed in 14 days. Id. at 32.
622

United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, August 30, 1955, G.A. Res. 45/11, UN
Doc A/RES/45/110 (Dec. 14, 1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.
623

Interview with Eduardo Rodriguez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on March 25, 2011. CCA
provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot respond. In
addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from discussing
it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
624

Id. CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot
respond. In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
625

Id.

626

Id.

627

Id. CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot
respond. In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
628

Observed during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Stewart on September 7, 2011. Also confirmed by email from
Pamela Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec. 1, 2011).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is
provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot respond. In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable
privacy laws would prohibit CCA from discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
629

Based on information given by Assistant Warden Dennis Hasty during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Stewart on
September 7, 2011.
630

Confirmed by email from Pamela Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field
Office (Dec. 1, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. When given an opportunity to respond, CCA
stated the following: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot respond. In addition, to the
extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from discussing it.” Email from
Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. However, Stewart’s IGSA
specifically states: “Behavior problems (detainee who is not diagnosed as psychotic) and suicide observation will be
the responsibility of the PROVIDER.” Intergovernmental Service Agreement No. DROIGSA-06-0003 4 (Jun. 30,
2006).
631

For studies on the adverse effect of detention on mental health, see Justice Policy Institute, Dangers of Detention,
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/dangers_of_detention.pdf; see also, Physicians for
Human Rights and the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, From Persecution to Prison: The Health
Consequences of Detention of Asylum Seekers.
632

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

633

Id.

634

Id.

635

For studies on the adverse effect of detention on mental health, see Justice Policy Institute, Dangers of Detention,
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/dangers_of_detention.pdf; see also, Physicians for
Human Rights and the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, From Persecution to Prison: The Health
Consequences of Detention of Asylum Seekers.
636

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 17, 2011.

146

637

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

638

Interview with Ermis Calderone conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 24, 2011; see U.S.
DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, Management of Mental Health Cases in Immigration
Detention 15, OIG-11-62 (Mar. 2011).
639

Id.

640

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 24, 2011.

641

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 24, 2011 and Phone Interview with
Ermis’ mother conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on November 23, 2011. Ermis Calderone was finally deported in
November 2011.
642

Phone Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on November 23, 2011.

643

Interview with Ermis Calderone conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 24, 2011 and
Phone Interview with Ermis’ mother conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on November 23, 2011. Ermis Calderone
was finally deported in November 2011. Although CCA declined to address the medical concerns, it stated: “CCA's
employees have acted appropriately with respect to this detainee. He has a lengthy disciplinary history including
charges of cursing the staff, being physically aggressive with staff, engaging in acts which are harmful to himself
and others, flooding his cell and yelling racial slurs and profanities. He was, on one occasion, physically restrained
by staff when he resisted approved staff action designed to keep him from harming himself.” Email from Michael
Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
644

For purposes of the report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Paul. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011. ICE, FBI, and local police surrounded Paul’s house which he shared with his
U.S. citizen wife and ordered him to get on the ground when he walked out. He did not know why he was being
arrested, so he thought it might be because he was active at his mosque. An ICE official interrogated Paul for over
two hours, asking him questions such as “who do you pray to?” At the end of the interrogation, the ICE official told
Paul that he was a threat to national security. When he arrived at Stewart, Paul, without any record of having
committed a crime, was classified as a high-security detainee. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this
statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE responded that they either did not have enough information to
research the case or that due to privacy concerns they were precluded from disclosing detailed information about
individual cases. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via
email.
645

Id.

646

Based on information given by Assistant Warden Dennis Hasty during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Stewart on
September 7, 2011.
647

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 35, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008; Stewart Detainee Handbook, 34 (last updated
April 2011).
648

CCA denied these allegations stating: “Stewart has a robust and effective grievance process. Detainees are not
placed in segregation or retaliated against in any way for utilizing the grievance process. Detainees are encouraged,
through the detainee handbook, orientation videos, and postings throughout the facility, to understand and abide by
the rules. They know they can make formal or informal verbal complaints, and file formal grievances. They can
appeal grievance decisions at the facility level and, if dissatisfied with that result, appeal to ICE.” Email from
Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
649

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

650

Id.

651

Id.

147

652

CCA stated the following: “These three detainees apparently were making a practice of resisting and causing
problems when asked to sit near inmates of a different race. One detainee described them as young boys starting
trouble. When a correctional officer required them to sit as assigned, Ehienulo filed a grievance, alleging the officer
had used unprofessional language. A disinterested detainee witness specifically stated that the officer did not use
inappropriate or unprofessional language and described the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of Ehienulo and
other. The grievance was, accordingly, denied. None of these detainees had filed any form of written complaint
about being violated or harassed by staff members....” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
653

Interview with Omar Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 21, 2010.

654

Id.

655

Id.

656

Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

657

Of the 94 complaints received by DHS OIG, 91 were closed immediately without further action. ACLU of
Georgia FOIA Request No.11-08-04 filed August 8, 2011.
658

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

659

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of the Inspector General, OIG complaints by facility: 94 from
Stewart, 29 from ACDC, 7 from NGDC, and 31 from Irwin. ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No. 2011-150 filed
July 29, 2011.

660

Id. Document 70.

661

Id. Information as of September 29, 2011.

662 ACLU

of Georgia FOIA Request No.11-08-04 filed August 8, 2011. The complaints were still pending as of
December 5, 2011.
663

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 27, 2011.

664

Id.

665

Id.

666

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13, 2011.

667

Regarding this incident, CCA provided the following response: “Detainee Javan made this allegation and it was
investigated in timely fashion. It was determined to be unsubstantiated. CCA reported the allegations to ICE, who
also investigated.” CCA did not say whether ICE found the allegations substantiated or not. Email from Michael
Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
668

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Felix. Interview with Felix conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 11, 2010.
669

Interview with Omar Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 21, 2010. In response, CCA
claimed that physical or verbal abuse of detainees by staff is simply not tolerated, but it did not provide any evidence
of disciplinary action. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via
email.

148

670

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Felix. Interview with Felix conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 11, 2010. Detainees who were personally threatened or put in segregation
include Jaime Lara, Javan Jeffrey, Grzegorz Kowalec, Roberto Carillo, and Ermis Calderone. Detainees Arman
Garghani and Mikyas Germachew also witnessed instances where other detainees were threatened or put in
segregation. In response, CCA denied that guards engage in retaliatory behavior but acknowledged that it is routine
for detainees in the segregation unit to be denied commissary privileges. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden
(Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
671

CCA denied this allegation. Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of
Georgia via email.
672

Based on information given by Detention Services Manager Michael R. Gladish during ACLU of Georgia’s tour
of the facility on September 27, 2011.
673

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 36 (last updated April 2011).

674

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 31-34 (Last Updated Apr. 2011).

675

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 31 (Last Updated Apr. 2011).

676

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Angel. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 14, 2010.
677

Interview with Ermis Calderone by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 24, 2011.

678

CCA stated that the denial of access to the segregation unit was because of safety and security reasons. Email
from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
679

Based on information from Detention Services Manager Michael R. Gladish during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of
the facility on September 27, 2011.
680

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 7, 2011.

681

Id.

682

Id.

683

Javan Jeffrey arrived at Stewart on June 7, 2011 and at the time of our interview on September 7, 2011, he had
already been in segregation several times. Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
684

Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

685

Interview with Jaime Lara conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 14, 2010.

686

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 17, 2009.

687

Interview with Mikyas Germachew conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on August 13 2011. CCA
denied that these events occurred, stating that CCA employees do not engage in retaliatory behavior. Email from
Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
688

Interview with Grzegorz Kowalec by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 16, 2011.

689

Id.

690

Id.

691

Id.

692

Id.

149

693

Id. CCA responded that it adheres to all PBNDS standards and denied that detainees are sent to segregation "for
three weeks for talking back or being disrespectful." Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
694

ICE PBNDS on Special Management Unit states that detainees in the segregation unit should receive an hour of
recreation per day five days a week. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual
ICE Performance Based National Detention Standards 15 Special Management Unit (Dec. 2, 2008), http://
www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
695

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Angel. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 14, 2010.
696

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 15 Special Management Unit (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
697

Interviews with Roberto Carillo on July 25, 2011 and Ermis Calderone on September 24, 2011, conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at Stewart.
698

Interview with Roberto Carillo by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on July 25, 2011.

699

Id.

700

Id.

701

Id.

702

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on September 24, 2011.

703

Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

704 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 15 Special Management Unit 2 (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
705

Stewart Detainee Handbook, 31 (last updated April 2011).

706

UN Special Rapporteur on torture calls for the prohibition of solitary confinement NEW YORK (18 October
2011), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/445/70/PDF/N1144570.pdf?OpenElement.
707

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XXII(3) (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.
708

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Stewart on June 16, 2011.

709

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Juan. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Stewart on July 12, 2011. When provided with an opportunity to respond, CCA stated that “these
allegations had never been raised before, and CCA has no reason to believe they are true.” Email from Michael
Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
710

Based on information given by Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility on
October 21, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia requested a copy of the IGSA agreement through a FOIA request but had
not received it as of January 12, 2012.
711

CCA Source, CCA Announces New Federal and State Contract Awards (Spring 2009), http://
www.insidecca.com/cca-source/cca-announces-new-federal-and-state-contract-award.
712

Id.

713 Ashley

Fielding, Georgia: CCA gets what it wants, GAINESVILLE TIMES, April 16, 2009, http://
www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/17561.

150

714

Jerry Gunn and Ken Staford, GCC says ‘thanks but no thanks’ to CCA, ACCESS NORTH GA, May 14, 2009, http://
www.accessnorthgeorgia.com/detail.php?n=220387.

715

Private Officer News Network, Georgia Police Unwilling to Aid Private Detention Center (May 15, 2009), http://
privateofficernews.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/ga-police-unwilling-to-aid-private-detention-center-wwwprivateofficer-com.
716

Based on information given by Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility on
October 21, 2011; see also Inside CCA, North Georgia Opens, Receives First Inmates, http://www.insidecca.com/
inside-cca/north-georgia-opens.
717

B.J. Williams, Council members surprised by county move to sell jail, ACCESS NORTH GA, Feb. 21, 2012, http://
www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=245931.

718

Id. See also Jerry Gunn, Hall Commission approves old jail sale, ACCESS NORTH GA, Feb. 21, 2012, http://
www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=245926; Aaron Hale, Hall commissioners to vote on selling old jail to CCA,
ACCESS NORTH GA, Feb. 21, 2012, http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/63626/.

719 Ashley

Fielding, Decline in inmates fuels push to sell midtown jail, GAINESVILLE TIMES, Feb. 22, 2012, http://
www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/63704/.
720

See Ashley Fielding, Gainesville offers 7.2M for old Hall County jail, GAINESVILLE TIMES, Mar. 21, 2012, http://
www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/64971/.
721

Id.

722

Based on information given by Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility on
October 21, 2011; see also Inside CCA, North Georgia Opens, Receives First Inmates, http://www.insidecca.com/
inside-cca/north-georgia-opens.
723

Id.

724

Id.

725

North Georgia Detention Center Detainee Handbook [hereinafter NGDC Detainee Handbook], 2 (revised 3/2/11).

726

Id.

727

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of NGDC on October 21, 2011; see also NGDC
Detainee Handbook, 2.
728

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 2.

729

Id. at 5.

730

Based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No. 2011-12787 filed Aug. 8, 2011.

731

Based on information given by Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC, during tour of ACDC facility on October 21,
2011.
732

Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review: Hall County Detention Center Annual
Review 2 (December 8-9, 2008).
733

Id.

734

ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review, based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request
No. 11-12787, filed Aug. 8, 2011.

151

735

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, National
Detainee Handbook, Detention Management Division 12, Release 1 [hereinafter “ICE Detainee Handbook”] (May
2008); see also Section 23,Attorney Visits 13 (“You should receive a list of pro bono legal organizations operating in
your area from the facility staff.”).
736

Interviews with Sergio Velasquez Espiria on April 15, 2011, Fredin Toledo on June 3, 2011, and Luis Ventura on
July 15, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC.
737 American

Convention on Human Rights art. 8; see also, ICCPR art. 14; UN Body of Principles, princ. 10-18
(Dec. 9, 1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm.
738

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 23; see also National Detainee Handbook, Section 23, Attorney Visits 13.

739

Based on information given by Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC, during tour of facility on October 21, 2011.
When the ACLU of Georgia met with Daniela Esquivela on October 21, 2011, we were allowed a contact visit. In
addition, CCA stated that the "Notification to Facility Visitors (Attorney) Form provides a choice for attorneys to
request a ‘Contact’ or ‘Non Contact Visit’ at their choice.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. The ACLU of Georgia also received a copy of the updated form and
verified that it had both contact and non-contact options. Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
740

Id. The relevant section reads: “All other information is considered confidential and I agree to clear any other
information through the Warden or designee…However any information which would have any affect [sic] on
security and the welfare of detainees/residents or staff must be forwarded to the Warden or designee.”
741

When asked to respond, CCA did not deny this but stated that the form also has a clause that states "…any
information which would have any affect [sic] on security and the welfare of detainees/residents or staff must be
forwarded to the Warden or designee." Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU
of Georgia via email. The ACLU of Georgia is troubled by the language of the form which seems to require that
only certain information related to the convictions and time served may be released while all other information must
be cleared through the Warden of the facility: “All other information is considered confidential and I agree to clear
any other information through the Warden or designee.” CCA North Georgia Detention Center “Notification to
Facility Visitors (Attorney)” 2. Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of
Georgia via email.
742

CCA provided the following response: “Copies are only made at the attorney's request and provided to the
detainee in the presence of the attorney who requested the exchange. CCA-North Georgia Detention Center does not
keep any legal copies, nor do we violate attorney-client confidentiality.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29,
2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
743

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Johnny. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at NGDC on December 23, 2011. CCA provided the following response; “The Detainee Handbook clearly
states that Talton Communications services manages the facility's detainee phone system; (Page 21) of the NGDC
Detainee Handbook outlines the specifics regarding this matter.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
744

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 22.

745

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations during ACLU of Georgia’s
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
746

Interview with William Bey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 14, 2011.

747

Id.

748

Based on information given by Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC, during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.

152

749

Based on information given by NGDC’s Library Aide during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011. CCA
provided the following response: “Law Library is not equipped with internet access; therefore detainees would not
be printing items from the internet. In the event that a detainee needs copies of information collected for their case,
the Law Library Aid will assist them by printing information to the printer located beside the computer in the Law
Library and that supplemental updates are done on a quarterly basis.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29,
2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
750

CCA provided the following response: “NGDC has a contract with Language Line Services that is available at
the request of any detainee; requests would be made to the Library Aid overseeing the Law Library or may be
requested to the ICE Agent over their cases. Upon request, special arrangements will be made to accommodate the
request.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
751

Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

752

Id.

753

Interview with William Bey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 14, 2011.

754

Id.

755

Id.

756

For purposes of this report, this detainee requested to be referred to as Manny. Interviews conducted with Manny
on March 19, 2011 and Carlos Vargas on July 26, 2011 by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC.
757

Interview with Carlos Vargas conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

758

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 who stated that they
either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they were precluded
from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty, Assistant Field Office
Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
759

Interview with Fredin Toledo conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 3, 2011.

760

Id.

761

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ICE on March 20, 2012 to which ICE
responded that they either did not have enough information to research the case or that due to privacy concerns they
were precluded from disclosing detailed information about individual cases. Email from William McCafferty,
Assistant Field Office Director (Mar. 26, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
762

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 22.

763

Interview with Eduardo Jurado conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on March 19, 2011.

764

Id.

765

See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Press Release, ICE announces major reforms to
immigration detention system (Aug. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0908/090806washington.htm; U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2009 Immigration Detention Reforms,
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/2009_immigration_detention_reforms.htm.
766

IACHR, X & Y (Argentina), Report No. 38/96 (Merits), Case No. 11.506, para. 96 (October 15, 1996), http://
www.cidh/oas/org/annualrep/96eng/Argentina11506.htm.
767

Based on information from Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone and observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
768

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 19.

153

769

Interview with William Bey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 14, 2011.

770

Interview with Carlos Vargas conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

771

Interview with Dung Dang conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on April 15, 2011.

772

Interview with Edith Ornelas Mejia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

773

Id. When asked to respond to the price of phone services, CCA claimed that they had no control over pricing
which is set by ICE and Talton Communications. Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by
the ACLU of Georgia via email.
774

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

775

The relevant passage in the handbook states: “Pursuant to ICE detainee telephone regulations, all conversations
are subject to monitoring. Your use of this telephone constitutes consent to this monitoring. You must contact the
Facility Investigator to request unmonitored attorney calls.” NGDC Detainee Handbook, 17.
776

Id. at 17, 20. When provided an opportunity to respond, CCA did not deny these allegations but stated: “The
Detainee Handbook (page 21) outlines the procedures to exclude phone monitoring with attorneys. ‘Detainee's [sic]
who wish to exercise their Attorney confidentiality privileges while utilizing the detainee telephones, must submit a
Detainee Request to their Unit Manager which shall include the attorney's name and verifiable landline number.
Once the number is confirmed, it will be excluded from the monitoring system.’” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden
(Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
777

Based on information provided by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia
during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
778

Id.

779

Id.

780

Id.

781

Id.

782

Id. Level 1 detainees wear blue, level 2 orange, and level 3 red, according to the NGDC Detainee Handbook, 5.

783

Id.

784

Id.

785

Id.

786

Id.

787

Id.

788

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

789

Id.

790

Id.

791

Id.

792 According

to Natalia, each detainee is given his/her own individual supply of toilet paper. Interview with Natalia
Elzaurdia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 20, 2011.

154

793

Id. When asked for a response, CCA stated: “The Detainee Handbook (page 8) ‘Personal Hygiene’ states,
‘Personal hygiene items are issued upon admittance as well as, consumable hygiene items will be reissued weekly
on an exchange basis by unit staff.’ Our records show that this detainee has never filed a formal grievance.” Email
from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
794

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

795

Id.

796

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
797

Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review: Hall County Detention Center Annual
Review 4 (December 8-9, 2008).
798

See IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XI-XIII, X, XVIII (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/
English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm; see also UN Body of Principles (Dec. 9,
1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm; UN Standard Minimum Rules (Dec. 14, 1990), http://
www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.
799

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 5.

800

Id.

801

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone; observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011; and Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia
at NGDC on October 21, 2011.
802

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011. When
asked for a response, CCA stated: “Upon entry of the CCA-North Georgia Detention Center, detainees are issued a
‘personal hygiene kit,’ the Detainee Handbook (pages 8-9) outlines Personal Hygiene in detail. At no time has the
CCA-North Georgia Detention Center run out of personal hygiene supplies. If detainees require additional supplies,
they should notify their housing officer and the supplies will be promptly provided.” Email from Stacey Stone,
Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
803Id.
804

Interview with Geraldine Ayala by Gainesville-based attorney on behalf of the ACLU of Georgia on November
25, 2011.
805

Based on information from Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
806

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 33.

807

Based on information from Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
808

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.

809

Id.

810

Id.

811

Based on information from Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011. When asked for a response, CCA acknowledged this practice: “This
statement is true; as described on page 35, question 7 in the CCA-North Georgia Detention Center Handbook.”
Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

155

812

Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review: Hall County Detention Center Annual
Review, 30 (December 8-9, 2008). The audit states that the next annual review will be scheduled on or before
December 8, 2009.
813 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 2, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
814

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 7.

815

See U.N. News Centre, Solitary Confinement Should be Banned in Most Cases, U.N. Expert Says (Oct. 18, 2011),
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097.
816

Based on information from Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia during
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
817

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 7.

818

Interview with Natalia Elzaurdia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 20, 2011.

819

Id.

820

Id.

821

Interview with Rodrigo de la Cruz conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on March 19, 2011.

822

Id.

823

Interview with Jose Cruz Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on May 11, 2011.

824

Id. When provided with an opportunity to respond, CCA stated: “Detainees are not limited to a set time frame to
complete their meals. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner are provided daily with adequate portions given. All meals are
approved by a registered dietician and meet the required caloric intake.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29,
2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
825

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

826

Based on information provided by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia
during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
827

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011. The ACLU
of Georgia was unable to clarify what size a “pack” is. In response to this statement, CCA claimed: “We provide
both name brand and comparable (cost effective) items on our commissary list; prices are set by Mid-States and
depending on the contract, mark-ups may/may not be added.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
828

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 21.

829

Id.

830

Interviews with Eduardo Jurado on March 19, 2011, Manny on March 19, 2011, Rodriguez de la Cruz on March
19, 2011, Dung Dang on April 15, 2011, and Luis Ventura on July 15, 2011 by the ACLU of Georgia.
831

Id.

832

Id.

833

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XIV (Mar. 14, 2008),
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.
834

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 20.

156

835

Based on information provided by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia
during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
836

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia on tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.

837

The ACLU of Georgia was provided with an October 2011 Calendar of Religious Services during tour of the
facility on October 21, 2011.
838

Id.

839

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 2.

840

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.

841

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
842

Interviews with Daniela Esquivela on October 21, 2011 and Geraldine Ayala on November 25, 2011 conducted
by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC.
843

Interview with Geraldine Ayala by Gainesville-based attorney on behalf of the ACLU of Georgia on November
25, 2011.
844

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

845

Id. In response to these statements, CCA stated: “Recreation is offered 1 hour per day per policy on a voluntary
basis. CCA-North Georgia Detention Center offers low impact activities to all detainees; these include cards, board
games, and other indoor activities when weather is inclement.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012).
Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
846 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
847

Id.

848

Interview with William Bey conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 14, 2011.

849

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 4 (“The recreation privilege shall be denied or suspended only if the detainee’s recreational
activity would unreasonably endanger safety or security”), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
850

The medical health unit does not employ an on-site doctor, but only nurse practitioners. The mental health unit
only has one psychiatrist who is available on-site for four hours per week and on an on-call basis. Based on
information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the
facility on October 21, 2011.
851

Interviews with Edith Ornelas Mejia on July 26, 2011, Jose Cruz Morales on May 11, 2011, and Carlos Valdez
Vargas on July 26, 2011, conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC.
852

Four of 15 detainees that we spoke to were not asked mental health questions during their intake examinations in
2011 in violation of ICE PBNDS. Interviews with Sergi Velasquez on April 15, 2011, Jose Cruz Morales on May 11,
2011, Fredin Toledo on June 3, 2011, and Luis Ventura on July 15, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at
NGDC.
853

Information provided by Natalia Elzuardia. Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 20,
2011.
854

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 41.

855

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia on tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.

157

856

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations during ACLU of Georgia’s
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
857

Id.

858

Id.

859

Id. Negative pressure cells are used to house detainees with diseases such as tuberculosis.

860

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 41.

861

Id.

862

Id.

863

Id.

864

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations during ACLU of Georgia’s
tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
865

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.

866

Interview with Natalia Elzaurdia conducted by ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 20, 2011 and letter from
Francisco Elzaurdia and Adrian Piccini to Stacey Stone, Warden of NGDC on June 13, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia
spoke to Natalia’s father, Francisco Elzaurdia on December 6, 2011. Natalia was deported to Uruguay at the end of
June. Within weeks of being deported, Natalia suffered a miscarriage. Natalia’s father said that the loss has been
extremely difficult on the family and that both he and his wife are planning to move back to Uruguay permanently to
be with Natalia. When asked to provide a response, CCA stated: “Individual cases are protected by HIPPA; however,
all policies and procedures are followed. Special cases are handled on an individual basis. A request may be made as
defined under the routine/emergency services section of the Detainee Handbook (page 42) when an urgent need is
needed.” Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
867

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia
during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011.
868

For purposes of this report, this detainee requested to be referred to as Bibi. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at NGDC on January 23, 2012.
869

Id.

870

Id.

871

Interview with Carlos Valdez Vargas conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

872

Interview with Edith Ornelas Mejia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

873

Interview with Geraldine Ayala by Gainesville-based attorney on behalf of the ACLU of Georgia on November
25, 2011.
874

Id.

158

875

Id. When asked to provide a response to the allegations in this paragraph, CCA stated: “Individual cases are
protected by HIPPA; however, all policies and procedures are followed. When a detainee is identified as being HIV
positive, medical can order the medication by noon, and have it in the following day for the detainee. At no time did
this detainee or any other fail to receive necessary medication on an immediate basis. HIV Education/Testing is also
available per page 43 of the North Georgia Detention Center Detainee Handbook. Appointments are scheduled
according to medical necessity. Sick call guidelines are outlined on page 42 of the North Georgia Detention Center
Detainee Handbook. Health appraisals are available for all detainees after 14 days of arriving to our facility; if there
is unusual pain, discharge, etc., regular sick call procedures will be followed. All medical complaints are handled in
the least invasive manner possible, should serious issues arise, outside medical referrals will take place.” Email from
Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
876

Interview with Natalia Elzaurdia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 20, 2011.

877

Principle 25(1) states; “The medical officer shall have the care of the physical and mental health of the prisoners
and should daily see all sick prisoners, all who complain of illness, and any prisoner to whom his attention is
specially directed.” United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, August 30, 1955, G.A.
Res. 45/11, UN Doc A/RES/45/110 (Dec. 14, 1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.
878

Interview with Edith Ornelas Mejia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

879

Interview with Jose Cruz Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on May 11, 2011.

880

Id.

881

Interview with Carlos Valdez Vargas conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 26, 2011.

882

When asked to respond, CCA stated: “The CCA-North Georgia Detention Center has a contract with Language
Line Services and actively utilizes services if necessary. Bi-lingual staff is on-site and assist with translating on a
regular basis. Since the date of activation in 2009, there have been no grievances filed against medical.” Email from
Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
883

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XX (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.
884

Based on information given by Warden of NGDC, Stacey Stone, and observations by the ACLU of Georgia
during tour of the facility on October 21, 2011. When asked to respond, CCA acknowledged this and further stated:
“CCA-North Georgia Detention Center has a contract with a psychiatrist on a part-time basis; however, he is
available 24/7, and an on staff full-time Mental Health Coordinator who is also available 24/7.” Email from Stacey
Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
885

See Justice Policy Institute, Dangers of Detention (Mar. 2011), http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/
justicepolicy/documents/dangers_of_detention.pdf; see also Physicians for Human Rights and the Bellevue/NYU
Program for Survivors of Torture, From Persecution to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention of Asylum
Seekers, idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/phr-report.pdf.
886

Interview with Eduardo Jurado conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on March 19, 2011.

887

Id.

888

ICE Detainee Handbook, 3.

889

CCA denied this allegation stating: “All detainees are asked Mental Health questions during their intake process
by intake staff and the information is maintained in their confidential files that are maintained in Medical Records.”
Email from Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
890

Interviews with Sergi Velasquez on April 15, 2011, Jose Cruz Morales on May 11, 2011, Fredin Toledo on June 3,
2011, and Luis Ventura on July 15, 2011conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC.
891

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

159

892

National Detainee Handbook, Section 18, Suicide Prevention 11.

893

NGDC Detainee Handbook, 52.

894

Interview with Natalia Elzuardia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on June 20, 2011.

895

Id.

896

Id.

897

Id. CCA denied this practice stating: “Policy and procedure is followed with regards to mental health issues. At
no time, has a detainee been placed in segregation for specific mental health reasons. The detainees may complete a
request to be seen by the Mental Health Coordinator as defined in the Detainee Handbook. Sick call boxes are
located in designated locations and are available for use by all detainees wishing to use it at any time.” Email from
Stacey Stone, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
898

Interview with Daniela Esquivela conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on October 21, 2011.

899

Interview with Eduardo Jurado conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on March 19, 2011.

900

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Johnny. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at NGDC on December 23, 2011.
901

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Manny. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at NGDC on March 19, 2011.
902

Interview with Edith Ornelas Mejia conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at NGDC on July 14, 2011. CCA denied
this practice stating: “NGDC does not withhold recreation or unnecessarily place detainees in segregation. There are
different avenues for detainees to address complaints as defined on pages 32-33 in the Detainee Handbook. There
has been no retaliatory misconduct by CCA-North Georgia Detention Center staff.” Email from Stacey Stone,
Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.
903

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 3 (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
904

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the Irwin County Detention Center on September 30,
2011.
905

Id.

906

Intergovernmental Service Agreement No. 20-07-0058, Housing of Federal Prisoners between the United States
Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice, and the United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, to house federal detainees with the Local
Government at the Irwin County Detention Center 9 (July 25, 2007).
907

Id. at 4.

908

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on September 30, 2011.

909

In addition to the immigrant detainee capacity being at only 50 percent, the entire facility of 1,200 beds is only at
50 percent capacity. Because of this, bondholders forced a Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the property in March 2012.
The low number of immigrant detainees is due to “reported impediments including bureaucratic delays at ICE,
murky authority over marketing, and public budget constraints.” See Margaret Newkirk, Small-Town Lockups
Without Prisoners Send Bonds Into Default, BLOOMBERG NEWS, Mar. 22, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
2012-03-22/small-town-lockups-without-prisoners-send-bonds-into-default.html.
910

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on September 30, 2011.

911

Id.

160

912

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a
response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
913

See Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011 and October 17, 2011.

914

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to by her first name only. Interview with Veronica
conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.
915

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility on September 30, 2011.

916

The ACLU of Georgia does not have information on what percentage of staff at Stewart and NGDC are bilingual.
917

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XX (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm. (providing that staff in detention facilities should
be trained in “psychological aspects relating to detention, cultural sensitivity and human rights procedures, and
ensuring that centres are not administratively run by private companies or staffed by private personnel unless they
are adequately trained.”).
918

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

919

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

920

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
921

Id.

922 American

Convention on Human Rights art. 8; see also, ICCPR art. 14; UN Body of Principles, princ. 10-18
(Dec. 9, 1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm.
923

See Katzmann Immigrant Representation Study Group, The New York Immigrant Representation Study Group
Preliminary Findings (May 3, 2011), graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/050411immigrant.pdf.
924 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards: Legal Rights Groups Presentations 1 (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/
2008.
925

Information provided to the ACLU of Georgia by attorney Chaka Washington on December 2, 2011.

926

Email from Pamela J. Reeves, Assistant Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec.
1, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement
from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
927

Email from Joshulyn Davis, Captain of Irwin, Re: Attorney Visits (Dec. 6, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU of
Georgia through an attorney visit to Irwin on December 7, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this
statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
928

Interview with Dulce Bolanos-Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

929

Id.

930

ICE Detainee Handbook, 12.

931

Irwin County Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook, 10 (effective August, 2011). The ACLU of Georgia
sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
932

Interview with Dulce Bolanos-Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

161

933

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
934

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
935

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
936

Interview with Florent Kalala conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2012. Florent Kalala
stated that while there were three computers at the law library, only two of them were operable. Florent Kalala
further stated that the third computer had not been working for over four months and the staff at Irwin had yet to fix
the computer. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012,
but no response was provided.
937 A copy

of the petition was given to the ACLU of Georgia by Florent Kalala on January 30, 2012 [hereinafter
“Irwin Detainee Petition”]. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on
March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
938

Irwin Detainee Petition at 2-3. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on
March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
939

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
940

Interview with Ignacio Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

941

Id.

942

Interview with Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011.

943

Id.

944

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

945

Interview with Norberto Neira conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

946

Id.

947

Id.

948

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, art XXV,
O.A.S. Official Rec., OEA/Ser.L./V./II.23, doc. 21 rev. 6 (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human
Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser. L.V/II.82, doc. 6 rev. 1(1992), http://www.hrea.org/index.php?
doc_id=413; see also IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. IX(4) (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/
Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.
949

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, X & Y (Argentina), Report No. 38/96 (Merits), Case No. 11.506,
para. 96 (October 15, 1996), http://www.cidh/oas/org/annualrep/96eng/Argentina11506.htm.
950

Irwin County Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook, 8 (effective August, 2011). The ACLU of Georgia
sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
951

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on July 22, 2011 and October 17, 2011 at Irwin. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
952

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to by her first name only. Interview with Veronica
conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this
statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

162

953

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.
954

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
955

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of the facility on September 30, 2011.

956

Id.

957

Id.

958

Id.

959

Id.

960

Id.

961

Interview with Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
962

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
963

Interview with Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011.

964

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.
965

Id.

966

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
967

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

968

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was given.
969

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
970

See IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XI-XIII, X, XVIII (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/
English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm; see also UN Body of Principles (Dec. 9,
1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm; UN Standard Minimum Rules (Dec. 14, 1990), http://
www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.
971

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on September 30, 2011.

972

Id.

973

Interviews with Angela Kelley (March 10, 2011) and Florent Kalala (January 30, 2012) conducted by the ACLU
of Georgia at Irwin.
974

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
975

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011 and July 22, 2011.

976

Interview with Angela Kelley conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

163

977

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
978

Id.

979

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
980

Irwin County Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook, 8 (effective August, 2011).

981

Interview with Florent Kalala conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2012. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was given.
982

Id.

983

Id.

984

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.
985

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 2, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.
986

See U.N. News Centre, Solitary Confinement Should be Banned in Most Cases, U.N. Expert Says (Oct. 18, 2011),
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097.
987

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on September 30, 2011.

988

Id.

989

Id.

990

Id.

991 ACLU

of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response
was provided.
992

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

993

Id.

994

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

995

Id.

996

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to by her first name only. Interview conducted by
the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.
997

Interviews with Maria Francisco and Veronica conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

998

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response
was provided.
999

Interviews with Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011 and January 30,
2012.
1000

Id.

1001

Id.

164

1002

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1003

Interview with Florent Kalala conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2012. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1004

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1005

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1006

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011 and October 17. 2011.

1007

Interview with Norberto Neira conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

1008

Letter provided by two sets of family members of detainees received via email by the ACLU of Georgia on
January 24 and January 26, 2012.

1009

Id.

1010

Id.

1011

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1012

Interviews with Florent Kalala and Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2012.

1013

Interview with Florent Kalala conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2012.

1014

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1015

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011 and July 22, 2011.

1016

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to by her first name only. Interview conducted by
the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from
Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1017

Irwin County Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook, 22 (effective August, 2011).

1018

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011.

1019

ICE Detainee Handbook, 20 (May 2008). The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from
Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1020

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011 and October 17, 2011.

1021

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

1022 Irwin did not provide a detainee handbook to the ACLU of Georgia at the time of the facility tour; see also
interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.
1023

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a
response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1024

Id.

1025

Id.

1026

Id.

165

1027

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1028

Interview with Norberto Neira conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

1029

Id.

1030

Id.

1031

Id.

1032

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1033

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

1034

Id.

1035

Interview with Ignacio Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1036

Id.

1037

Id.

1038

Id.

1039

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1040

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a
response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1041

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XX (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.

1042

Information gathered during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of Irwin on September 30, 2011.

1043

Id.

1044

Id.

1045

Id.

1046

Id.

1047

Id.

1048

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response
was provided.

1049

Id.

1050

Id.

1051

Id.

1052

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

166

1053

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on July 22, 2011.

1054

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1055

Interview with Ignacio Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1056

Interview with Jose Ponce conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on December 7, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1057

Interview with Peter Obande Jacobs conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on January 30, 2012. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1058

Interview with Angela Kelley conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1059

See United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, August 30, 1955, G.A. Res. 45/11,
UN Doc A/RES/45/110 (Dec. 14, 1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.

1060

Interviews with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez, Ignacio Morales, and Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Irwin. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20,
2012, but no response was provided.

1061

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011 and October 17, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1062

Id.

1063

Interview with Ignacio Morales conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on October 17, 2011.

1064

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1065

Id.

1066

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011 and October 17, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1067

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XX (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.

1068

Eight of the 13 interviewees were afraid to complain because of retaliation that might be exacted against
them. Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011, July 22, 2011, October 17, 2011,
and January 30, 2012.

1069

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011, July 22, 2011, and October 17,
2011.

1070

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

1071

Id.

1072

Id.

1073

Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
(Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.

167

1074

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, Management of Mental Health Cases
in Immigration Detention 15, OIG-11-62 (Mar. 2011), www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-62_Mar11.pdf.
1075

See U.N. News Centre, Solitary Confinement Should be Banned in Most Cases, U.N. Expert Says (Oct. 18,
2011), http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097.

1076

Interviews with Dulce Bolanos-Estrada on March 10, 2011, Angela Kelley on March 10, 2011, Veronica on July
22, 2011, and Maria Francisco on July 22, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1077

Interview with Veronica conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on July 22, 2011. For purposes of this report, this
detainee wished to be referred to as Veronica.

1078

Id.

1079

Id.

1080

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011, July 22, 2011, and October 17,
2011.

1081

Eight of the 13 interviewees were afraid to complain because of retaliation that might be exacted against them.
Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011, July 22, 2011, October 17, 2011, and
January 30, 2012.

1082

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1083

Id.

1084

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response
was provided.

1085

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011 and October 17, 2011.

1086

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011, July 22, 2011, and October 17,
2011.

1087

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

1088

Id.

1089

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. V (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm (stating that “all persons deprived of liberty shall
have the right…to lodge complaints or claims about acts of torture, prison violence, corporal punishment, cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as well as concerning prison or internment conditions, the lack of
appropriate medical or psychological care, and of adequate food.”); see also UN Body of Principles, princ. 33 (Dec.
9, 1988), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm.
1090

Interviews with Dulce Bolanos Estrada on March 10, 2011, Jovita Campuzano Jimenez on March 10, 2011,
Veronica on July 22, 2011, Clara on July 22, 2011, and Maria Francisco on July 22, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Irwin.

1091

Interviews with Veronica and Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on July 22, 2011.

1092

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1093

Id.

1094

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

168

1095

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Clara. Interview conducted by the ACLU of
Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1096

Id.

1097

Interview with Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1098

Id.

1099

Id.

1100

Interview with Angela Kelley conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

1101

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Veronica. Interview conducted by the ACLU
of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1102

Id.

1103

Id.

1104

Interview with Jovita Campuzano Jimenez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011.

1105

Interviews with Veronica, Angela Kelley, and Maria Francisco conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on
March 10, 2011 and July 22, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden
on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1106

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Veronica. Interview conducted by the ACLU
of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1107

Id.

1108

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1109

Interview with Dulce Bolanos Estrada conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The
ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response
was provided.

1110

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Veronica. Interview conducted by the ACLU
of Georgia at Irwin on July 22, 2011.

1111

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011 and July 22, 2011.

1112

Interview with Angela Kelley conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at Irwin on March 10, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1113

Id.

1114

Id.

1115

Id.

1116

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1117

See American Convention on Human Rights art. 8; see also, ICCPR art. 14; UN Body of Principles, princ. 10-18
(Dec. 9, 1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm.

1118 ICE National Detainee Handbook, 4-5; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008
Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National Detention Standards: Legal Rights Groups Presentations 1
(Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.

169

1119

Intergovernmental Service Agreement 19-02-0068 for Housing of Federal Prisoners between United States
Marshals Service and Atlanta City Department of Corrections 1 (Apr. 1, 2002).

1120

Id.

1121

Id.

1122

Id. at 3.

1123

Id. at 11.

1124 Although

the ACLU of Georgia filed a FOIA and made an informal request to ICE requesting the IGSA between
ICE and U.S. Marshals, the IGSA was not provided as of January 12, 2012. This information was provided by
Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1125

Information provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on
July 29, 2011.

1126

Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review: Atlanta City Detention Center 1 (May 23,
2008). This information is based on a report accessible through the online FOIA Library, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/
foia/isa/19020068atlantacitygaasofmodification1.pdf.

1127

Id. at 2.

1128

For a full summary of these rights, refer to section V. “Legal Standards of Detention,” sub-section B.
“Constitutional Standards.”

1129

For a full summary of these rights refer to section V. “Legal Standards of Detention,” sub-section C. “Regional
and International Human Rights Standards.”

1130

See Interviews with Richard Hylton on July 29, 2011, August 3, 2011, and Phone Interview on February 28,
2012, and with Yassine Sanhaji on August 11, 2010, August 3, 2011, and February 20, 2012, conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia.

1131

Information provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on
July 29, 2011.

1132

Id.

1133

Id.

1134

Interview with Damien Alvarez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1135

Id.

1136

U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mission to the
United States of America para 21, A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 (Mar. 5, 3008)(prepared by Jorge Bustamante).

1137

Specifically, George Eldigin and Yassine Sanhaji mentioned that no one had come to talk with them about their
rights. Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2009 and August 11, 2010 and follow up
Interview at ACDC on August 3, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s
Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1138

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 1 (Dec. 2 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.

1139 Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
24 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.

170

1140

Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review: Atlanta City Detention Center, 6 (May 23,
2008).

1141

84% of non-citizen detainees were non-represented in 2007. See U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Executive Office
for Immigration Review, FY 2007 Statistical Year Book (March 2008), http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/statspub/
fy07syb.pdf (hereinafter “DOJ 2007 Year Book”). The U.S. government’s fiscal year runs from October 1.
1142

Katzmann Immigrant Representation Study Group, The New York Immigrant Representation Study Group
Preliminary Findings (May 3, 2011), graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/050411immigrant.pdf.

1143

Id.

1144

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1145

Id.

1146

Id.

1147

Id.

1148

Id.

1149

This information was provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of
ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1150

Interview with Sherwin Andres conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 23, 2009.

1151

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 4 (Dec. 2, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.

1152 Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
24 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.
1153

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1154

Interview with Behrouz Salamat conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

1155

Interview with Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

1156

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1157

Interview with Andy Mathe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 11, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to these statements from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1158

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1159 ACDC
1160

Detainee Handbook, 8.

ICE Detainee Handbook, 12 (May 2008).

1161 Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
24 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.
1162

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1163 Atlanta

City Detention Center Inmate/Detainee Handbook [hereinafter “ACDC Detainee Handbook”] 22
(August 2010 Revision).

171

1164

Id.

1165

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1166

Interview conducted with Hamid Karimiha by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on May 6, 2011.

1167

Id.

1168 See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Press Release, ICE announces major reforms to
immigration detention system (Aug. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0908/090806washington.htm; U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2009 Immigration Detention Reforms,
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/2009_immigration_detention_reforms.htm.
1169

IACHR, X & Y (Argentina), Report No. 38/96 (Merits), Case No. 11.506, para. 96 (October 15, 1996), http://
www.cidh/oas/org/annualrep/96eng/Argentina11506.htm.

1170

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1171

Id.

1172

Id.

1173

Id.

1174

Id.

1175

Id.

1176

Id.

1177

Id.

1178

Id.

1179

Id.

1180Information

July 29, 2011.

provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on

1181

Interview with George Edigin conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2009.

1182

Id.

1183

Interview conducted with Andy Mathe by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to these statements from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1184

Id.

1185

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1186

See also UN Body of Principles, princ. 8 (Dec. 9, 1988), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/
treatmentprisoners.htm.

1187

Information provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on
July 29, 2011.

1188

Id.

172

1189

Id.

1190

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011.

1191

Id.

1192

Id.

1193

Id.

1194

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji on August 11, 2010 and Edwin Edgold Omoregbe on July 22, 2010 conducted by
the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from ACDC’s Warden
on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1195

ICE Detainee Handbook, 18 (May 2008).

1196

Id.

1197

See IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XI-XIII, X, XVIII (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/
English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm; see also UN Body of Principles, princ. 8
(Dec. 9, 1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm; UN Standard Minimum Rules (Dec. 14,
1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.

1198

Interview with Richard Hylton conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011 and August 3,
2011.

1199

Id.

1200

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1201

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1202

Id.

1203

Id.

1204

Id.

1205

Id.

1206

Id.

1207

Id.

1208

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1209

Id.

1210

Interview with Behrouz Salamat conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1211

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1212

Id.

173

1213

Interview with Damien Alvarez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1214

Id.

1215

Id.

1216

Id.

1217

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1218

See U.N. News Centre, Solitary Confinement Should be Banned in Most Cases, U.N. Expert Says (October 18,
2011), http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097; see also ICE October 2009 Report acknowledging
that segregation is “not conducive to recovery” and recommending the banning of the practice of segregating
detainees with mental health problems. Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration
Detention Overview and Recommendations 22 (Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/
091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.

1219

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1220

Interview with Andy Mathe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2011.

1221

Id.

1222

Interview with Ebong Enobony conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 23, 2009.

1223

Interview with Damien Alvarez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011.

1224

Interview with Andy Mathe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1225

Interview conducted with Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22,
2010. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1226

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1227

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1228

Interview with Andy Mathe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1229

Id.

1230

Interviews with Richard Hylton conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011 and August 3,
2011. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1231

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

174

1232

Id.

1233

Id.

1234

Condition of Confinement Review Worksheet 12 (ACDC, July 7-9 2009), based on response received to ACLU
of Georgia FOIA Request No. 11-12787, filed Aug. 8, 2011.

1235

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from Irwin’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1236

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011. The ACLU of Georgia
sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1237

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 1, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.

1238

See IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XI-XIII, X, XVIII (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/
English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm; see also UN Body of Principles, princ. 8
(Dec. 9, 1988), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm; UN, Standard Minimum Rules (Dec. 14,
1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.

1239

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1240

Interview with George Edigin conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2009.

1241

Interview with Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

1242

Interviews with Richard Hylton conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011 and August 3,
2011.

1243 ACDC

Detainee Handbook, 26.

1244

As discussed above, detainees are paid $1.00 to $3.00 per day at Stewart and NGDC. This amount is well below
minimum wage and may violate principle XIV of IACHR Principles which provides that all detainees have a right
“to receive a fair and equitable remuneration.” IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XIV (Mar. 14, 2008),
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.
1245

ICE Detainee Handbook, 19 (May 2008).

1246

Id.

1247

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1248

Id.

1249

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1250

Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1251

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.

1252

Id.

1253

Email from Pamela Reeves, Assistance Field Office Director of Public Affairs for the Atlanta Field Office (Dec.
20, 2011). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.; see also Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards
Compliance Review: Atlanta City Detention Center 27 (May 23, 2008), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dfra-ice-dro/
atlantacitydetentioncenteratlantaga0513152008.pdf.

1254

Observed by the ACLU of Georgia during its visit to ACDC on February 20, 2012.

175

1255

Interviews with Cristian Morales and Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on
August 11, 2010 and July 22, 2010.

1256

ICE Detainee Handbook, 20 (May 2008).

1257

Id.

1258

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards 1, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008.

1259

Based on observations and staff interviews by the ACLU of Georgia conducted during its tour of ACDC on July
29, 2011.

1260

Id.

1261

Id.

1262

Id.

1263

Id.

1264

Information provided by Officer Bond, Assistant Major of ACDC, during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on
July 29, 2011.

1265

Based on observations and staff interviews by the ACLU of Georgia conducted during its tour of ACDC on July
29, 2011.

1266

Id.

1267

Id.

1268
1269

Interview with Nurse Anderson conducted during ACLU of Georgia’s tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011.
Id.

1270

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 2008 Operations Manual ICE Performance Based National
Detention Standards, Medical Care 2, http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2008 (“Detainees will have access to
emergency and specified routine dental care provided under direction and supervision of a licensed dentist.”).
1271

Interview with Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

1272

Interview with Damien Alvarez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011.

1273

Interviews with Richard Hylton conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011 and August 3,
2011.

1274

ICE Detainee Handbook states that detainees will “undergo a thorough medical examination conducted by
approved medical examiners within 14 days after our arrival.” 3 (May 2008); ACDC Detainee Handbook states:
“Upon arrival each detainee will be screened for medical problems to include tuberculosis testing.” 4.

1275

Id.

1276

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. IX (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm; see also UN Body of Principles, princ. 24 (Dec. 9,
1988), http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/5468479.39491272.html.

1277

Interview with Damien Alvarez conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1278

Interview with Ebong Enobony conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 23, 2009.

176

1279

Id.

1280

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but
no response was provided.

1281

For purposes of this report, this detainee wished to be referred to as Jag. Phone interview conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia on January 18, 2012. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s
Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1282

Id.

1283

Id.

1284

Id.

1285

Id. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1286

Based on observations and staff interviews by the ACLU of Georgia conducted during its tour of ACDC on July
29, 2011.

1287

See United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, August 30, 1955, G.A. Res. 45/11,
UN Doc A/RES/45/110 (Dec. 14, 1990), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36e8.html.

1288

Based on conditions as of July 29, 2011.

1289

Interview with Richard Hylton conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011 and August 3,
2011.

1290

U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, Report on Richard G.
Hylton, Complaint No. 11-11-ICE-0307 (filed Aug. 22, 2011), documents received by the ACLU of Georgia from
Mr. Hylton’s attorney via email on February 22, 2012.

1291

Id.

1292

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011 and August 3, 2011. Phone Interview
conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on February 28, 2012. Mr. Hylton was released from ACDC on February 1,
2012.

1293

Phone Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia on February 28, 2012.

1294

U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, Report on Richard G.
Hylton, Complaint No. 11-11-ICE-0307 (filed Aug. 22, 2011), documents received by the ACLU of Georgia from
Mr. Hylton’s attorney via email on February 22, 2012.

1295

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to these statements from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1296

Based on observations by the ACLU of Georgia during its tour of ACDC on July 29, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1297

Interview with Edwin Edgold Omoregbe conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

1298

Confirmed by interviews with Sherwin Andrews on July 23, 2009 and with Richard Hylton on July 29, 2011 and
August 3, 2011 conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC.

1299

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

177

1300

Creative Corrections, ICE Detention Standards Compliance Review: Atlanta City Detention Center 35 (May 23,
2008), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dfra-ice-dro/atlantacitydetentioncenteratlantaga0513152008.pdf.

1301

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1302

Id.

1303

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1304

Id.

1305

Id.

1306

Id.

1307

See Interview with Yassine Sanhaji conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1308

Interview with Richard Hylton conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 29, 2011. The ACLU of
Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no response was
provided.

1309

ICE National Detainee Handbook, 18.

1310 Dr. Dora Schriro, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations
(Oct. 6, 2009), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/091005_ice_detention_report-final.pdf.
1311 U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, Management of Mental Health Cases in
Immigration Detention 15, OIG-11-62 (Mar. 2011).
1312

Id. at 18.

1313

Id.

1314

IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. XXII (3) (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm.

1315

Interviews with Yassine Sanhaji on August 11, 2010 and Damien Alvarez on August 3, 2011 conducted by the
ACLU of Georgia at ACDC. The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on
March 20, 2012, but no response was provided.

1316

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011.

1317

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1318

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1319

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2011.

1320

Id.

1321

Id.

1322

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1323

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1324

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

178

1325

The ACLU of Georgia sought a response to this statement from ACDC’s Warden on March 20, 2012, but no
response was provided.

1326

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 23, 2009.

1327

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010.

1328

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 22, 2010.

1329

Interviews conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 11, 2010 and August 3, 2011.

1330

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on August 3, 2011. ACDC Detainee Handbook states
that an answer will be provided within five working days, and if the matter requires further investigation, the
detainee will be notified in writing. ACDC Detainee Handbook, 21.

1331

Interview conducted by the ACLU of Georgia at ACDC on July 7, 2011.

1332

See IACHR Principles and Practices, princ. V (Mar. 14, 2008), http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/
Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm (“all persons deprived of liberty shall have the
right…to lodge complaints or claims about acts of torture, prison violence, corporal punishment, cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment as well as concerning prison or internment conditions, the lack of appropriate
medical or psychological care, and of adequate food”); see also UN Body of Principles, princ. 33 (Dec. 9, 1988),
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/5468479.39491272.html.

1333

Condition of Confinement Review Worksheet 16, based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA
Request No. 11-12787, filed Aug. 8, 2011.

1334

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Detainees who died in ICE custody October 2003 – October
31, 2011 3, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/detaineedeaths2003-present.pdf.

1335

Id.

1336

Two of the detainees who died were housed at Stewart and the third detainee was housed at NGDC. See U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Detainees who died in ICE custody October 2003 – October 31, 2011
3, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/detaineedeaths2003-present.pdf.
1337

Id.

1338

Id.

1339

Georgia Detention Watch and ACLU of Georgia, Press Release: Silent Vigil Marks Anniversary of Roberto
Martinez Medina’s Death (Mar. 10, 2010), http://www.acluga.org/news/2010/03/11/aclu-of-georgia-participates-insilent-vigil-marking-anniversary-of-roberto-martinez-medina%E2%80%99s-death/; see also U.S. DEP'T OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, Data Entry Form re: Roberto Martinez Medina (Mar 24, 2009).
1340

Based on response received to ACLU FOIA Request No. 10-1427, filed Dec. 3, 2009.

1341

U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, Report on Roberto
Martinez Medina, Complaint No. 09-06-ICE-0042, based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request
No. CRCL-12-014, filed Dec. 30, 2011.

1342

Id.

1343

Id.

1344

Id. CCA provided the following response: “Medical care at Stewart is provided by IHSC, so CCA cannot
respond. In addition, to the extent CCA has medical information, applicable privacy laws would prohibit CCA from
discussing it.” Email from Michael Swinton, Warden (Mar. 29, 2012). Obtained by the ACLU of Georgia via email.

1345Based

on response received to ACLU FOIA Request No. 10-1427, filed Dec. 3, 2009.

179

1346

Id.

1347

U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Detainee Death Review, Case
No. 200905296, based on response received to ACLU of Georgia FOIA Request No. CRCL-12-014, filed Dec. 30,
2011.

1348

Information obtained by the ACLU of Georgia pursuant to FOIA Request No. 2011-150, filed July 29, 2011; see
also ICE News Release, ICE Detainee Passes Away at Georgia Medical Center (Apr. 29, 2011), www.ice.gov/news/
releases/1104/110429atlanta.htm.
1349 U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation (ROI) -111-ICEATL-00765 1, 18 (NGDC Progress Notes). Information obtained by the ACLU of Georgia pursuant to FOIA Request
No. 2011-150 on July 29, 2011.
1350

Id.

1351 Corrections Corporation of America, Incident Report (10/20/08) Information obtained by the ACLU of Georgia
pursuant to FOIA Request No. 2011-150 on July 29, 2011.
1352 U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation (ROI) -111-ICEATL-00765 Exhibit 1, 5. Information obtained by the ACLU of Georgia pursuant to FOIA Request No. 2011-150 on
July 29, 2011.
1353 Corrections Corporation of America, Incident Report (10/20/08) Information obtained by the ACLU of Georgia
pursuant to FOIA Request No. 2011-150 on July 29, 2011.
1354

Id. at 1.

1355

Id.

1356

Id.

1357

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation (ROI) -111-ICEATL-00765 Exhibit 1, 5. Information obtained by the ACLU of Georgia pursuant to FOIA Request No. 2011-150 on
July 29, 2011.
1358

ICE News Release, ICE Detainee Passes Away at Georgia Medical Center (Apr. 29, 2011), www.ice.gov/news/
releases/1104/110429atlanta.htm.

1359

Relevant section of the “Notification to Facility Visitors (Attorney)” form states: “All other information is
considered confidential and I agree to clear any other information through the Warden or designee…However, any
information which would have any affect [sic] on security and the welfare of detainees/residents or staff must be
forwarded to the Warden or designee.”

180

1360

DSDFDSF

181

1361

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA

1900 The Exchange, Suite 425
Atlanta, GA 30339
770.303.9966
info@acluga.org www.acluga.org

182