Juan Ayala v. United States, 982 F.3d 209

Juan Carlos Blanco Ayala, born in El Salvador, became a lawful permanent resident and lived with his father; his father naturalized in 1995.
In 2004, upon return from El Salvador, CBP concluded Blanco did not derive citizenship because his father lacked a written custody decree; Blanco was placed in immigration detention, conceded noncitizen status at removal proceedings, and was removed in December 2004.
Blanco returned to the U.S.; ICE detained him in November 2015 and reinstated the 2004 removal order; after counsel presented evidence of citizenship, ICE released him in April 2016 and USCIS later issued a certificate showing citizenship as of June 8, 1995.
Blanco filed an administrative claim with DHS (denied) and then an FTCA suit (August 2018) alleging assault/battery, false arrest/imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence for the investigation, arrest, detention, and incorrect citizenship determination.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA discretionary function exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)); Blanco appealed.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding DHS actions were discretionary and grounded in public policy considerations, so the discretionary function exception barred Blanco’s FTCA claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS officers’ investigation, arrest, detention, and removal decisions are protected by the FTCA discretionary function exception	Blanco: arrest and detention of a U.S. citizen are non‑discretionary duties; officers had no discretion to arrest/detain a citizen	U.S.: investigation, arrest, detention, and removal form a single enforcement continuum involving judgment calls and prosecutorial discretion	Held: actions are discretionary; exception applies and bars FTCA claims
Whether the enforcement process can be segmented so investigation is discretionary but arrest/detention are not	Blanco: may single out arrest/detention as non‑discretionary steps	U.S.: law enforcement is a continuum; later steps depend on investigatory judgments and prosecutorial choices	Held: cannot meaningfully segment; detention/removal decisions are tied to discretionary investigative/prosecutorial judgments
Whether a negligent or legally erroneous application of law defeats the discretionary function defense	Blanco: incorrect application of law (misidentifying citizenship) removes discretion	U.S.: exception covers errors or abuse of discretion; negligent mistakes do not remove immunity	Held: discretionary function protects decisions even if mistaken or negligently made

Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (established two‑part discretionary function test)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (presumption that discretionary acts involve policy considerations)
Holbrook v. United States, 673 F.3d 341 (4th Cir.) (discretionary function analysis and immunity applies despite error)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (prosecutorial/enforcement discretion)
United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797 (limits on FTCA waiver)
Medina v. United States, 259 F.3d 220 (4th Cir.) (arrest/detention of immigrant clothed in public policy considerations)
Wood v. United States, 845 F.3d 123 (4th Cir.) (discretionary function protects negligent exercise of discretion)
Tun‑Cos v. Perrotte, 922 F.3d 514 (4th Cir.) (immigration enforcement implicates foreign policy and national security considerations)