Maria S. v. Garza, 912 F.3d 778

Laura S., a Mexican citizen present in the U.S. without documentation, was detained by CBP near Pharr, Texas, processed at a Weslaco CBP facility, and presented Form I-826 (in Spanish) offering voluntary return or an immigration hearing.
Laura told officers she feared returning to Mexico because an ex-boyfriend, Sergio, threatened her; she cried and asked for help or release but was processed with two companions and ultimately selected (initialed) the voluntary return box.
Plaintiffs allege Agent Ramiro Garza coerced Laura into signing the voluntary return option; Agent Ruben Garcia was the facility supervisor who signed the record.
After being returned to Mexico, Laura was murdered by Sergio days later; her mother (on behalf of Laura’s children) sued under Bivens for due-process violations and wrongful death against Garza and Garcia.
The district court denied dismissal, allowed limited discovery, then granted summary judgment to both defendants: on qualified immunity and for lack of factual evidence of coercion (Garza) and supervisory noninvolvement (Garcia).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed on two independent grounds: (1) special factors preclude extending a Bivens remedy to this new context, and (2) both agents are entitled to qualified immunity (no genuinely disputed facts showing objectively unreasonable coercion by Garza; Garcia had no direct involvement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Bivens remedy exists for alleged due-process coercion during CBP processing leading to death abroad	Bivens should be extended to allow damages against CBP agents who coerced Laura into voluntary return	Special factors (statutory scheme, separation of powers, floodgates) preclude Bivens in immigration-removal context	No Bivens remedy; special factors preclude extension
Whether Agent Garza coerced Laura into signing Form I-826 (fact issue for trial)	Garza pressured, laughed, pointed, and said she "had to go back," creating a genuine coercion dispute	Evidence is insufficient; conduct (loud voice, pointing) is not objectively coercive; Laura had prior experience and the form was in Spanish	No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for Garza on coercion claim
Whether Agent Garcia was liable (direct or supervisory liability)	Garcia was the supervisor and thus responsible for processing decisions	Garcia acted only as a supervisor in the Bubble and had no demonstrated involvement in Laura's processing	Garcia had no factual involvement; summary judgment for Garcia
Whether agents are entitled to qualified immunity	Plaintiffs contend due-process rights were clearly established and violated	Agents argue either no constitutional violation or reasonable belief their conduct was lawful	Qualified immunity affirmed for both agents (no clearly established violation shown in the record as applied)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy for Fourth Amendment violation by federal agents)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (special-factors framework limits judicial creation of Bivens remedies)
Hernandez v. Mesa, 885 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (declined Bivens remedy for CBP cross-border shooting; applied Abbasi)
De La Paz v. Coy, 786 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2015) (refused to extend Bivens to unlawful-arrest claims against CBP agents; emphasized congressional framework)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (political branches hold broad authority over immigration)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity objective-reasonableness standard)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (qualified immunity two-step and clearly established law analysis)