PENA v. United States, 5:23-cv-03117

Peña, a Dominican Republic native, was granted permanent resident status in the U.S. in 2017, but his green card expired in 2019. He filed the necessary I-751 petition to remove residency conditions late.
In June 2020, when seeking to purchase a firearm in Pennsylvania, a "Brady query" to ICE resulted in an ICE employee reporting Peña as "not legally in the United States" due to the late I-751 filing.
This ICE response led Pennsylvania police to issue a warrant for Peña's arrest in January 2021; Peña was later arrested upon return to the U.S. from the Dominican Republic in August 2021.
USCIS approved Peña's I-751 in July 2021 while he was abroad, and criminal charges against him were eventually dismissed after his immigration status was clarified.
Peña sued the U.S. under the FTCA, claiming false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution based on ICE's allegedly false communication about his immigration status.
The government moved to dismiss based on the "misrepresentation" exception to FTCA, arguing the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.

Issue	Peña's Argument	U.S. Argument	Held
Does the "misrepresentation" exception to FTCA bar claims?	ICE breached a duty by providing false info about Peña's status.	Claims are based on misrepresentation, which FTCA expressly bars.	Exception applies; claims barred by misrepresentation.
Does the law enforcement proviso override that exception?	Proviso covers false arrest/malicious prosecution by law enforcement.	Misrepresentation not covered by proviso even if officer is covered.	Proviso does not override misrepresentation exception.
Is the ICE employee a qualifying "law enforcement officer"?	Employee qualified under FTCA as law enforcement for the proviso.	Employee's duties are administrative, not law enforcement.	ICE employee not a qualifying law enforcement officer.
Should claims be dismissed with prejudice?	Jurisdiction exists, so dismissal not warranted.	No subject matter jurisdiction; dismissal is necessary.	Dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter juris.

United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 (FTCA bars claims arising out of government misrepresentation, including negligent misrepresentation)
Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289 (FTCA exception only bars claims where injury arises solely from reliance on a government misstatement)
Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (Explains FTCA as waiver of sovereign immunity, subject to exceptions)
Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (Law enforcement proviso to FTCA covers only specific torts, not misrepresentation)