ICE detainees are dying by suicide at an 'alarming' rate, an AP investigation finds



woman profile with photo of son

Brayan Rayo Garzon was distraught. Detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was on his fourth day of isolation in a Missouri jail as he battled the fevers and chills of COVID-19.

His request for mental health treatment had been put off, records show, and staff had forbidden Rayo from making his nightly call to his mother as a precaution intended to prevent the spread of illness.

He pleaded with his jailers in handwritten notes to arrange a conversation with her. “I feel in my heart that she’s very worried about me,” he wrote in Spanish.

A guard collected the note and walked away. Within an hour, jail records show, he was found unconscious in his cell. An autopsy determined he killed himself.

Rayo’s April 2025 death was the first suicide in a spike among ICE detainees that has alarmed public health officials and jail experts. They said the unprecedented number of suicide deaths is an indication that authorities are failing to properly oversee the detention of tens of thousands of immigrants swept up in the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation strategy.

An Associated Press investigation found that at least 10 detainees, all men, have died by suicide since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, a pace that far exceeds the growth in the detainee population, according to a review of ICE data, autopsy reports, coroner’s rulings, and police records. Since October, seven deaths have been classified as suicides, a number that is already the most for any fiscal year in the agency’s history. ICE has usually recorded one or no such deaths annually.

“Something is going profoundly wrong from any kind of public health or mental health perspective,” said Dr. Sanjay Basu, a University of California-San Francisco epidemiologist who cowrote a study documenting the increase in mortality and suicide rates among ICE detainees. “This is one of those alarming, sudden increases.”

__

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. Call or text 988 to get connected with trained counselors. The 988 suicide and crisis lifeline is available 24/7.

___

Nine of the deaths were of Hispanic men who had arrived in the U.S. from four countries, the AP found. One man was a Chinese citizen. Their average age was 32. While Trump has characterized those facing deportation as the “worst of the worst,” seven of the 10 had no record of violent crimes in the U.S.

The suicides account for nearly a fifth of the 51 deaths in ICE custody since January 2025. The majority of those deaths were from natural causes and experts say many of them would have been preventable with timely medical care.

Department of Homeland Security acting assistant secretary Lauren Bies said suicide deaths in ICE custody remain “extremely rare.”

Bies said detention staff follow protocols to protect detainees who show signs of self-harming and that ICE requires annual suicide prevention training. She said detainees receive comprehensive healthcare, including mental health services.

Investigation finds violations of ICE detention standards

The reasons behind any suicide are complex, and each death often has multiple contributing factors, according to experts. ICE detainees report intense stress after being detained, fear of being returned to countries where their safety may be jeopardized, and frustration and loneliness over the inability to communicate due to language barriers.

Detainees can also feel helplessness because of the complexity surrounding immigration law. Unlike those in the criminal justice system, most detainees do not have lawyers and their detention on immigration violations is not meant to be punitive.

ICE becomes responsible for their well-being when they enter detention, and experts say well-run lockups should have few, if any, suicides. That’s because staff can take steps to mitigate the chances that detainees harm themselves by identifying those at risk, getting them care and monitoring them closely, the experts said.

AP’s investigation found that ICE detention centers have repeatedly fallen short in ways that violate ICE’s own standards.

An examination of the 10 suicide deaths found the men died across ICE's detention network, including at centers long run by private contractors and county jails who recently became ICE partners. The AP found that staff in the facilities ignored signs of distress, delayed mental health treatment and failed to monitor detainees who were already deemed at risk. They also permitted detainees to have access to materials that could be used for self-harm, according to AP's review of ICE inspection reports and death records.

In some cases, they jailed distressed detainees in isolation, which can exacerbate feelings of humiliation and helplessness, according to experts.

ICE has repeatedly asserted that it screens detainees within 12 hours of arrival for medical, dental and mental health conditions.

At least three of the nine facilities where ICE detainees died by suicide have struggled to meet that standard, according to ICE inspection reports and jail records.

Dr. Homer Venters, former chief medical officer of New York City jails who previously consulted with ICE on preventing detainee deaths, called the rise in suicides terrifying.

The increase “reflects failures in how the system’s being operated, and particularly failures in how the first stages of coming into detention are happening so that people aren’t being assessed adequately,” Venters said. “And then if that receiving screening picks up red flags, they’re not acted on in a way that reduces the risk of them having preventable death.”

From border crossing to detention

Among those who took their own lives was a 19-year-old from Mexico who had been detained following a misdemeanor traffic stop while riding his scooter.

Another was a 36-year-old restaurant worker who lost contact with his relatives in Nicaragua after ICE detained him in Minnesota and sent him to a crowded camp in Texas. A third was a 45-year-old who had repeatedly crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally and had a long criminal record.

Rayo, who took his own life after pleading to talk to his mother, was a veteran of the Colombian military who had worked as a street vendor in his home country. A week after he turned 26 in 2023, his family crossed the U.S. border in California. He was detained for three months before being permitted to settle with family in St. Louis, records and interviews show.

His mother, Adriana Garzon, said Rayo caught on quickly to life in the U.S., making friends easily and working as a housepainter and food delivery driver. He wanted to save money to hire a lawyer to help him stay in the country after a judge in 2024 ordered that he be sent back to Colombia, she said.

He was arrested in March 2025 by St. Louis police after being caught using a stolen credit card, which he had obtained from a friend, at a Vape shop, court records show. ICE then took him into custody. An ICE record obtained by AP classified Rayo as a laborer who was a low risk to public safety.

ICE placed Rayo in the Phelps County jail in Rolla, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) from St. Louis.

Suicides reveal shortcomings across ICE's detention network

The deaths have revealed holes in treatment and oversight across ICE’s system, where the detained population has spiked by 50% to 60,000 during Trump’s second term.

Five died in centers run by longtime ICE detention partners, CoreCivic and the GEO Group. A sixth died at a camp operated by an inexperienced contractor that ICE has since replaced. Three died in jails run by sheriffs, and one at a federal prison.

“We are deeply saddened by and take very seriously the passing of any individual in our care,” CoreCivic spokesperson Brian Todd said.

GEO Group spokesperson Christopher Ferreira said the company trains staff on suicide prevention and seeks “to maintain a safe and secure environment in compliance with the standards and requirements set by the federal government.” Officials at the three jails either declined comment or didn't return messages.

Leo Cruz Silva, a 34-year-old who had repeatedly illegally entered the country from Mexico, suffered an acute mental health crisis following his detention after an arrest for public intoxication last fall in a St. Louis suburb, records show.

For two nights in Missouri’s Ste. Genevieve County Jail, Cruz screamed, hid under his bed and reported hallucinations, according to an ICE report on his death. Yet he did not get help quickly.

A nurse ordered antipsychotic medications and planned to get him treatment the next week, the ICE report said.

On the third day, he was found dead in his cell.

Chaofeng Ge arrived in ICE custody last summer at a Pennsylvania facility run by the GEO Group in mental distress, having pleaded guilty to a minor gift card fraud and attempted suicide in state custody, said David Rankin, an attorney representing Ge’s family.

In five days at the facility, he did not get mental health treatment and was unable to communicate because no one spoke Mandarin, Rankin said. Ultimately, Ge went unmonitored before he was found hanged in a shower stall.

“It’s clear that ICE has taken very few steps to ensure the safety of these people,” Rankin said. “They appear to want to make this process as cruel and inhuman as possible. It’s completely unacceptable.”

At Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, 36-year-old Victor Diaz died by suicide in a medical holding room in January, according to an ICE report. He had been moved into isolation after reporting harassment by fellow detainees, the report said.

Days earlier at the same facility, Geraldo Lunas Campos died of asphyxia after ICE said guards restrained him following a suicide attempt. His death was ruled a homicide by a medical examiner, and Trump administration officials said the FBI was investigating its circumstances.

ICE inspectors visited the facility in February, documenting 49 violations of detention standards at what was then ICE’s largest detention facility, according to their report.

The report found that staff did not record “required checks to prevent significant self-harm and suicide” while inspectors found tools and equipment unsecured and unaccounted for throughout the facility that could be used for harm. Calls to 911 show several other detainees had attempted suicide there.

At the time of the deaths and inspections, Acquisition Logistics was the contractor running the facility. ICE has since replaced Acquisition Logistics with another contractor. Acquisition Logistics did not return messages seeking comment.

Detainee spent final days sick and isolated

The Phelps County Jail had started taking ICE detainees a month before Rayo’s arrival. Sheriff Michael Kirn, a Republican in a county where voters overwhelmingly supported Trump’s reelection, told commissioners his department’s budget was hurting and partnering with ICE could generate millions in revenue.

Records show Rayo’s trouble started immediately. It took the jail 35 hours to conduct the initial medical screening that ICE promises within 12 hours, according to jail records obtained by the AP under the open records law.

Rayo exhibited labored breathing and told a nurse he was anxious and wanted mental health treatment.

man in ice detention looks at camera
In this image from video provided by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee Brayan Rayo Garzon looks towards a surveillance camera in the Phelps County jail in Rolla, Mo., on April 7, 2025, shortly before he died by suicide.
HOGP | Missouri State Highway Patrol via AP

A nurse who didn’t speak Spanish used a “handheld translator” to assess Rayo, concluding he denied thoughts of suicide and depression, according to the documents compiled by the Missouri State Highway Patrol during an investigation into Rayo’s death.

She recommended him for the general population, listing his physical and mental condition as stable, records show. And she referred him for a routine mental health appointment.

Two days later, he reported head pain and body aches. Staff learned he was positive for exposure to tuberculosis bacteria. He was sent to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He was returned to jail the following day.

The mental health appointment was scheduled but canceled due to “mental health clinic time and staff,” a jail record shows. Two days later, they again canceled his appointment, this time citing his coronavirus infection.

The delays violated an ICE standard requiring mental health treatment within a week of a referral.

Bies, the DHS spokesperson, said Rayo received “high-quality medical care during his time in ICE custody.”

To ease his anxiety, Rayo called his mother before bed to share a Catholic blessing. “I gave him strength,” said Garzon, whose first name Adriana was tattooed on her son’s arm.

As Rayo grew sicker with nausea, chills and aches, staff moved him into a cinderblock isolation cell with a surveillance camera overhead for closer monitoring and to prevent the spread of disease. He was not allowed to call his mother.

handwritten note
This photo provided by the Missouri State Highway Patrol shows a note written in Spanish by Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee Brayan Rayo Garzon asking for a phone call with his mother, while he was in the Phelps County jail in Rolla, Mo., on April 7, 2025, shortly before he died by suicide.
HOGP | Missouri State Highway Patrol via AP

On his fourth day of isolation, Rayo passed two notes under his door, begging guards to let him talk to his mom. In one, which was reviewed by AP, he appealed to the guard’s humanity. “I know you have family, and you know that they worry about us,” he wrote in Spanish. “God bless you.”

The English-speaking guard used a colleague’s phone to translate the notes, and wrote in a report that he planned to follow up.

Within an hour, guards found Rayo unconscious on his bed with a sheet around his neck.

Emergency responders tried to revive him, transporting him to a hospital. That’s when an official called Rayo’s mother — to let her know her son was in very bad shape and would be flown to a St. Louis medical center. At the hospital, a doctor gave her the devastating news: Her son was dead.

If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. Call or text 988 to get connected with trained counselors. The 988 suicide and crisis lifeline is available 24/7.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Our income tax system uses a self-reporting process. Taxpayers, in most cases, voluntarily file income tax returns. The IRS can then evaluate the filings to determine whether they appear to be correct or warrant further investigation.

The IRS has developed a whole regime of forms to be used for this very purpose. Taxpayers who fill those out are, in theory, providing all of the information the IRS needs to evaluate whether the information reporte is correct.

The exception to this is for refund claims. Refund claims have a small box, consisting of a few lines, where taxpayers can write out an explanation for the basis of their refund claim. Despite only having a small box to write, the IRS takes the position that any theory not put forth in the small box means that the theory cannot be raised–at least that is the case when it comes to tax litigation.

So imagine that you filed a refund claim as you overpaid your taxes for a particular year and you want your money back. You do your best to fill out the small box that is provided for the “explanation.” Then after that, you discover additional facts that would have changed the text you put in the small box for the explanation. After bringing suit in tax court, the IRS moves to dismiss because the information that you did not know at the time you filled in this small box on the amended return was not listed in the small box.

This is the situation in the Salta v

This is the situation in the Salta v. United States, No. 24-254 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2025) case. The appeals court was tasked with deciding whether the information in the small box that was not known at the time had to be there for the litigation to proceed.

Facts & Procedural History

This case involves a common scenario–a foreclosure. In January 2015, the taxpayer-husband’s property in was in foreclosure. Rather than proceed through a lengthy foreclosure process, the taxpayer signed a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure arrangement. He transferred the deed to the mortgagee. In exchange, the mortgagee and loan servicer agreed to waive their rights to pursue a deficiency judgment against him.

On their 2015 joint tax return, the couple reported $113,087 in cancellation-of-indebtedness income from the discharge of the husband’s mortgage debt. They paid the tax on this income. Years later, they filed a refund claim to request a refund from the IRS because they believed the cancellation-of-indebtedness income should have been taxable in 2017 rather than 2015.

The IRS denied their refund request. Romeo and Phyllis then filed a refund suit in federal district court. The government moved for summary judgment. The taxpayers cross-moved for summary judgment. At this point in the tax litigation, they raised a new argument. The January 2015 Relocation Agreement was never enforceable because the mortgagee never signed the documents. Furthermore, the loan servicer lacked power of attorney to act on the mortgagee’s behalf.

The district court granted summary judgment for the government. The court found that the variance doctrine barred the taxpayers from raising their unenforceability argument because they had not presented this theory in their administrative refund claims. That resulted in the current court opinion.

When Debt Forgiveness Creates Taxable Income

The tax code treats income from discharge of indebtedness as taxable income under Section 61(a)(11). This provision makes sense as a matter of tax policy. When a lender forgives debt, the borrower experiences an increase in wealth. The borrower no longer has an obligation to repay money that was previously owed.

The timing of when this income must be recognized matters for income tax purposes given that our income tax system follows a strict year by year measurement process. Recognizing income in the wrong year can affect the applicable tax rates, impact the availability of deductions and credits, etc. It can also affect the statute of limitations for assessment. Getting the year wrong means paying tax when you shouldn’t have to. Then you face the burden of fighting to get that money back.

The court have explained that debt discharge creates taxable income in the year the discharge occurs. But determining exactly when a debt is “discharged” for tax purposes isn’t always straightforward.

The general rule is that debt is viewed as having been discharged the moment it becomes clear that tbe debt will never have to be paid. Any identifiable event which fixes the certainty of the discharge may be taken into consideration. This standard focuses on certainty and identifiable events. A vague possibility that debt might not be collected often isn’t enough. The taxpayer has to show a specific moment when it became definite that the debt would not have to be repaid.

The appeals court in this case found that the January 201…

The appeals court in this case found that the January 2015 deed-in-lieu arrangement constituted an identifiable event discharging his mortgage debt. The Relocation Agreement and related documents showed that the mortgagee accepted the property “as full satisfaction for the amount owed on the mortgage loan.” The documents explicitly stated that the taxpayer’s consideration for the deed transfer included “the full cancellation of all debts . . . [and] obligations . . . secured by” the mortgage.

This seemed like a straightforward application of the rules. An identifiable event occurred in January 2015 that made it clear the taxpayer’s mortgage debt would never have to be paid. Therefore, it seemed like 2015 was the proper tax year for recognizing the cancellation-of-indebtedness income.

The Variance Doctrine: You Must Raise Every Argument Administratively

This brings us to the variance doctrine. This applies to refund claims that are litigated as tax refund claims.

Before bringing a refund suit in court, taxpayers have to first file an administrative claim for refund with the IRS. This requirement is in Section 7422(a) of the tax code. This is intended to give the IRS an opportunity to correct errors administratively, create a record of the claim, and, ultimately, define the scope of any later litigation.

The variance doctrine builds on this administrative exhaustion requirement. Under this doctrine, taxpayers may not raise different grounds in their refund suit than those they brought to the IRS in their administrative claim. The courts have explained this as thge taxpayer having to advance in the administrative proceeding any contention it wishes to pursue in court.

The courts have articulated several rationales for the variance doctrine. The Sixth Circuit explained in McDonnell v. United States, 180 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 1999), that the purpose is “to prevent surprise, and to give the IRS adequate notice of the claim and its underlying facts so that it can make an administrative investigation and determination regarding the claim.”

This makes sense in most cases

This makes sense in most cases. The IRS shouldn’t have to defend against entirely new theories that appear for the first time in litigation that would change the outcome of the litigation. The IRS should have an opportunity to investigate and resolve claims administratively. But what about when the facts are not known to the taxpayer or the IRS? That is what this court case and this article is about.

The “Should Have Known” Trap

The taxpayer argued they couldn’t have raised the unenforceability theory in their administrative refund claims because they only discovered years later that the mortgagee never signed the documentation. They argued that this created an exception to the variance doctrine.

The appeals court rejected this argument on two grounds. First, the court noted that the taxpayers cited no legal authority establishing an exception to the variance doctrine where a taxpayer learns after filing a refund request that a private contract may have been unenforceable. The court stated it was “aware of none.”

Second, the court held that the taxpayers “knew or reasonably should have known the facts underlying their unenforceability theory back in January 2015.” The court based this conclusion on the face of the documents themselves. The Relocation Agreement had no place for the mortgagee to sign. When the husband signed the Agreement in Lieu of Foreclosure and the Terms of Release of Premises, it was allegedly “clear from the face of the documents that the mortgagee had not signed them.”

Moreover, the court opinion notes that the taxpayer-husband asserted that he didn’t learn until discovery in the refund action about the loan servicer’s “lack of a power of attorney” to act on the mortgagee’s behalf. This is not information that would be apparent from the face of the documents.

The court created an impossibly high standard

The court created an impossibly high standard, partciularly for unsophisticated taxpayers. The majority of homeowners dealing with mortgage servicers during a foreclosure would naturally assume the servicer has authority to act on behalf of the mortgagee. Homeowners don’t typically scrutinize signature blocks to determine whether their lender signed or only the servicer signed.

More fundamentally

More fundamentally, the absence of a signature line for the mortgagee doesn’t necessarily signal anything unusual. Many contracts are structured to be signed only by certain parties. The loan servicer’s signature might well have been sufficient if the servicer actually possessed proper authority.

Filing Kitchen-Sink Refund Claims

Consider a taxpayer who files a refund claim based on one good-faith theory supported by known facts. Later, during discovery or further investigation, new facts emerge that support a completely different and stronger argument. That taxpayer is stuck with the original theory. The better argument is barred by the variance doctrine because the taxpayer “should have known” the facts supporting it.

Given this case, to preserve all possible arguments, taxpayers have to consider filing administrative claims that raise every conceivable theory. This includes theories that seem speculative or unsupported by facts known at the time.

This forces taxpayers to recommend the filing of protective claims that read like litigation complaints. A refund claim might need to argue simultaneously that a contract was valid and enforceable (supporting one theory) while also arguing that the same contract was void and unenforceable (supporting another theory). These contradictory positions must both be asserted simply because the facts might develop either way.

Importantly, this approach negates the practical reasons for the variance doctrine. This approach wastes IRS resources and would not give the IRS easy to access information to decide whether to investigate the claim. The IRS has to evaluate and maybe investigate and respond to kitchen-sink claims rather than focusing on the taxpayer’s actual good-faith basis for the refund. This makes the identification of claims worthy of investigation even more difficult for the IRS, not less difficult.

The Takeaway

This case points out a trap for those filing refund claims when the facts are unknown. It shows that procedural doctrines can defeat substantive tax claims even when the taxpayer may be right on the merits. The court’s strict application of the variance doctrine combined with its “should have known” standard creates a nearly impossible burden for taxpayers who discover new facts after filing administrative refund claims.

The decision fundamentally changes how taxpayers have to approach refund claims and amended tax returns when dealing with IRS audits and adjustments. Filing a focused refund claim based on a single well-supported theory is no necessarily the route to go. Instead, one may need to consider filing comprehensive claims raising every conceivable argument regardless of how speculative those arguments may be. This prevents being barred from raising theories later if new facts emerge, even though this approach benefits neither taxpayers nor the IRS.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link