Tanvir v. Tanzin
| Decision Date | 24 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 13-CV-6951 (RA) |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TANVIR, JAMEEL ALGIBHAH, and NAVEED SHINWARI, Plaintiffs, v. FNU TANZIN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
Plaintiffs Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari brought this action to remedy alleged violations of their constitutional and federal statutory rights. Specifically they allege that, in an effort to bolster intelligence gathering in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) placed or kept them on the Terrorist Screening Center's No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants by spying on members of Muslim communities, and in order to pressure them to reconsider. Plaintiffs claim that they refused to gather information about their fellow Muslims because doing so would have contravened their sincerely held religious beliefs, and that the FBI agents' efforts thus substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of federal law.
The suit initially named agents of the federal government in their official capacities, and sought Plaintiffs' removal from the No Fly List. Plaintiffs have since been removed from the No Fly List, and the sole remaining claims are against Defendant FBI agents in their individual capacities for money damages available under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. (“RFRA”). Namely, Plaintiffs seek damages from Defendants FNU (“First Name Unknown”) Tanzin Sanya Garcia, Francisco Artousa, John LNU (“Last Name Unknown”), Steven LNU, John C. Harley III, Michael LNU, Gregg Grossoehmig Weysan Dun, James C. Langenberg, and John Does 1-6.[1] Now before the Court is Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and under the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs, who claim that, despite never posing a threat to aviation security, they were, for years, unable to visit ailing loved ones outside of the United States, burdened financially with the loss of job opportunities which required them to travel, and repeatedly forced to endure the basic indignity of being denied boarding passes for flights to which they had legitimately purchased tickets. Accepting their allegations as true, Plaintiffs were subjected to this treatment by way of the FBI's misuse of the No Fly List simply because they were Muslim, and because they refused to spy on other members of their faith.
Nevertheless-and notwithstanding varied criticisms of the doctrine of qualified immunity, see, e.g., Baxter v. Bracey, 140 S.Ct. 1862 (2020) (); Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1162 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)-the Court is required to apply the law faithfully to the issues before it. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and the motion to dismiss is granted.
The allegations of the tactics undertaken by the FBI giving rise to this action are by now familiar to counsel and the parties. In the main, Plaintiffs allege that they were “among the many innocent people” who were “swept up” in the years since 9/11 by the federal government's “secretive watch list dragnet.” Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs claim that the process for placing individuals on the No Fly List, which is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”), id. ¶ 40-41, is “shrouded in secrecy and ripe for abuse,” id. ¶ 63. “To be properly placed on the No Fly List, an individual must be a ‘known or suspected terrorist'” and “there must be some additional ‘derogatory information' demonstrating that the person ‘poses a threat of committing a terrorist act with respect to an aircraft.” Id. ¶ 42. Despite never posing a threat-or even being accused of posing a threat-to aviation safety, Plaintiffs allege that they were each either placed or kept on the List merely for refusing to become informants for the FBI against fellow Muslims. Id. ¶¶ 89, 65-67, 68, 118, 145. They urge that their inclusion on the No Fly List was thus the product of abusive investigative practices by the FBI which violated their clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, including under RFRA. Id. ¶¶ 205-15.
Muhammad Tanvir is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who last resided in Queens, has family in Pakistan, and is Muslim. Id. ¶¶ 14, 68. Tanvir interacted with Defendants FNU Tanzin, John Doe 1, John Doe 2/3, Garcia, and John LNU. Id. ¶¶ 68-113. He was first approached by Defendants Tanzin and John Doe 2/3 in February 2007 at his workplace in the Bronx, and was asked about a former acquaintance who they claimed had attempted to enter the country illegally. Id. ¶ 69. Two days later, Tanvir was contacted by Tanzin who asked him “what people in the Muslim community generally discussed, and whether there was anything that he knew about within the American Muslim community that he ‘could share' with the FBI.” Id. ¶ 70. Tanvir told Tanzin that “he did not know of anything that would concern law enforcement.” Id.
Initially, Tanvir's life continued unaltered following these early interactions with the FBI. He was able to fly to Pakistan in July 2008, for instance, and to return in December 2008. Id. ¶ 71.
But after returning from Pakistan, Tanvir alleges that his passport was confiscated by government officials, he was detained for five hours at the airport, and was given an appointment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to retrieve his passport. Id. Before the date of that meeting, however, Tanzin and John Doe 2/3 came to his new workplace in Queens and asked him to accompany them to the Manhattan office of the FBI. Id. ¶¶ 73-74.
There, he was brought to an interrogation room and subjected to questioning about terrorist training camps near the village where he grew up, whether he had trained with the Taliban, and whether he would work as a government informant in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Id. ¶¶ 75-78. To incentivize Tanvir to work as an informant, the agents offered him financial assistance, including for his parents in Pakistan so that they could go on religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia; nevertheless, Tanvir refused, telling them that he was “afraid” and that working as a “United States government informant” in Pakistan would be “very dangerous.” Id. ¶¶ 76-78.
The next day, Tanvir alleges that Tanzin called and “threatened” him, saying he would “authorize the release of [Tanvir's] passport if [he] agreed to become an informant,” but that, if he declined, he “would be deported if he went to the airport to pick up his passport.” Id. ¶ 79. Tanvir again refused, and was able to retrieve his passport notwithstanding the threats of deportation. Id. ¶¶ 79-80. In the weeks that followed, Tanvir was repeatedly called by agents who urged him to become an FBI informant. Id. ¶¶ 82-84. Time and again, Tanvir refused. Id. Tanzin and John Doe 2/3 eventually asked him to take a polygraph test and threatened to arrest him if he declined. Id. ¶¶ 86-87. He declined, and the agents left without placing him under arrest. Id.
In key part, Tanvir alleges that he repeatedly refused to serve as an FBI informant because he had “sincerely held religious and personal objections to spying on innocent members of his community,” and that the agents had placed “significant pressure on [him] to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.” Id. ¶ 84. Speaking to Tanvir's religious objections more generally, as well as those of the other Plaintiffs, the Amended Complaint alleges that:
Many American Muslims, like many other Americans, and many followers of other religions, have sincerely held religious and other objections against becoming informants in their own communities, particularly when they are asked to inform on the communities as a whole rather than specific individuals reasonably suspected of wrongdoing. Acting as an informant would require them to lie and would interfere with their ability to associate with other members of their communities on their own terms. For these American Muslims, the exercise of Islamic tenets precludes spying on the private lives of others in their communities.
After his interactions with Defendants Tanzin and Doe 2/3, Tanvir discovered that he had been placed on the No Fly List. “Upon information and belief,” he alleges that he was “placed on the No Fly List . . . because he refused to become an informant against his community and refused to speak or associate further with the agents.” Id. ¶ 90. In October 2010, while traveling for work, he made plans to fly from Atlanta to New York City but was told by an airline employee that he was unable to fly when he tried to check in for the flight. Id. ¶ 91. FBI agents then approached him at the airport, told him that he should contact the agents in New York with whom he had previously spoken, and escorted him to a bus station in Atlanta, where Tanvir was forced to take a 24-hour bus ride to return home to New York. Id. ¶ 93. Two days later, Tanvir was contacted by Defendant Garcia, who told him that his name could be removed from the No Fly List if he would agree to speak with her and answer her questions. Id. ¶ 94. Tanvir insisted that he had repeatedly answered the FBI's questions and that he did not wish to speak with agents of the FBI again. Id.
Tanvir next purchased airline tickets when he was trying to visit his sick mother in Pakistan in November 2011. Id. ¶¶ 98-100. The day before his scheduled departure however, Garcia contacted him again, informing him that he would not...
To continue reading
Request your trial