Testimony given under oath by officers from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has provided a rare glimpse into the operational tactics behind immigration enforcement activities in Oregon. The courtroom disclosures emerged during a federal class-action lawsuit that challenges the legality of certain arrest practices used by the agency.
According to sworn statements, ICE officers were instructed to pursue a daily goal of eight arrests per team and used a specialized digital mapping tool to help identify neighborhoods and individuals for enforcement operations. The revelations surfaced in a case brought by the immigrants’ rights organization Innovation Law Lab and have intensified scrutiny of enforcement strategies carried out under the administration of Donald Trump, the current U.S. president serving his second term.
Federal Lawsuit Opens Window Into ICE Enforcement Methods
The disclosures came during proceedings before U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in a federal case examining whether immigration officers conducted unlawful detentions without warrants or probable cause. The lawsuit argues that such practices violated constitutional protections and led to widespread racial profiling.
Plaintiffs from Innovation Law Lab contend that ICE agents routinely carried out arrests without sufficient legal justification, targeting individuals based largely on demographic or geographic indicators. Their legal challenge sought to halt these practices and compel federal authorities to disclose details of their enforcement strategies.
Judge Kasubhai ultimately ruled broadly against warrantless arrests in Oregon, temporarily halting the practice while the legal dispute continues. The decision also forced officers to testify about their methods, revealing operational details that immigration authorities rarely discuss publicly.
Testimony Points to Daily Arrest Goals for ICE Teams
One ICE officer identified in court documents only as “JB” testified that his team had received verbal instructions to aim for eight arrests per day. The team typically consisted of between nine and twelve officers operating in coordinated enforcement efforts.
During questioning, government attorneys objected when the plaintiffs’ lawyer referred to the arrest targets as “quotas,” but the judge allowed the line of questioning to proceed. JB stated that he attempted to make as many lawful arrests as possible, emphasizing that he operated within what he believed were legal boundaries.
The officer’s statements appeared to contradict repeated assertions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that immigration officers were not given formal arrest quotas. At the national level, however, presidential adviser Stephen Miller had publicly stated that the administration sought approximately 3,000 immigration arrests each day across the United States.
Operation Black Rose and Enforcement Activities in Oregon
JB’s team operated as part of a broader enforcement initiative known as Operation Black Rose, which launched in Portland in late 2025. According to federal authorities, the operation produced more than 1,200 arrests by mid-December of that year.
Based on the testimony regarding daily team targets, attorneys for Innovation Law Lab estimated that enforcement units across Oregon could collectively have been responsible for roughly 50 arrests per day during certain periods.
One of the most scrutinized incidents involved a raid in the agricultural community of Woodburn, located south of Portland. During the early morning operation, officers stopped a van transporting farm workers to their job, broke the vehicle’s windows, and detained all seven occupants.
The “Elite” App and Data-Driven Targeting
A central element of the testimony involved a digital tool known as “Elite,” which ICE officers described as a mapping application used during operations. According to JB, the app functions similarly to a navigation platform by displaying areas where individuals with an “immigration nexus” are believed to reside.
Officers explained that the app could highlight locations with dense populations likely to include people with immigration-related histories. Another agent described certain neighborhoods identified through the software as “target-rich” environments for enforcement.
However, the officer acknowledged that the information generated by Elite could be inaccurate. JB testified that the tool provided probabilities rather than certainty, meaning individuals flagged by the system might not actually reside at the listed address or might have lawful immigration status.
Additional Surveillance Tools and Contested Arrest
The Woodburn operation also involved another digital system called Mobile Fortify, a facial recognition tool used by federal agents to compare photographs against immigration databases. During the arrest of a farm worker identified in court filings as MJMA, an officer used the app to search for a potential match but later admitted uncertainty about the identification.
Court records indicated that MJMA had entered the United States legally with a temporary visa. Nevertheless, arrest documents incorrectly stated that she had entered unlawfully. Judge Kasubhai also noted discrepancies in the official report, which described the vehicle stop as “consensual.”
MJMA was transported to a detention facility in Washington state before being released without explanation and left to return to Oregon independently. The incident became a central example cited by attorneys arguing that the enforcement operation disregarded legal safeguards.
Civil Rights Concerns and Legal Criticism
Judge Kasubhai sharply criticized aspects of the operation, stating that the reliance on data tools and neighborhood targeting risked sweeping up individuals lawfully present in the United States. He described some of the justifications given by officers for the arrests as “unfounded” and “inappropriate.”
Civil rights advocates argue that the pursuit of large arrest numbers can encourage officers to prioritize volume over careful investigation. Stephen Manning, executive director of Innovation Law Lab, said the testimony illustrated how enforcement targets could conflict with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Attorneys involved in the case also pointed to incidents such as the arrest of legal permanent resident Juanita Avila, who was allegedly tackled during a traffic stop despite carrying valid documentation. Advocates contend such cases show how enforcement strategies may disproportionately affect immigrant communities.
Questions About Technology Providers and Oversight
Further reporting suggested that Elite may have been developed by the data analytics company Palantir Technologies, which has longstanding contracts with federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.
Technology reporting site 404 Media said internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement materials described Elite as capable of generating individual profiles, mapping potential deportation targets, and assigning confidence scores to addresses linked to individuals of interest.
Palantir has stated in past responses to similar inquiries that it acts primarily as a data processor and does not determine how government clients collect or use information. Federal agencies involved in the case have not publicly provided detailed explanations of the app’s functionality or the criteria used to generate enforcement leads.
