Phu Nguyen’s immigration case should follow US legal process, but ICE’s treatment of an Australian citizen at Las Vegas airport demands separate scrutiny.
A video from Harry Reid International Airport shows two plain-clothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers – one visibly masked – force 57-year-old Australian citizen Phu Nguyen to the floor while alarmed travellers ask who they are. Then the officers stand up and leave, one handcuff still attached to Nguyen and the other dangling. This footage is difficult to reconcile with the image the United States projects of professional, accountable law enforcement.
Local police remove the restraint. ICE arrests Nguyen at Los Angeles International Airport the following day. He is now reportedly detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Centre in California while the United States pursues removal proceedings.
According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Nguyen entered the United States legally on 27 May 2013 and was authorised to remain until 26 May 2015. The agency has not publicly identified his visa or admission category, nor released the underlying immigration records or explained whether he later sought an extension or another status. Its central allegation is that he remained beyond his authorised period of admission.
DHS says the Las Vegas officers disengaged because “anti-ICE agitators” surrounded them and threatened their safety.
Officers sometimes must discontinue an arrest when proceeding would endanger the detainee, the public or themselves. But that principle does not answer what happened inside a heavily secured international airport.
If two federal agents could not safely complete a planned arrest, why did they not summon airport police, request backup, transfer custody or remove the restraint before walking away?
ICE’s publicly available Arrest Procedures Handbook requires restraints to be used safely, humanely and professionally. More pointedly, it says a restrained person in custody “must not be left unattended”. The precise ICE component involved and governing directive have not been disclosed, so it would be premature to pronounce a proven policy violation. Still, abandoning a man with one cuff locked around his wrist appears fundamentally inconsistent with ICE’s own published custody standard.
The underlying allegation makes the spectacle more troubling. Remaining beyond an authorised period of admission is ordinarily a civil immigration violation, not a criminal offence. ICE has civil arrest authority, but an alleged overstay does not inherently require a public takedown.
The United States can initiate removal proceedings by serving a Notice to Appear and placing the case before an immigration judge. Detention may be sought when the individual facts justify it – for example, because of danger, flight risk, a prior removal order or a failure to appear.
Yet DHS has publicly identified no criminal charge or specific public-safety concern underlying Nguyen’s arrest. Nor has it explained whether he had a final removal order, previously failed to appear or presented another circumstance making immediate custody necessary.
This is not an argument that an Australian passport confers immunity from American law. Australians abroad must obey the laws of the countries they visit. It is an argument that lawful authority must be exercised proportionately and competently – and that Australian citizenship should at least guarantee sustained attention from Canberra when those standards appear to fail.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says it is making urgent enquiries and stands ready to provide consular assistance. That is a necessary beginning, not a sufficient conclusion. Australian consular guidance explains that officials may contact or visit detained Australians, check on their welfare and provide information about local lawyers. It also correctly cautions that Australia cannot extract a citizen from custody, prevent deportation or interfere in another country’s legal proceedings.
Australia has affirmed that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations protects communication and visits between consular officers and detained nationals. Canberra can respect American jurisdiction while pressing Washington for a complete account of how its citizen was treated.
DFAT should confirm whether Nguyen has received consular contact, independent legal advice and any necessary medical assessment. It should request the agents’ incident reports, restraint records and radio communications, along with preservation of airport surveillance footage.
It should ask why witnesses could not readily identify the officers as federal agents, whether body-worn cameras were used, why local airport police were not summoned and why a restrained person was left behind.
Australia should also seek assurances about future civil immigration arrests involving its nationals at American airports. Clear identification, body cameras, prompt consular notification and coordinated transfers of custody are modest safeguards. They protect officers and detainees by reducing confusion, discouraging interference and creating reliable evidence when force is disputed.
The cameras may have influenced the agents’ decision to retreat, but the public evidence does not prove that they left simply because they realised they were being recorded. That uncertainty is precisely why the records matter.
“De-escalation” may explain a decision not to use additional force. It does not explain abandoning the detainee and the restraint.
The United States and Australia describe themselves as close allies bound by shared democratic values and the rule of law. Alliances are not strengthened by pretending embarrassing incidents do not matter. Friends should be able to ask hard questions of one another, especially when state power is exercised against one of their citizens.
Nguyen’s immigration case should be decided through the American legal process. The conduct of the officers who left him half-handcuffed in an airport deserves separate scrutiny.
Canberra cannot dictate the result of his removal proceedings. It can insist on knowing why an Australian citizen was treated this way – and what Washington will do to ensure it does not happen again.
Richard T. Herman
Richard T. Herman is a United States immigration lawyer with more than 30 years of experience and the founder of the Herman Legal Group. He is the co-author of “Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy” and writes frequently about immigration enforcement, due process and the economic and civic contributions of immigrants.