A carefully sourced record of names found in the supplied materials, with guidance for interpreting official reports, independent investigations, differing totals, and gaps in the evidence.
What this record includes—and why it is not a complete list
This article includes only names explicitly present in the supplied research excerpts. It is not a comprehensive list of people who died in immigration detention, nor should it be treated as an authoritative memorial roll.
The scope matters. “Deaths in ICE custody” refers to cases formally recorded within Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. “Immigration detention” can be used more broadly. A person released immediately before death may fall outside an official in-custody count even when detention remains relevant to the circumstances documented by researchers.
ICE maintains public detainee-death reporting organized by fiscal year from FY2018 through FY2026. However, the supplied excerpt describes that reporting system without providing all of the individual entries or names in those reports. The independent sources also cover particular periods rather than every year.
For these reasons, the six names below are presented as documented examples—not as the total number of people who died. Any use of this record for remembrance, education, or advocacy should keep that limitation visible.
Names explicitly documented in the supplied sources
The supplied investigation materials explicitly name:
– Ben Owen – Efrain de la Rosa – Roxsana Hernandez – Gourgen Mirimanian – Maria Celeste Ochoa de Yoc – Emmanuel Damas
The available excerpt from the joint investigation by Physicians for Human Rights, the ACLU, and American Oversight identifies Ben Owen, Efrain de la Rosa, Roxsana Hernandez, Gourgen Mirimanian, and Maria Celeste Ochoa de Yoc. It does not provide enough biographical information in the research package to add further details responsibly. Their inclusion here therefore records their names without speculating about their lives, detention histories, medical circumstances, or causes of death.
The ACLU’s April 28, 2026 publication describes Emmanuel Damas as a 56-year-old Haitian immigrant. According to that source, he died after a severe tooth infection progressed to septic shock. This detail is attributed to the ACLU and should not be generalized to any other person in the record.
These six names are not presented as a representative sample or complete chronology. They are simply the names recoverable from the supplied source excerpts. ICE’s fiscal-year reporting contains additional individual entries, but those entries were not exposed in the material provided for this article. A longer list would require examination and verification of those underlying reports and other relevant records.
What ICE officially reports after a death in custody
ICE states that a facility must report a death in its custody to designated agency offices within 12 hours. The agency says its process then includes medical review as well as oversight and compliance investigations.
According to ICE, its 2021 detainee-death policy governs the initial notification, review, and continuing reporting process. The notifications described by the agency include contact with the person’s next of kin and relevant consulate, along with notice to Department of Homeland Security and ICE stakeholders, Congress, and the public.
ICE also cites congressional requirements directing it to publish an in-custody death report within 90 days. Its public reports are organized by fiscal year beginning with FY2018. These official materials provide an important starting point for confirming whether ICE formally recorded a death and when the agency issued its public account.
An official notice should not automatically be treated as a complete biography or final reconstruction of events. The ACLU characterizes such notifications as typically offering a name, age, country of origin, and sometimes alleged criminal history. Readers seeking fuller context may therefore need to consult medical reviews, investigative records, and independently obtained documents in addition to the initial notice.
What independent investigators found in records from 2017–2021
A 2024 joint investigation by Physicians for Human Rights, the ACLU, and American Oversight examined 52 people whom ICE reported as having died in its custody from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. The investigators used more than 14,500 pages of records and an independent medical review.
The organizations concluded that the medical care and death-investigation practices reflected systemic deficiencies. That conclusion is an attributed finding by advocacy and oversight organizations, not an uncontested determination by ICE.
The investigation raised concerns that some official reports omitted important facts. The supplied research also summarizes allegations involving missing witness interviews and evidence that had been destroyed or overwritten. These concerns help explain why researchers may compare multiple kinds of documentation rather than relying on a single agency summary.
American Oversight publishes selected ICE death-review reports and related documents obtained through records requests and litigation. It says those materials supported the joint investigation. This documentary record can add context to official notices, but it is still selective: the existence of published records for one case does not show that equivalent evidence is available for every death.
The different institutional roles should remain clear. ICE describes its own policies and official reporting. Physicians for Human Rights, the ACLU, and American Oversight reviewed records and advanced critical findings about care and accountability. Responsible presentation attributes each claim to its publisher and identifies where the available evidence is incomplete.
Why published death totals can differ
Published totals may describe different populations and time periods. They should not be placed side by side as though they measure precisely the same thing.
Physicians for Human Rights reported that ICE recorded 68 deaths in its custody from January 1, 2017, through the publication period of its 2024 report. PHR also noted that this figure excluded people released immediately before death. Its joint investigation focused more narrowly on 52 people reported by ICE as dying between the beginning of 2017 and the end of 2021.
In a separate April 28, 2026 article, the ACLU reported 17 deaths in immigration detention during 2026 as of publication. That is a different time frame, and the phrase “immigration detention” may not have exactly the same scope as an official count limited to deaths formally recorded in ICE custody.
Differences can therefore arise from:
– The beginning and ending dates selected. – Whether a source uses calendar years or federal fiscal years. – Whether it counts only deaths formally recorded in ICE custody. – Whether it includes people released shortly before death. – Whether “immigration detention” is defined more broadly than ICE custody. – Whether records available at the time of publication were complete.
A total is meaningful only when its date range, inclusion rules, and institutional source remain attached to it.
How to verify and responsibly expand a name-based record
A careful name-based record should be built case by case rather than by combining unmatched totals. A practical review process is:
1. Define inclusion criteria. State whether the record is limited to deaths formally reported in ICE custody or uses a broader definition that may include people released immediately before death. 2. Begin with official reporting. Record the person’s name, the relevant fiscal year, the publication date, and the details ICE provides. Note when an expected report is absent or unavailable. 3. Locate the death-review material. Compare the initial notice with ICE medical reviews, oversight findings, and compliance-investigation records when those documents are available. 4. Check independently obtained records. American Oversight publishes selected materials acquired through records requests and litigation. The joint investigation demonstrates how such records can be reviewed alongside official accounts. 5. Preserve attribution. Distinguish what ICE reports from what PHR, the ACLU, or American Oversight concludes. Do not convert an organization’s allegation into an unattributed fact. 6. Log discrepancies and gaps. Flag conflicting dates, scope differences, missing interviews, unavailable documents, or reported evidence loss rather than resolving uncertainty through speculation. 7. Keep an editorial date. A living record should show when its sources were last reviewed because ICE’s fiscal-year reporting and outside investigations may change over time.
This process cannot guarantee completeness, but it makes the limits of the record visible and allows later researchers to understand how each name was included.
Using the record for remembrance and community education
For a reading of names, worship resource, facilitated discussion, or educational gathering, introduce the record as documented and non-exhaustive. Read each person’s name consistently, without adding biographical or medical details that the sources do not support.
If Emmanuel Damas’s age, nationality, or reported medical circumstances are included, identify the ACLU as the source. For the other five people, the supplied material supports publication of their names but does not provide enough information for fuller profiles. Equal dignity does not require inventing symmetry where the documentary record is uneven.
A facilitator can also make the evidence gaps part of the discussion: Why do official and independent sources use different scopes? What is lost when notices offer little personal context? How should a community acknowledge people who may be excluded from an in-custody count because they were released immediately before death?
Close by preserving the source dates, definitions, and limits with the names. This keeps remembrance connected to careful documentation and prevents a partial record from being mistaken for a complete one.
Source notes, definitions, and editorial date
ICE custody: The official counts discussed here concern deaths ICE formally records as occurring in its custody. ICE describes immigration detention as administrative custody.
Detention network: ICE states that its detention network includes private facilities.
Source perspectives: ICE is the government agency describing its policies, procedures, and official reports. Physicians for Human Rights, the ACLU, and American Oversight are advocacy or oversight organizations that investigated deaths, published records, and presented critical findings. Their conclusions are attributed accordingly.
Scope note: The supplied ICE excerpt identifies fiscal-year reporting from FY2018 onward but does not expose all individual entries. The independent materials address specific periods and may apply definitions different from ICE’s formal in-custody category.
Editorial review: July 2026. The materials supplied for this article included ICE pages observed in July 2026, a 2024 joint investigation, and an ACLU article published April 28, 2026. Readers using this as a living resource should retain those dates and review later official and independent records before expanding the list.
Frequently asked questions
Is this a complete list of people who died in immigration detention?
No. It contains only six names explicitly present in the supplied excerpts. The ICE material describes fiscal-year death reports but does not expose all of their individual entries, and the independent sources cover limited periods and scopes.
Why might an ICE custody total differ from a broader immigration-detention total?
Sources may use different dates, definitions, and custody criteria. PHR specifically notes that its ICE-custody count excluded people released immediately before death, while other reporting may use the broader phrase “immigration detention.”
When does ICE say an in-custody death report should become public?
ICE cites a congressional requirement to publish an in-custody death report within 90 days. It says facilities must notify designated agency offices of a death within 12 hours and that subsequent processes include medical review and oversight and compliance investigations.
What records should be checked before adding a name?
Start with the official death notice and fiscal-year report, then compare available medical or death-review reports with records obtained through public-records requests or litigation. Preserve each source’s date and scope, and flag missing evidence or unresolved discrepancies.
Disclosures and limitations
– This article was prepared with AI assistance from the supplied Content Plan and Research Package and should receive human editorial review before publication. – All material claims are based only on the supplied ICE, Physicians for Human Rights, ACLU, and American Oversight source summaries. No independent interviews, product testing, or additional research were conducted. – The record is intentionally non-exhaustive. It must not be represented as a complete list of people who died in immigration detention. – This article contains no product recommendations or affiliate links. If commercial links are added later, any affiliate relationship and resulting financial incentive should be disclosed clearly.
Sources
– Detainee Death Reporting — ice.gov – United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Wikipedia — en.wikipedia.org – Deadly Failures: Preventable Deaths in U.S. Immigration Detention – PHR — PHR – Privacy Impact Assessments | Homeland Security — U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Trump Administration is Buying Warehouses to Turn into ICE Detention Centers — American Civil Liberties Union – Death Review Reports and Related Documents of ICE Detainees – American Oversight — American Oversight – Immigration detention in the United States – Wikipedia — en.wikipedia.org – Detain — ice.gov – National Detainee Handbook — ice.gov – Imigrační a celní úřad Spojených států amerických – Wikipedie — cs.wikipedia.org