In recent months, two high-profile cases in the United States and United Kingdom have cast a harsh spotlight on the integrity, oversight, and public trust surrounding immigration enforcement agencies. Both incidents—one involving a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer accused of excessive force in New York City, the other centered on six UK Home Office immigration officers charged with theft and misconduct—have raised fundamental questions about transparency, accountability, and the systems meant to safeguard both migrants and the rule of law.
On September 25, 2025, a tense scene unfolded at an immigration court in New York City. According to Beritaja and NPR, ICE officer Victor Mojica was captured on multiple cameras forcefully pushing a woman—identified as the wife of a detained Ecuadorian man—into a hallway and then to the ground. The woman’s screams echoed through the courthouse, and footage of the incident quickly spread online, sparking public outrage and a rare, swift response from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Within hours, Mojica was placed on administrative leave, an action DHS publicly announced—a move unusual enough to draw further attention. "The officer's conduct in this video is unacceptable and beneath the men and women of ICE," stated Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of media affairs at DHS, at the time. She added, "Our ICE law enforcement are held to the highest professional standards and this officer is being relieved of current duties as we conduct a full investigation."
Yet, in a turn that left many observers baffled, Mojica was reinstated to his position less than 72 hours later, returning to "full active duty" by the following Monday. The agency offered no substantial explanation for this rapid reversal, and, as Beritaja reports, this occurred before the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) had even concluded its review of Mojica’s actions. Nearly two months later, the OIG ultimately decided the incident did not merit a criminal investigation.
The speed and opacity of Mojica’s reinstatement have drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers and former ICE officials alike. Representative Dan Goldman, whose district includes the courthouse where the incident occurred, pressed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for answers during a December 2025 hearing. Noem promised to provide investigation details, but her subsequent letter, as shared with Beritaja, offered little clarity. She wrote that ICE had referred the matter "for appropriate review," and confirmed that the OIG had opted not to open a criminal case. "Allegations of excessive force are reviewed through established internal mechanisms and accountability is imposed where warranted, consistent with law and due process. DHS will not litigate individual personnel matters through correspondence," Noem stated.
Goldman was not satisfied. He described Noem’s letter as "a wholly unsatisfactory response," telling Beritaja it "didn't answer the question as to what investigation had been done in the three days between the incident and when he was reinstated, and certainly did not provide any more information about any additional investigation by the inspector general or anyone else." The lack of transparency, he argued, only deepened public mistrust.
Former ICE officials have voiced similar concerns. Jason Houser, who served as ICE chief of staff under President Biden, characterized the Mojica episode as emblematic of broader, systemic issues. "That's the scary part, that this is just one small case of a larger systemic issue of how law enforcement is being hyper-politicized," Houser told NPR. He noted that the incident added to the negative public perception of ICE officers. Darius Reeves, a former ICE field office director, added that while it is standard for administrative matters to be handed to the Office of Professional Responsibility, the public deserved a better explanation, especially given the agency’s public condemnation of Mojica’s actions. "ICE is losing its professionalism," Reeves said. "ICE has lost what I've always deemed us to be: the silent service."
Complicating the picture, DHS has, according to Beritaja, "gutted some internal oversight agencies" in recent years and faces political pressure from Trump administration officials to ramp up deportations. These pressures, critics argue, may have contributed to a culture where oversight is sacrificed for expediency and political goals. As Houser observed, "Those processes need to be carried out by those that won't have political motives as their goal. It should be carried out by law enforcement." He warned that thorough investigations require time and diligence, not quick fixes over a weekend.
The questions swirling around ICE’s disciplinary practices find a striking parallel across the Atlantic. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office is grappling with its own scandal after six immigration officers were charged in December 2025 with conspiracy to commit theft, misconduct in public office, and concealing or transferring criminal property. As IBTimes reports, Besmir Matera (36) of Reigate, Surrey, faces additional allegations of fraudulently obtaining a UK visa and possessing identity documents with intent to misuse them. The other officers—Lee-Ann Evanson, John Bernthal, Ben Edwardes, Jack Mitchell, and David Grundy—face similar charges.
The Home Office responded swiftly, suspending all six officers as soon as they became subjects of the investigation. A spokesperson emphasized the department’s commitment to the highest standards, stating that any breach would be dealt with "without delay." Malcolm McHaffie of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with criminal charges and described the prosecution as being in the public interest. He also noted close cooperation with the Home Office Anti-Corruption Criminal Investigations Unit throughout the inquiry.
The defendants are scheduled to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on January 29, 2026. As the case moves forward, the CPS has reminded the public that the accused are entitled to a fair trial, cautioning against prejudicial commentary. However, the scandal has already reignited debate about the adequacy of Home Office recruitment, oversight mechanisms, and the vulnerability of migrants to abuse by those charged with their protection.
These events have broader implications. In the UK, misconduct in public office is a grave offense that can carry a life sentence if tried in Crown Court. The charges, which include theft from vulnerable migrants, have prompted renewed scrutiny of how the Home Office vets and supervises its staff. As IBTimes observes, "the consequences of the case will not just affect the individuals involved but will also impact public confidence in the policies and procedures concerning border enforcement and the integrity of the UK immigration system."
Both the U.S. and UK cases expose deep-seated challenges: how can agencies tasked with enforcing immigration laws maintain public trust, ensure transparency, and hold their own accountable? As these stories unfold, the answers—or lack thereof—will shape the future of immigration enforcement on both sides of the Atlantic.
For many, these cases serve as a stark reminder that the systems designed to protect the vulnerable must themselves be vigilant, transparent, and worthy of the public’s trust. Only then can the silent service truly serve all.
