Held without an end date. Fighting to be heard.

Kristina reports that Border Patrol stopped the vehicle in which she was traveling on January 22, 2026, while she was returning from a gynecologist. At that time she was receiving long-term hormonal treatment and was preparing for pregnancy under medical supervision.

Her husband later delivered her prescribed medications to the border facility. Kristina reports that border personnel continued those medications before she was transferred to El Valle Detention Facility.

The selected I-213 pages reportedly identify Kristina's last entry as 'PAROLEE,' while the narrative portion describes an illegal crossing or entry without inspection. Those descriptions may support materially different custody theories.

A tablet response to Request #691912241 states that the requested I-200/I-286 forms were not among the documents associated with her detainee profile.

Pre-detention records document PCOS and gynecological treatment, GERD/gastritis, a prior L1 compression fracture, and psychiatric medication history. Kristina reports approximately ten years of hormonal treatment and active pregnancy planning before detention.

These records are important because they predate the grievance dispute and provide an external baseline against which later facility records can be tested.

CBP records documented depression, gastritis, PCOS, active medications including escitalopram, omeprazole, and Yaz Plus, lack of translation services, and a recommendation for physician follow-up.

This information should have traveled with Kristina and provided notice of chronic conditions and active treatment before El Valle Detention Facility completed its own intake.

El Valle Detention Facility early provider notes recognized emotional distress, GERD/gastritis, PCOS, and medication needs. Yet the selected History and Physical pages reportedly recorded no subjective complaints, no health history, no chronic conditions, and no referral or orders.

Kristina states that she disclosed her spinal injury and other chronic conditions during the initial comprehensive interview, but later grievance decisions treated their absence from facility notes as proof that she had not reported them.

Kristina states that the provider physically held but did not meaningfully examine her German medication, stopped a regimen that had been maintained for years, and proposed a facility-available product as an American equivalent without a complete gynecological or endocrine work-up.

She reports that she specifically disclosed elevated testosterone, insufficient female hormones, PCOS, and pregnancy planning. She disputes that the replacement was equivalent in composition or clinical profile to Jess Plus/Yaz Plus.

A gynecology referral was reportedly ordered on February 26. The outside clinic rescheduled on April 13 and then advised on April 23 that it would not accept facility patients until further notice.

Kristina continued to report amenorrhea, pelvic or ovarian pain, acne, abdominal symptoms, and concern about fertility. She repeatedly sought status information and asked whether outside care could be arranged at her own expense.

Kristina reports that she disclosed her prior L1 compression fracture and requested a lower bunk during the first weeks of detention. Facility records later documented repeated low-back-pain complaints on March 14 and March 17, with ibuprofen and acetaminophen provided after she reported continuing pain and the 2013 fracture.

She states that the short courses were ineffective and that no timely imaging, orthopedic assessment, or durable accommodation followed.

Kristina began requesting permission for family-supplied contact lenses in February. She reports that medical staff repeatedly said another department or the Chief of Security had to approve the request, without providing a clear decision.

A June 3 vision screen was initially treated as normal and not medically requiring optometry. After continued complaints, a provider referral was entered on June 12. An outside eye specialist later found the eyes structurally healthy, prescribed glasses, and allowed temporary use of the home lenses until glasses were available.

Kristina reports nearly three months of sore throat, nasal congestion, cough, voice changes, and green respiratory discharge while other women in the dorm had similar symptoms. She repeatedly stated that she had no prior allergy history and that the prescribed allergy treatment was not resolving the condition.

The facility record documents Flonase, loratadine, and increased Flonase dosing; a March 3 provider concluded antibiotics were not indicated, and a March 24 review continued the allergy approach.

Medication is distributed from a cart inside a large housing room, in a line visible to other detainees, officers, and cameras. Kristina does not dispute that ingestion may be verified; she disputes the lack of privacy, inconsistent enforcement, lack of interpretation, and use of the procedure in a humiliating manner.

In one earlier encounter, Nurse A. San Juan allegedly withheld regularly scheduled medication because Kristina did not bring water, although Kristina says the rule had not been explained. When Kristina said she did not understand English, she was presented with a voluntary-refusal form that she declined to sign.

On March 24, while a trainee was present, Kristina swallowed a tablet without water. She was later ordered to open her mouth in the public line. Sergeant Konde used a telephone interpreter, understood the privacy concern, and helped document a grievance.

Kristina entered El Valle Detention Facility with a documented history of gastritis/GERD and prior omeprazole use. She repeatedly reported heartburn, abdominal discomfort, alternating diarrhea and constipation, and later a reportedly abnormal H. pylori stool antigen.

The facility prescribed symptomatic medications, including omeprazole earlier, docusate for later GI complaints, and later famotidine/Pepcid. Kristina reports that Pepcid was not actually dispensed when the appeal claimed it had been ordered.

A gastroenterology visit was eventually completed in late June or July, and the specialist recommended endoscopy and colonoscopy. The timing and completion of those procedures remain to be confirmed from the full current record.

Kristina reports a left-ankle injury with swelling, limping, inability to bear weight normally, and pain while walking. On May 18 she complained of heel or ankle pain and said analgesics were ineffective.

She states that no meaningful physical examination, stabilization, bandage, imaging, or urgent provider assessment was provided; only ibuprofen or acetaminophen was available. By the time a provider discussion was offered, the acute symptoms had largely resolved on their own.

Kristina repeatedly submitted tablet requests and paper grievances concerning medical care, language access, recreation, safety, records, and staff conduct. She reports that paper grievances placed in collection boxes often produced no copy or response and that tablet answers were delayed, misdirected, or conclusory.

Examples include late-June papers marked as decided June 18 but physically delivered June 26, the June 4 bleeding appeal answered approximately six weeks later, and a July 7 grievance about grievance delays that itself required a follow-up on July 13.

Kristina reports that she has never had a meaningful meeting with her assigned ICE officer, K. Gonzalez, despite repeatedly labeling paper and tablet submissions for that officer. Requests about medical transfer, outside treatment, grievances, custody documents, and case status were commonly routed elsewhere or answered with short administrative messages.

On June 1 she specifically asked when paper grievances for the ICE officer would be answered; the June 2 tablet response stated only that the matter had been sent to medical.

Kristina reports that women were commonly taken to an indoor gym twice daily for about an hour but could go for weeks without meaningful outdoor recreation. A two-hour large-yard period on June 9 was the only such period she recalls by mid-June; small-yard access was irregular.

On June 18 she observed signs that male detainees, including a man apparently from a restrictive housing area, were being taken outside. She reports hearing that male units were prioritized because staff expected stronger objections from men and could schedule them early or late.

Kristina reports that announcements, forms, films, educational material, tablet functions, commissary information, and ordinary staff communication were built primarily around English and Spanish. Officers routinely repeated information in Spanish but did not provide simultaneous Russian interpretation.

She describes language failures in housing, medical, food service, recreation, transport, and ICE interactions. On multiple occasions a conversation shifted to Spanish speakers before her issue was completed. She was sometimes unable to understand medical instructions, grievance responses, or why she was being moved.

Kristina was called to the medical department for a vision check. She reports that other detainees were processed first and that she remained for approximately two hours in a hot or poorly ventilated waiting area with the same officer later involved in the June 12 incident.

A nurse performed the vision check with an interpreter and said a provider would review the results. Kristina was later promised another vision-related review on June 12.

At approximately 9:00-10:00 p.m. on June 4, Kristina felt burning and itching below the back of her head, touched the area, and saw blood on her fingers. Another detainee could not identify the source because of the blood. Officer J. Rosas observed the problem and promptly called medical.

Nurse A. San Juan came quickly but, according to Kristina, remained at or near the doorway, did not approach closely, palpate or clean the area, stop the bleeding, disinfect it, provide gauze or an antiseptic wipe, or use an interpreter. Kristina was told it was not an emergency and that she would be seen in the morning. She used nonsterile materials to stop the bleeding herself.

Kristina requested notary services on June 8 for time-sensitive habeas, medical-record, FOIA/Privacy Act, SF-95/FTCA, and representative-authorization documents. She separately contacted her ICE officer on June 9.

She was told that the only notary, the library officer, was on vacation and that no service would be available for approximately one week. Kristina was willing to pay for an outside or mobile notary but was not offered an alternative. She reports that notarization became available on June 15.

Kristina requested a hat and effective sunscreen, or permission to purchase them, because the available sunscreen did not protect her skin. The response was unclear but appeared to say that a request had been submitted to review commissary items.

On June 9 she spent approximately two hours on the large outdoor yard from noon to 2:00 p.m. and reports burns to her nose, face, arms, and scalp. Officers on the yard had protective headwear while detainees did not.

A group was brought to the medical corridor and instructed to place identification cards on a table before entering the waiting room. Kristina reports that the officer specifically told her not to place her ID down, separating her from the line without checking the card and indicating that he recognized her.

The officer, whom Kristina identified as the same officer from June 3, told her to follow him to the intake door. He opened it and said 'deportation' to a female officer. She shook her head and said no. After a brief exchange he closed the door, spoke to Kristina in English, and then asked in substance whether she at least understood the word 'deportation.' Kristina replied that she knew the word generally.

Kristina then rejoined the waiting area. Nurses measured blood pressure around 95-98/65-66. During the middle of the later nurse-practitioner visit she began crying. She says she was in shock and did not immediately disclose what had happened.

Kristina says she became afraid to enter the medical department because the same officer continued to work there. On June 23 she told Sergeant Torres, who said the officer definitely would not work for two days; Kristina temporarily agreed to attend medical based on that assurance.

On June 24 she spoke with investigator Sergeant Sosa, identified the officer from photographs, and asked that Captain Martinez be told she was afraid to attend medical. Later, when Kristina declined a medical call because of that fear, the housing officer reported it. During dinner Captain Martinez asked what had happened, and Kristina explained the event directly, suggesting that the earlier information had not reached her in a usable form.

On July 2 Kristina encountered the officer after returning from gynecology. On July 9, when she had to attend medical for an ultrasound, the officer was again present. Staff told her not to worry because cameras existed and to call someone if necessary.

Kristina reports that providers repeatedly ended visits before all chronic and urgent complaints were addressed. On May 26 her back and ankle concerns were deferred while gynecology, acne, and GI symptoms were discussed. On June 12 she was told that additional issues would have to wait one or two weeks because the provider had already exceeded an appointment limit.

Because each later appointment involved a different provider and access itself was delayed, deferral did not function as coordinated continuity of care.

Laboratory results dated June 18 showed hemoglobin A1c 5.7, at the laboratory's prediabetes threshold, and TSH 0.012, markedly below reference. Kristina reports that the facility did not promptly notify her or explain the results. She learned of them only when a broader medical-record production was provided on June 29.

The chart reportedly marked 'Follow-up Needed' on June 23. A planned July 2 follow-up did not occur because Kristina was at a previously scheduled outside gynecology visit. The substantive review identified in later grievance responses occurred on July 15, almost four weeks after the results.

A later thyroid panel reported TSH 5.690 (reference 0.450-4.500), total T4 4.6 (reference 4.4-12.0), T3 uptake 26 (reference 24-39), and free thyroxine index 1.2 (reference 1.2-4.9). The exact collection and result dates must be confirmed from the next complete record production.

This represents a substantial directional change from TSH 0.012 and occurred in the context of hair loss, acne, weakness, menstrual disruption, and prolonged hormonal-treatment interruption.

Women from Kristina's dorm entered the dining area through corridor Chaga 1 and door 131A. The kitchen service window and kitchen door were closed, and no officer was inside the dining area.

A full male movement line then assembled immediately outside in the same corridor, only several meters away. Officer Trevino, who had controlled the corridor gate, closed the dining-room door only after the male line passed. Kristina reports that both streams occupied the common corridor space without an officer positioned to prevent rapid contact. Officer Estrella entered the dining area only around 7:55 a.m., after food service began.

The July 2 pelvic ultrasound described a normal-size uterus and endometrium, bilateral ovaries with multiple follicles, small fibroids measured approximately 6.7, 5.8, and 6.3 mm, and free fluid in the posterior cul-de-sac/right adnexa. A vaginal culture was positive for Ureaplasma species; doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 14 days was prescribed, with an azithromycin alternative discussed.

The note recorded menstrual irregularity, spotting, acne, low testosterone, and an abnormal TSH; it recommended internal-medicine follow-up for thyroid abnormality and repeat pelvic ultrasound in six months for fibroid surveillance.

Kristina reports that she was not evaluated by a physician, that a nurse practitioner performed the speculum exam, and that communication was limited to what staff chose to convey through a telephone rather than a full confidential interpreter-assisted consultation. Officers and a medical assistant were documented as present.

Kristina observed extensive bird droppings on floors, metal benches, and tables under recreation-yard shelters. Bird nests were inside the shelter roof directly above areas where detainees sat for shade. The large yard lacked reliable soap or wipes, and the small yard had no toilet or handwashing location.

After she spoke to a captain, Officer E. Rodriguez cleaned or restocked the toilets but disputed the broader cleanliness problem. A passing sergeant and later Sergeant J.A.G.A.L.R. inspected the area. Sergeant Konde later agreed that the condition was unacceptable and called cleaning staff. The large yards were washed, but Kristina reports that the small yards remained heavily contaminated and new droppings accumulated under active nests.

Kristina and Pavel requested nutrition facts, ingredients, allergen information, and the history of meals served to her. Facility responses directed the request to FOIA rather than providing readily available information needed for current medical decisions.

Kristina also requested dietary management after A1c 5.7 and for GERD/gastritis. She reports that staff said only cardiac and diabetic diets existed, not a gastritis diet, and that excluded items were not replaced with nutritionally equivalent alternatives. Commissary likewise offered mostly snacks incompatible with her conditions.

Kristina sought tooth-preserving treatment. A dentist reviewed imaging and recommended extraction as clinically appropriate. Kristina declined extraction because she wanted to explore a restorative or surgical alternative, not because she rejected all dental care.

The later response advised her to submit another dental request if she wanted an alternative evaluation.

The later medical production contains several Treatment Refusal forms dated July 21-23 and July 27 and a July 24 nursing narrative. Kristina disputes that these documents reliably reflect informed refusal, because she often did not understand the purpose of a call, the proposed treatment, or the consequence of declining at that moment.

She reports forms that were unsigned by her, encounters without a Russian interpreter, and situations in which a refusal designation was used even though she sought clarification, a different procedure, or safe access.

Kristina was called alone to the medical area and interviewed for approximately three hours by visiting corporate personnel identified as John Eilrs, Director of Corrections, Corporate, and Teri Gregory, Director of Quality Assurance and Improvement, MTC Medical Corporate. Lieutenant Ramon escorted her; an interpreter was connected.

The visitors focused closely on the June 4 bleeding incident and the June 12 'deportation' incident. They asked detailed location and sequencing questions, compared grievance-response dates to incident dates, requested names of providers, showed photographs for officer identification, and took extensive notes. Kristina also described gynecology, thyroid, GI, back, ankle, language, diet, recreation, sanitation, and grievance-system problems.

They asked where she wanted to be transferred. She identified Miami as the primary location because of her husband, physicians, insurance, and ability to arrange care; she also identified California or New York/New Jersey because counsel and Russian-speaking resources were available there.

Kristina and Pavel escalated the record beyond ordinary facility grievances through ICE/ERO, OIDO, ICE OPR, DHS OIG, DHS CRCL, MTC corporate quality assurance, congressional casework, and individual Texas Board of Nursing complaints. Pavel submitted as Kristina's notarized authorized representative, not as counsel.

The external filings requested medical transfer or ATD, staff and record-integrity investigations, language-access review, preservation of video and electronic logs, production of complete records, and licensing review of identified nurses and nurse practitioners.

Kristina's primary requested remedy is prompt transfer to the Miami area, where her husband, existing physicians, insurance, and practical ability to arrange and pay for coordinated gynecology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, spine, dental, and primary care are located.

Later submissions identified California or New York/New Jersey as secondary locations because her attorneys or representatives and Russian-speaking medical resources could assist there. Release, ATD, supervised release, or medical monitoring were requested if a medically appropriate transfer could not be arranged promptly.