Investigation · The Untouchables Hub

Sexual Abuse in ICE Detention

Immigration detention concentrates every ingredient of impunity: a closed facility, staff who are often private contractors, and a victim the government can put on a plane before an investigation finishes.

This page documents sexual abuse of detainees in ICE custody, case by case, and grades each on its own record. A guilty plea is a conviction; a charge is a charge; a “pattern and practice” complaint is an allegation until it is adjudicated. The point is not a claim about immigrants or about any group — it is the accountability gap that detention creates, and who it protects.

The record ↓Why it matters

§1 · Summary Brief

What this page is about

Sexual abuse of people held in immigration detention is not a hypothetical risk; it is a documented crime with guilty pleas on the record. In December 2025, a contract detention officer at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a woman in federal custody. Separately, a federal officer faces seven counts of sexual abuse involving two women, with prosecutors saying still more may have been victimized. And advocates in El Paso have filed a complaint alleging a “pattern and practice” of assault by guards in areas cameras could not see.

What ties these together is not the identity of anyone involved — it is the structure. Detention is a closed system, often run by private contractors, holding people whom the government can deport, sometimes before an investigation is complete. That combination — closed doors, contractor staff, and a removable witness — is a nearly purpose-built accountability gap. This page grades the convictions as fact, the charges as charges, and the systemic allegations as allegations, and asks who the gap protects.

What we are NOT saying

We are not making a claim about immigrants, about any nationality, or about the many detention staff who commit no crime. We are not asserting a national count of incidents — where we cite systemic allegations (a “pattern and practice,” “hundreds of complaints”), we attribute them to the complaint or the advocacy source and do not state them as a proven tally. Charged individuals are named as charged, with the presumption of innocence held on guilt. This is distinct from ICE/CBP agent criminality, which tracks agents’ off-duty crimes; here the subject is abuse of detainees in custody.

▶ Dossier

The same investigation, restaged one beat at a time. Step through it here, or present it fullscreen.

The Untouchables

Abuse behind a door that deports the witness.

Sexual abuse of detainees in ICE custody — graded case by case. A closed facility, contractor staff, and a victim the government can remove before the case is done: impunity engineered by the setting.

1 / 9▶ Present fullscreen

§2 · The Record

Convictions, charges, and a systemic complaint

The first entry is an adjudicated conviction (FACT). The second is a pending charge, held to the presumption of innocence. The third is a documented but unadjudicated systemic allegation, attributed. The fourth is the structural point they share.

A detention officer pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a woman in ICE custody.

FACT

David Courvelle, 56, a contract detention officer at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile — a facility operated by the GEO Group that houses women and detainees of various gender identities — pleaded guilty in December 2025, before U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays, to sexual abuse of a ward or individual in federal custody, a charge carrying up to 15 years. Per court records, he had sexual contact multiple times with a Nicaraguan detainee under his custodial supervision, inside the facility including a janitorial closet, and arranged for other detainees to act as lookouts. He resigned after learning investigators had obtained recordings, initially denied the relationship to ICE inspectors, then admitted it. This is a conviction on the record, graded FACT.

A federal officer faces seven counts of sexual abuse — charged, not convicted.

PROBABLY TRUE

Andrew Golobic faces seven counts of sexual abuse involving two women and pleaded not guilty in federal court. At the hearing, prosecutors said at least six women in the system had had sex with him and expressed concern there could be additional, undiscovered victims. We name him as charged and hold the presumption of innocence on his guilt: a charge and a not-guilty plea are both facts of record, and the disposition is not yet decided. The advocacy attorney's estimate that 'dozens, if not hundreds' of clients have reported abuse in the same system since 2018 is attributed to her, not asserted by us as a count — it is a lead about scale, not an adjudicated number.

Immigrant and Refugee Law Center — ICE agent charged with sexual abuse of two immigrants as investigators search for more victims

In El Paso, advocates allege a 'pattern and practice' of assault — filed with DHS's watchdog, not yet adjudicated.

SOME SMOKE

A Texas advocacy group filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General alleging that guards at an ICE-overseen El Paso detention center 'systematically' sexually assaulted and harassed detainees — at least three people — often in areas not visible to security cameras, and that the abuse involved an officer as senior as a lieutenant. According to the filing, obtained by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune, guards told victims no one would believe them because no footage existed; after the complaint, additional women came forward. We grade this SOME SMOKE and attributed: it is a documented complaint and a referral (the El Paso DA forwarded 'potentially criminal allegations' to DHS OIG), not an adjudicated finding. It is exactly the kind of systemic claim we do not launder into our own voice.

The structure is the story: a closed facility, contractor staff, and a witness the government can deport.

FACT

Across these cases the same mechanism recurs, and it is documented, not inferred. Detention facilities are closed environments, frequently operated by private contractors (the Louisiana facility is run by the GEO Group), with abuse alleged to occur precisely where cameras do not reach. And the victims are deportable: in the El Paso matter, a woman who reported abuse faced removal 'next week,' meaning investigators could lose a key witness, and her attorneys had to ask immigration officials to pause her deportation. That is an accountability gap unique to this context — the same government that is supposed to investigate the abuse also controls whether the witness stays in the country. We grade the existence of that dynamic as FACT (it is in the record of these cases); the conclusion that it produces impunity is the through-line this hub argues.

§3 · Why It Matters

Impunity engineered by the setting

The Untouchables hub tracks how the powerful evade accountability for sexual crime — usually through flight, position, or the seams between jurisdictions. Immigration detention is the institutional version of the same gap. The victim has the least power in the system and the least ability to stay and testify; the setting is closed and often privately run; and the watchdog is a component of the very department that runs the facilities and signs the deportation order. None of that requires a conspiracy to produce impunity — the ordinary machinery is enough, which is precisely the pattern this hub documents from the agents’ own criminality to the policing of the poor. Where a case is proven, we say so plainly; where it is only alleged, we say that too. The gap is real either way.

§4 · FAQ

Questions worth taking seriously

Isn't this just an attack on ICE, or on immigration enforcement generally?

No. Every load-bearing claim is a court record or an official complaint: a guilty plea, a seven-count charge, a filing with DHS’s own Inspector General. We name convictions as fact and charges as charges, and we attribute systemic allegations rather than asserting counts. The subject is a specific accountability gap in how custody is run — closed facilities, contractor staff, deportable witnesses — not a blanket claim about every officer or about enforcement as a policy.

Why does deportation matter to a criminal case?

Because the victim is often the key witness, and the same government investigating the abuse controls whether she stays in the country. In the El Paso matter, a woman who reported abuse faced removal within a week, and her attorneys had to ask immigration officials to pause it so investigators wouldn’t lose her testimony. Deport the witness and the case can quietly collapse — an accountability gap that ordinary criminal settings don’t have.

§5 · Standing Invitation

If you are named on this page

If you are named on this page, or are a party materially affected by the claims made here, and you wish to respond, correct the record, or add context, use the Contact page. Responses are published verbatim alongside the original claim, with the sender identified and the date of receipt. The channel stays open for the life of the page.

This site aggregates and grades a record that other outlets and primary sources have already put on the record. Every FACT-graded claim above is sourced to court filings, government reports, sworn whistleblower disclosures, published investigative journalism, or named-source statements. The citations are the accountability mechanism; this section is how you get on the record too.

§6 · Sources