What Is the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit?
The Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit is a federal civil case in which a Maine family physician sued three U.S. border officials after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) found her inadmissible and blocked her return home. She is a dual Iranian and Canadian citizen who works in Presque Isle, Maine, on an H-1B visa.
Roya Afshar is the pseudonym on the original complaint. The amended complaint of July 24, 2026 used her legal name, Behnoosh Dashti. News outlets now report the case under that name. The court docket still lists it as Afshar v. Stamper.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. It is not a class action. It is also unrelated to any other lawsuit involving someone named Roya Afshar.
“In April 2026, while trying to follow guidance from the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles ('BMV') so she could renew her driver's license and continue her ordinary life and work, Plaintiff briefly crossed into Canada for a matter of minutes, to check in at the Fort Fairfield Port of Entry with her valid Canadian passport and renewed H-1B visa in hopes of triggering an update to her immigration status in the Maine BMV computer system to facilitate her driver's license renewal. Despite her cooperation with Customs and Border Protection ('CBP'), valid documentation, established family home, and essential role as a local primary care doctor, CBP deemed her inadmissible for reentry, invoking an inapplicable documentary ground for inadmissibility without meaningful explanation”
Source: U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, Afshar v. Stamper, No. 1:26-cv-00372-SDN, Amended Complaint, Document 15 (July 24, 2026)
Why Was the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit Filed?
The Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit was filed because CBP found a Maine physician inadmissible on April 8, 2026. She could not get back home. The complaint says she crossed into Canada for minutes to get a new visa stamp. The Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles wanted that stamp before renewing her driver's license.
She had held an H-1B visa since December 2022, and it was renewed in November 2025. The complaint says Maine's records did not show the renewal. She drove to the Fort Fairfield port of entry.
She says an officer held her for 10 hours of questioning, then told her she was inadmissible. Her complaint says officers pressed her about her mother's job with the Iranian government more than 45 years earlier.
She says no clear reason was given, and she was released into Canada after midnight. The suit asked a federal judge to find the decision unlawful and to stop CBP from repeating it.
What Harms Does the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit Allege?
The Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit alleges five separate harms, grouped into two legal counts. Count I is an Administrative Procedure Act claim, and Count II is a Fifth Amendment due process claim. CBP and the Department of Homeland Security did not publicly respond to these allegations.
Denial of Reentry
Denial of reentry means a border officer finds a person inadmissible and refuses to let that person enter the country.
The complaint says CBP kept the physician out of the United States from April 8, 2026. She was separated from her husband, her 12-year-old daughter, her patients, and her belongings.
She says she had no clothing or home in Canada. She had left Presque Isle that day expecting to return within minutes.
Custody and Questioning
Secondary inspection is a longer interview that border officers use to verify a traveler's admissibility after a first check.
The complaint says CBP held her at the Fort Fairfield port of entry for 10 hours. An officer took her purse, car keys, and telephone, and questioned her in two sessions.
She says her request to call an attorney was denied. The second interview was transcribed, and the transcript became a sealed exhibit.
Wrong Documentary Ground
A documentary inadmissibility ground is a rule that bars entry when a traveler lacks the papers their admission category requires.
The complaint says CBP cited the rule for immigrants without a valid immigrant visa, 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She argues that rule does not apply to an H-1B nonimmigrant.
Her theory is that the nonimmigrant rule, section 1182(a)(7)(B)(i), requires only a valid passport and a valid visa. She says she presented both, and her Canadian passport runs to 2034.
Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds
Terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, or TRIG, are immigration rules that bar entry for people tied to designated terrorist groups.
The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that CBP also applied TRIG as an undisclosed second basis. It points to her mother's clerical work for the pre-revolutionary Iranian government, which ended around 1980.
She says she has no link to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. She argues the statute's five-year look-back for a parent's activity cannot reach employment from decades ago.
Due Process Violation
Procedural due process is the Fifth Amendment guarantee of fair notice and a chance to respond before the government acts.
Count II alleges CBP gave her incomplete or misleading reasons and ignored her request for counsel. It also alleges CBP never shared the results of its follow-up security review.
The complaint adds that CBP advised a new attempt at entry would bring an expedited removal order. She says that left her no fair way to challenge the decision.
What Is the Current Status of the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit?
The current status of the Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit is closed. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, so the same claims generally cannot be refiled. No court ruled on the merits, and no judge decided the preliminary injunction motion.
Afshar v. Stamper
A Maine physician sued three federal officials in the District of Maine on July 20, 2026. Judge Stacey D. Neumann presided, and the court docketed the amended complaint on July 24, 2026.
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (Bangor) |
| Case Number | 1:26-cv-00372-SDN |
| Filed | July 20, 2026 |
| Judge | Stacey D. Neumann |
| Plaintiff | Roya Afshar (pseudonym); amended complaint filed under her legal name |
| Defendants | Derrick Stamper (Border Patrol, Houlton Sector), Rodney Scott (CBP), Markwayne Mullin (Homeland Security), all in their official capacities |
| Claims | Administrative Procedure Act review; Fifth Amendment due process |
| Plaintiff's Counsel | Bernstein Shur (Portland, Maine) and Bless Litigation LLC |
| Defendants' Counsel | U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Maine |
| Outcome | Stipulated dismissal with prejudice, August 24, 2026 (Doc. 28) |
The case never reached a trial or a merits ruling. The answer deadline was set for September 21, 2026, and the dismissal came four weeks earlier.
How Did the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit End?
The Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit ended on August 24, 2026 with a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Her attorney said the government agreed to facilitate her readmission. She returned late on Friday, August 21.
The stipulation lists no terms, and the government has not published the agreement. The suit named no dollar amount. It sought a declaration, an injunction, and attorney fees, so no payout figure exists.
The docket entries reviewed show no fee award. They show no court finding that the border decision was lawful or unlawful. A dismissal with prejudice generally ends the same claims for good, but it does not decide who was right.
Reports on her return say the government gave no public explanation for the original denial. Her complaint says CBP never told her which TRIG provision, if any, it relied on.
Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
The latest Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit updates show a closed case. The last docket event was the August 24, 2026 dismissal, so no further filings are expected. This page will note any later developments, including a new CBP decision involving the same plaintiff.
Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Parties Stipulate to Dismissal With Prejudice
Lawyers for the Maine physician and the three federal defendants filed a joint stipulation dismissing Afshar v. Stamper with prejudice. The filing ended Case No. 1:26-cv-00372 in the District of Maine.
Physician Readmitted to the United States
Customs and Border Protection admitted the Presque Isle physician late on Friday. Her attorney James Monteleone told the Bangor Daily News. The reentry came more than four months after the April 8 denial at Fort Fairfield.
Judge Neumann Grants a Consent Stay
Judge Stacey D. Neumann granted the parties' consent motion to stay proceedings in Afshar v. Stamper. The order came one day before the government's expedited discovery responses were due.
Plaintiff Files Reply on the Injunction Motion
The physician's lawyers filed a reply supporting the preliminary injunction and restraining order motion in Afshar v. Stamper. Judge Neumann also granted a consent motion that day to enlarge the page limit for that reply.
Government Opposes the Preliminary Injunction
Assistant U.S. Attorney Trevor Taniguchi filed the defendants' opposition. It argued the inadmissibility finding was not reviewable and was not a final agency action. The brief said she withdrew her application to avoid a final determination.
Physician Seeks a Restraining Order and Injunction
The plaintiff filed an expedited motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Afshar v. Stamper, supported by two sworn declarations. The motion sought emergency relief while the case was pending.
Court Grants Expedited Discovery in Part
Judge Neumann granted in part and denied in part the physician's request for expedited discovery from the government. The order set August 21, 2026 as the date for the defendants' responses to the plaintiff's discovery requests.
Government Appears and Discovery Is Requested
Assistant U.S. Attorney Trevor Taniguchi entered an appearance for all three defendants in Afshar v. Stamper. The plaintiff separately moved for expedited discovery, attaching requests for admission and requests for production.
Amended Complaint Names the Plaintiff
The physician filed an amended complaint in the District of Maine. It replaced the pseudonym Roya Afshar with her legal name. Judge Neumann held a telephone conference the same day and set an August 6 deadline for her injunction motion.
Plaintiff Moves to Expedite the Case
The physician's lawyers asked the District of Maine for a conference of counsel and expedited proceedings in Afshar v. Stamper. The court scheduled a telephone conference for July 24 and set the defendants' answer deadline for September 21, 2026.
Magistrate Judge Seals the Unredacted Exhibits
Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf granted the plaintiff's motion to seal unredacted versions of three complaint exhibits. The exhibits include the visa, the Canadian passport, and the CBP-prepared transcript of the second interview.
Physician Files Suit Against Three Border Officials
A Maine family physician filed a civil complaint in the District of Maine under the pseudonym Roya Afshar. It named Derrick Stamper, Rodney Scott, and Markwayne Mullin as defendants. Maine news outlets first reported it on July 21.
CBP Finds the Physician Inadmissible at Fort Fairfield
Border officers at the Fort Fairfield, Maine port of entry held the physician for about 10 hours. They then told her she was inadmissible. She withdrew her application for admission and was released into Canada after midnight, according to her complaint.
What Evidence Is in the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit?
The evidence in the Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit consists of her immigration documents and a CBP-prepared interview transcript. The complaint attaches redacted copies of her renewed H-1B visa, her Canadian passport, and the transcript of her second interview.
Unredacted copies were filed under seal. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf granted the motion to seal on July 22, 2026. Her lawyers later filed two sworn declarations with the August 6 injunction motion.
The plaintiff also requested admissions and documents from the government. The court allowed part of that expedited discovery, and the government's responses were due August 21, 2026.
What Is the Government's Position in the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit?
The government's position in the Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit is that the border decision cannot be reviewed by a federal court. It made that argument in its August 14, 2026 opposition to the injunction motion.
A CBP statement quoted by Fox 23 said, "Possession of a visa does not guarantee entry or reentry into the United States." CBP and Homeland Security did not respond to other press requests.
| Issue | Plaintiff's allegation | Government's argument |
|---|---|---|
| Documentary ground | The immigrant-visa rule, section 1182(a)(7)(A), cannot apply to an H-1B nonimmigrant with a valid passport. | An official found her inadmissible under section 1182(a)(7)(A), and that finding is the decision at issue. |
| Court review | Border admissibility decisions are reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. | The consular nonreviewability doctrine bars review of inadmissibility findings by executive officers. |
| Final agency action | The April 8 finding was a final action with no other remedy. | She withdrew her application, so CBP took no final action. |
| Scope of relief | The court should bar CBP from again using these grounds against her. | The requested relief has no end date and is overbroad. |
The brief also said she had not had a visa revoked. It added that, as a Canadian citizen, she likely presented an I-797 approval notice rather than a visa.
Is the Roya Afshar U.S. Border Lawsuit the Same as Other Roya Afshar Cases?
No. The Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit is a different matter from every other Roya Afshar or Afshar legal case that appears in search results. Searchers often land on the wrong one because the name is shared.
A February 2026 news report described a Tennessee attorney, spelled Rojia Afshar there, who sued over her mother's stalled U.S. visa. That case involves an embassy visa application, not a border reentry.
| Matter | Who is involved | What it concerns | Same case? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afshar v. Stamper (this page) | Maine physician v. Stamper, Scott, Mullin | Denied reentry at Fort Fairfield, April 8, 2026 | Yes |
| Visa suit over a mother's application | Tennessee attorney v. U.S. government | Immigrant visa processing at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia | No |
| Chester v Afshar | Patient v. a surgeon named Afshar | 2004 House of Lords medical negligence ruling in the United Kingdom | No |
| Roya Afshar, the actress | Iranian film and television performer | A public figure of the same name, not a lawsuit | No |
A United Kingdom case called Chester v Afshar and an Iranian actress also share the name. Neither is connected to the Maine physician or to this federal case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit about?
The Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit is about a Maine family physician who says CBP wrongly refused her reentry on April 8, 2026. She sued three federal officials in the District of Maine, seeking a declaration that the decision was unlawful.
Is the Roya Afshar lawsuit a class action or MDL?
No. The Roya Afshar lawsuit is a single-plaintiff federal case, not a class action or multidistrict litigation. No group of similarly situated people can join it, and the case closed on August 24, 2026.
Did Roya Afshar win or settle the border lawsuit?
Roya Afshar neither won a court ruling nor received a reported settlement payment. The government agreed to facilitate her readmission. She returned on August 21, 2026, and both sides stipulated to dismissal with prejudice.
Was Roya Afshar allowed back into the United States?
Yes. Roya Afshar was readmitted to the United States late on Friday, August 21, 2026, according to her attorney. She had been in Canada since the April 8 denial, a period of more than four months.
Who are the defendants in the Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit?
The defendants in the Roya Afshar U.S. border lawsuit are Derrick Stamper, Rodney Scott, and Markwayne Mullin. Stamper is Chief Patrol Agent of the Houlton Sector, Scott is CBP Commissioner, and Mullin is Homeland Security Secretary.
Is Roya Afshar a real name?
Roya Afshar is the pseudonym the plaintiff used in the original complaint filed July 20, 2026. Her amended complaint of July 24, 2026 used her legal name, and the court docket keeps the caption Afshar v. Stamper.