She Worked in a Harvard Lab to Reverse Aging, Until ICE Jailed Her

The article left me with a couple questions - is cancelling a visa for not declaring something like frog embryos normal protocol? Does ICE have evidence that not declaring them was intentional? In any case, I really hope she doesn't get deported. If it was just a mistake, this seems like an abuse of power.

> Such an infraction is normally considered minor, punishable with a fine of up to $500.

I'm also wondering how you are supposed to declare something like this. They don't pass out those customs forms on flights from Europe anymore, you just go through immigration and the officer asks whatever questions they feel like. In my case the only question was "did you buy anything".

Normally, when you are leaving the baggage claim area, there are two customs corridors - green one for people who have nothing to declare, and red for people who wish to make a customs declaration.

It's hard to know exactly what happened here, but it sounds like she was confronted before she even got to that step.

> Then, as she headed toward the baggage claim, a Border Patrol officer approached her and asked to search her suitcase.

I'm sure there is something she was supposed to do if her lawyer is acknowledging she violated some regulation, I just have no idea what it would be.

There are plenty of examples of abuse of power. This is clearly just yet another one of them. DEI is in full display with this administration, except for them DEI stands for division with egregious ignorance. Even if it was a mistake, good luck getting the government to do anything about it - see Abrego Garcia. The administration just up and put the DoJ lawyer who admitted to the court that they made a mistake in sending him to El Salvador on administrative leave [0]. There's no way they will back down, as it would be a sign of weakness. Heck, even the Supreme Court majority ruled that the government must make an effort to return him to the US [1], so we will have a major showdown between two of the branches of government shortly.

We've whipsawed so far away from any norms that the majority "normal" people in the center are just left stunned at how we got here. And the ones who voted for this shitshow are fed a constant diet of lies and propaganda to keep them in line - things get bad? Refill the rage canister by rolling out Kristi Noem with some more made-for-insta reels in front of the "bad" people locked up in CECOT.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sidelines-doj-lawyer-aft... [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

You can go online and do everything before your flight or get a paper form at some point at the airport.

Typically, the customs declaration is filled out on the airplane. This can be done through a mobile app (which most frequent travelers do), in which case, customs might have it before you've even left the plane.

If it's done on paper, this is done at the passport check, before you've picked up your checked luggage, and well before picking a customs lane.

I've certainly been randomly chosen for a screening, and when that happened, a customs agent went up to me (deliberately) shortly after I got my luggage. I forget why, but they have flags for suspicious behavior. I think it might have been because I came back with one more bag than I left with, or some intermediate destination.

There are also, in some airports, customs dogs sniffing things between luggage pickup and customs who can also flag for screens.

So none of this sounds too unusual to me, except for the final step: being shipped off to a detention center. I've never brought in anything improper, but I know people who came to the US with illicit food. The outcome was:

1) A rather serious fine

2) Being screened literally every time they passed into the US

The second was more obnoxious. Every time they came into the US for at least the next half-decade, customs would unpack their bags.

> Does ICE have evidence that not declaring them was intentional? I

They say they do: “Messages on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”

> The article left me with a couple questions - is cancelling a visa for not declaring something like frog embryos normal protocol?

A visa like J-1 can be cancelled at the port of entry for a variety of reasons. Doesn't mean she immediately loses her status. With a visa like that you're essentially at the mercy of the State Dept. You can still reply but you have to exit the US. The normal procedure would have been to immediately send her to Russia. The idea is, you go back to your home country and re-apply. But they didn't do that and "let her" stay in detention since Russia is a dangerous place for her.

That's a pretty good description of what happens at most airports I've been through.

> So none of this sounds too unusual to me, except for the final step: being shipped off to a detention center.

It's because her J-1 visa was cancelled. I am not sure if that was warranted or how threatening frog embryos are, so can't judge there. But if the J-1 visa is cancelled, the person usually has to exit the US and re-apply. She didn't necessarily lose her status as a J-1 student, but she may need a new visa. So the procedure here would have been to put her on a plane to Russia. However they asked her if it would be dangerous for her to be there, and it is, so she got sent to a detention center instead.

> They say they do: “Messages on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”

I'd note that these are the same folks asserting people with no criminal records are convicted criminals.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/04/nx-s1-5282379/trumps-mass-dep...

"In a press briefing last week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked how many people arrested had a criminal record. She said, 'All of them, because they illegally broke our nation's laws, and, therefore, they are criminals, as far as this administration goes.' But Carlos came to the U.S. through a legal pathway, although the CBP One app he used was shut down by Trump as soon as he took office."

> I'd note that these are the same folks asserting people with no criminal records are convicted criminals.

Oh of course, 100%

However when it comes to visa cancellations, from what I understand one is at the mercy of the port of entry officials. Any re-entry with that kind of a visa can trigger a review and the visa may be cancelled for a variety of reasons, not all criminal or proven criminal. I am not saying that's bad or good, it's just how the system works.

The next step is the person usually has to exit the US and re-apply for a visa. So procedurally she should have been put on a plane to Russia. But knowing what Russia looks like they asked her if she should be threatened there so she ended up in a detention center instead.

Like I mentioned in another comment, this was huge mistake from her employee to 1) send her any where, re-entries with these visas should be minimized, especially these days 2) asked her to bring any embryos or any such things.

That's the problem with trust and reputation. Once it's gone, it's pretty hard for anyone to just trust you on this. How can anyone believe this administration when it says someone is a criminal without a video of them doing a crime at this point? And why were they looking through her phone anyway?

It's a port of entry. Once they flagged her for a search they can and do search electronic devices. Officials there may also deny those kind of visas on a whim seemingly. The next step is usually being sent back to the country of origin where the visa was issued and re-applying for it at the embassy. I don't think her status of a J-1 student automatically cancelled. Except in this case it wasn't safe to send her back to Russia so she ended up in detection.

I haven't had to fill out a form of any sort the past couple of times I entered. Maybe I was breaking the law by not doing so?

> they illegally broke our nation's laws

Sounds suspiciously like "arrested for resisting arrest". Of course the actual meaning of the question is clearly "other than immigration law itself".

It's worth considering how remarkably broken that system is. The end result is detention or deportation of a highly skilled professional with ongoing employment in the US. That's not someone who would typically be considered a flight risk or an overstay risk.

Requiring one to return home to reapply also never made any sense for student visas, at least when it comes to graduate level research. Academics at state funded institutions who are paid off of government grants aren't generally people you need to worry about sticking around if their visa is denied. Neither is it clear why you would ever want to deny a visa to such a person to begin with.

I have filled plenty of paperwork for customs, my employer explained me what I had to do, because I imported stuff on behalf of my employer. I could have also just tried to hide it in my luggage, but then it wouldn’t surprise me if my visa was revoked as well. Why would you mess with customs, in particular if you do this not for your personal fun?

> The end result is detention or deportation of a highly skilled professional with ongoing employment in the US.

Agree. However, this kind of visa is not necessarily for highly skilled professionals, it can be for general cultural exchange, even for au pairs. They have to be "sponsored" by someone. As such, it can also be a vehicle to get people in the country and overstay the visa, I know someone who did that. Then, once it's cancelled, the general rule is you can't enter into the country. To a port of entry person a J-1 for a nanny for a rich family is just as good as J-1 for a Harvard researcher. Except the Harvard researcher now did break some rule so is in a much worse position.

> at least when it comes to graduate level research.

Most definitely. There should be someone looking here and saying maybe these should different visa types and the requirement to leave sounds excessive. It shouldn't be the default, I think. Maybe with the most visible cases like these, there is more of a chance to change the rules.

> Neither is it clear why you would ever want to deny a visa to such a person to begin with.

They broke a rule or law and seemingly tried to hide it. At that point I guess it depends on the mood of the person at the port of entry. It shouldn't be like that but it is. There is no general right to have a visa or some way to compel the US government to give you one. A lawyer through a court could make a case here. But in general you can't show up and say "You owe me a J-1 visa" or "you'll un-cancel the previous one".

> arrested for resisting arrest"

I don't think she was "arrested" to "pay for her crimes" so to speak. As in "ok, she was in jail for 10 days, now she learned her lesson and she gets the J-1 visa uncanceled". It's a bit of a different mechanism - the default action here is to be sent to Russia. She chose to stay here instead, even if it meant being in detention. I may be wrong, but I think she can always say "I am going back to Russia" and they'll let her.

I was referring to the quote by the press secretary. "Illegally breaking the law" just has the same vibe. Meanwhile it's an intentional dodge of the question - were they convicted criminals aside from the part where they weren't legally allowed to be here?