An internal guide from the Department of Homeland Security, revealed in a federal lawsuit, assigns points for tattoos, clothing, or personal connections as the basis for deportations without trial.
Tattoos, urban clothing, and Chicago Bulls jerseys are among the signs that the U.S. government has been using to label Venezuelan migrants as gang members and deport them without due process, according to court documents recently disclosed in a lawsuit.
The so-called “Alien Enemies Validation Guide,” developed by the Trump administration, outlines a point-based system that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to classify migrants as members of Tren de Aragua (TDA)—a gang recently designated as a foreign terrorist organization—and order their immediate deportation under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
The “Validation Guide” includes a checklist of 20 criteria divided into six categories: judicial records, criminal behavior, symbolism, associations, intelligence, and social media presence.
Each item is assigned a value between two and ten points, and the total determines whether a migrant is classified as a member of the Venezuelan gang and therefore subject to removal.
Earning just eight points is enough for an ICE agent to validate someone as a gang member. For example, the system assigns four points for having tattoos “associated” with TDA, such as crowns, trains, watches, or the Michael Jordan logo, and another four points for wearing “high-end urban clothing,” like Bulls or Jordan jerseys.
“To get sent to rot in El Salvador, all it takes is 1) a tattoo that an ICE officer believes is gang-related and 2) displaying ‘logos’, ‘symbols’, or clothing that an ICE officer says are gang-sings,” wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, on X, while sharing the lawsuit documents.
After it was revealed that the Trump administration had transferred 137 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador on accusations of belonging to TDA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of those affected, seeking to stop the deportations.
The lawsuit included approximately 150 pages of supporting documents, including news articles, previously disclosed public records, and a copy of the controversial guide.
NEW: @ACLU obtained ICE's "Alien Enemies Act Validation Guide," confirming all it takes to be sent to rot in prison in El Salvador is 1) having a tattoo an ICE officer says is a "gang tattoo" and 2) displaying "logos," "symbols," or clothes an ICE officer says are gang signs. pic.twitter.com/eJGj0tuGef
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) March 30, 2025
According to the ACLU, many of the migrants were deported without a trial or any opportunity to contest the accusations. All were sent to CECOT, a high-security prison known for its harsh conditions.
To classify a Venezuelan migrant as an “alien enemy,” ICE must first confirm that the individual is a Venezuelan national over the age of 14 and then apply the point-based system.
Sending a text message to an alleged member of TDA is worth six points. Using apps like Venmo or CashApp to transfer money to that person adds three more. That’s nine points—enough to validate an affiliation.
“This checklist is shocking,” said Reichlin-Melnick. With it, “ICE can declare any Venezuelan as an ‘Alien Enemy’ without any concrete evidence, based solely on an agent’s interpretation of tattoos, hand signs, or the bad luck of having a roommate ICE thinks is a TDA. This is why due process matters!”
The form even assigns 10 automatic points if someone admits to being an “associate” of the gang, not necessarily a member, something that, according to Reichlin-Melnick, contradicts the core logic of the Alien Enemies Act, which is intended to apply only to members of hostile organizations.
The case of Andry José Hernández Romero, a 31-year-old Venezuelan makeup artist, illustrates the system’s fragility. Local media reported that ICE deported him after being accused of gang affiliation solely for having tattoos of crowns on his body. Authorities interpreted the symbols as signs of membership, although their meaning was deeply personal: one crown next to the word “Mamá” and another beside “Papá.”
Hernández Romero, who identifies as gay and had worked in beauty pageants in Venezuela, applied for asylum in the U.S., citing concern due to his sexual orientation and political activism. Instead of protection, he was sent to El Salvador.
Venezuelan investigative journalist Ronna Rísquez, an expert on the Tren de Aragua, also questioned ICE’s approach: “Tattoos aren’t an identifier for Tren de Aragua. Maybe there’s a Tren de Aragua member who has that tattoo, but that’s not enough to identify them as Tren de Aragua. These are designs popular among young people across Latin America,” she explained in an interview with NPR.
The Legal Foundation Behind the Deportations
The legal basis for these deportations is the Alien Enemies Act, a law signed in 1798 that grants the president of the United States exceptional powers to detain and deport foreign nationals from enemy countries during times of war. Traditionally, this law has only been invoked during periods of declared armed conflict, such as World War II.
But the legal framework is so broad that it doesn’t even require evidence that the individual poses a real threat. “The Alien Enemies Act does not require the president to establish or even believe that detained or deported non-citizens pose a threat to national security,” wrote Katherine Yon Ebright, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Rather, it is enough that a non-citizen was born in, has the passport of, or resides in the wrong country.”
Moreover, affected individuals have no opportunity to defend themselves. “The law does not afford non-citizens an opportunity to present evidence of their loyalty to the United States,” Ebright added. “There is no procedure for non‑citizens to appeal the president’s decision to detain or deport them.” Even when habeas corpus petitions are filed, courts usually limit themselves to verifying whether the person was born in or lived in a country deemed hostile, without examining the merits of the case.
For Ebright, applying this law in the current context is not only a legal anachronism, but a serious threat to civil liberties and the principle of due process. In her words, it represents a tool “ripe for abuse,” one that can be used to deliberately circumvent the protections guaranteed by the regular immigration system.
Human rights advocates, legal experts, and journalists share a common concern: this is not just a migration strategy—it is a dangerous precedent that normalizes surveillance, profiling, and deportation without solid evidence.