I suspect that many of you, like me, have been haunted by the death of Nurul Amin Shah Alam, a 56 year-old blind Rohingya refugee in Buffalo who was found dead several days after he had been released from federal custody.
This has been largely framed as yet another story of the negligence, if not outright wanton cruelty, of ICE — and there is certainly more than enough that we know, even as many questions remain unanswered, to warrant that accusation. But as someone who is now looking at these kinds of events through the lens of complicity, it’s important not to ignore the layers of failed responsibility that even brought Shah Alam to that point. Like most examples of systemic harm, this story involves a number of critical decision points, any one of which could have potentially led to a different ending.
First, the facts: Shah Alam and his family are Arakan Rohingya, a persecuted Muslim minority from Myanmar that the US government has said was subjected to genocide. Shah Alam and his wife and children came to the U.S. in December 2024 and were granted refugee status. According to his son, Mohamad Faisal, in February 2025 Shah Alam had taken a walk using a curtain rod as a walking stick. He got lost and wandered onto private property. The homeowner called the police, reporting that he had damaged their shed door and had allowed their dog to escape. Two female officers arrived on the scene, saw him holding the rod, and ordered him to drop it or they would use their stun guns on him. Shah Alam responded, “OK sorry” several times as he walked towards the officers, but did not drop the rod. His son said he did not understand the command and also could not see them properly: Shah Alam is seen on body camera video waving the rod and speaking in a foreign language. The officers fired their stun guns and tackled him to the ground, punching him in the head several times as they restrained him. The police report states that the officers suffered minor injuries because Shah Alam bit them.
Following his arrest, the Erie County District Attorney’s Office indicted Shah Alam on felony assault, burglary, and criminal mischief charges, and Border Patrol placed a federal immigration detainer on Shah Alam in the event that he was released from custody. His bail was originally set at $25,000 and later reduced to $5,000, but his family initially declined to post bail because they were afraid that he would be immediately transferred into immigration custody. So he stayed in jail for a year. Earlier this month, Shah Alam pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges — criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal trespass in the third degree — and was set to be sentenced in March. After being informed that he would not be deported if released, the family posted bond. While Shah Alam was being processed for release on February 19, Erie County police contacted Border Patrol (because of the immigration detainer), which took him into custody. Border Patrol later determined that Shah Alam was not subject to removal because he was a legal refugee. So they drove him to a Tim Horton’s at 8 p.m. and left him there, even though the coffee shop had closed at 7 p.m. It was raining and cold and Shah Alam was still wearing the prison booties he was issued in jail. He was found dead five days later, and the cause of death has not yet been released.
Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s worth examining each decisional step, what assumptions were made that allowed the situation to escalate, and some questions that might have been worth at least asking at each one.
Decision 1: The Homeowner
I think it’s important to start here, because it was an individual call that set the system in motion — and it’s a good reminder that any of us can set similar wheels turning as well, perhaps not even aware of what happens after we do.
On the one hand, the impulse to call the police is understandable. It’s not clear where the homeowner first saw Shah Alam, but if a stranger appears on your property, calling the police may feel like the safest option. But it is also an illustration of how quickly we default to law enforcement as the first and only tool. It’s hard for me to believe that the interpretation of the scene as a threat wasn’t shaped by implicit bias, because he looked different.
It also appears that the homeowner immediately reported it as a threat — someone who was damaging property, which of course shaped the frame of mind in which the police arrived. Was there any room here to assess differently? To assume confusion? To at least say, ‘I’m not sure if he’s lost or what?’ Curiosity or some self-questioning could have made a difference.
Decision 2: The Arrest
Again, here we can give some benefit of the doubt to a degree, if the report to the police was that someone was on the property with a weapon, and posing a threat. But here is where discretion and deescalation could potentially have been an option if the officers could have recognized that there was a cultural barrier in the encounter.
These things can unfold quickly, so perhaps that was not possible in the confusion. However, once Shah Alam was restrained, there was then the additional decision to arrest him. Was there a point — even after he was in custody and they had a chance to get an interpreter — to recognize potential confusion? Was there any consideration not to arrest him, but return him to his family with a warning, a ticket, or anything less draconian?
Decision 3: The Indictment
Here’s where I start to get mad.
It’s one thing for individuals to escalate because of reactions in a fast-moving and potentially confusing situation. But when the report lands on the D.A.’s desk, it’s no longer in that phase. There is time for reflection, deliberation, and prosecutorial discretion. Perhaps there are important facts missing from this story that warrant these charges. But based on what has been reported, I am utterly baffled on why this prosecutor chose to prosecute Shah Alam with three felony charges. Really?? (According to The New York Times, the D.A., Michael Keane, kindly plans to dismiss all criminal charges once he receives Shah Alam’s death certificate. Seems a little late for that.1)
Decision 4: The Transfer
This is where the immigration context shapes decision making. Even though the family had the means to post bond, they had to make a choice between doing so and having Shah Alam potentially disappearing into the federal immigration system, or letting him stay there. The statement from the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo indicates that even they were not sure what would happen, due to the “uncertainty of the immigration climate” and had to bring in an outside immigration lawyer as a consultant. I don’t blame the family for keeping Shah Alam where he was.
And perhaps the state police had no choice but to transfer Shah Alam to ICE. But here’s where the moral responsibility is unmistakable. The detention facility presumably had a translator for Shah Alam, as well as some way to monitor his medical conditions, during his YEAR in jail. They also had some basic information on his family, because family members visited Shah Alam while he was in detention. So when they decided to process his release…did they even notify them that Shah Alam was being transferred to federal custody? Did they provide any of the family’s contact information, or information about his condition, to Border Patrol??
Decision 5: The Release
And so finally we get to where he is in Border Patrol’s custody. Here is the account from the feds, according to CNN:
Using a translation program, agents attempted to communicate with Shah Alam, according to a federal law enforcement official. Shah Alam was offered the opportunity to make a phone call, but declined, and asked to be taken to the location where he was eventually dropped off, the official said.
‘Border Patrol agents offered him a courtesy ride, which he chose to accept to a coffee shop, determined to be a warm, safe location near his last known address, rather than be released directly from the Border Patrol station. He showed no signs of distress, mobility issues, or disabilities requiring special assistance,’ the CBP statement said.
Border Patrol is implying that they did Shah Alam some kind of favor — as opposed to having a duty of care after having taken him into custody. Were they not able to find a next of kin number from the state police? Did they not see that the Tim Horton’s was closed?? Did they notice that HE MIGHT NEED SOME SHOES?
At my speech earlier this week in D.C., I talked about the relationship between the rule of law and empathy. You can’t have the former without the latter — and Shah Alam’s case shows what happens when they are separated:
The homeowner was just protecting their property.
The officers were just responding to a call.
The prosecutor was just enforcing the law.
The state officials were just cooperating with federal authorities.
Border Patrol were just offering a “courtesy ride.”
Each person had a reason. Perhaps they were even required by law. But Shah Alam’s death was the cumulative result of many decisions, and questions never asked — the most basic one being:
Who is the human being in front of me?
Not for nothing, but this D.A. himself was arrested when he was 21 for a DUI, attempting to escape custody, and injuring officers — but he felt like he deserved a second chance…to be the county’s D.A.!
This is what societies optimized for cruelty produce. Nurul Amin Shah Alam, blind Rohingya refugee who survived genocide, detained for a year on felony charges for wandering lost with a curtain rod. Released to ICE in prison booties. Abandoned at closed Tim Hortons in 20°F rain. Found dead five days later.
Every decision point had a human who could have asked “who is the person in front of me?”
Instead: homeowner called police on confused disabled man. Officers tased and beat him. DA prosecuted three felonies for trespassing while blind. State transferred him to ICE without notifying family. Border Patrol dumped him outside in freezing rain without shoes after determining he was legally present.
This is the first-order question from my new piece:
do you support systems designed for human flourishing or systems optimized for demonstrating power through cruelty?
A society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable.
America just killed a blind refugee and every institution involved found legal justification for their piece of it.
That’s not broken bureaucracy, that’s moral collapse institutionalized.
That’s a country with ailing institutions, run by sick individuals, performing immoral acts.
Disgusting.
—Johan
Excellent breakdown of the consequences of biases.