CBP Officer Luis Uribe Testifies in Chicago: Calls an Alleged Gunpoint Sexual Assault "a Good Workout" as Prosecutors Show Badge and Gun

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. The charges: federal statutes and the allegations against Uribe
4. What happened in court: Uribe’s testimony and the narrative of consent
5. The prosecution’s cross-examination: badge, gun and the mirror photo
6. Messaging apps, secrecy and attempts to hide conduct
7. The accusers: language, immigration status, and credibility challenges
8. Legal standards prosecutors must meet and likely trial strategies
9. Evidence already revealed and its role in jurors' assessments
10. The role of human trafficking and organized recruitment allegations
11. Institutional implications: CBP oversight and public trust
12. How juries evaluate credibility in cases involving marginalized victims
13. Potential penalties and sentencing considerations
14. Broader patterns: abuse of authority and law enforcement misconduct
15. What jurors will decide and the procedural path ahead
16. The public interest and policy implications
17. Practical considerations for similar cases going forward
18. What to watch next in the Uribe trial
19. FAQ

Key Highlights

• A former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer, Luis Uribe, testified in federal court denying rape allegations and describing one encounter as "a good workout"; prosecutors have charged him with 10 counts of depriving civil rights under color of law and one count of brandishing a firearm during a violent crime.
• Cross-examination focused on Uribe's authority as a CBP officer, a photograph of him posing with a gun, and text messages and messaging-app communications that prosecutors say show coercion and efforts to conceal misconduct from his family.
• The case raises broader issues about the vulnerabilities of noncitizen sex workers, the potential for abuse of law enforcement authority, and how federal courts evaluate credibility where language barriers and immigration status complicate evidence and testimony.

Introduction

A federal courtroom in Chicago heard a striking and uncomfortable exchange this week as a former Customs and Border Protection officer took the stand to answer allegations that he used his badge and gun to sexually assault and rob women. Luis Uribe, 45, testified that his encounters with women who sold sex were consensual, denied ever raping anyone and, in one moment that startled observers, described an encounter as "a good workout." Prosecutors countered with documentary evidence and pointed questioning designed to place Uribe's official authority at the center of the jury's assessment.

The charges filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago accuse Uribe of exploiting his position at O'Hare International Airport in 2022 to commit sex assaults against four Chinese women in suburban hotels. They allege he deprived those women of their civil rights "under color of law" and brandished a firearm during at least one violent crime. The testimony illuminated both the factual disputes at the heart of the trial and the larger legal and ethical questions that arise when immigration status, language barriers and clandestine sex work intersect with claims of official misconduct.

The charges: federal statutes and the allegations against Uribe

Prosecutors brought federal charges rather than state sexual‑assault counts because the indictment alleges Uribe used the power of his office as a CBP officer to commit the alleged crimes. Federal law addresses crimes committed by officials acting "under color of law," and that statute sits at the center of this prosecution.

The indictment lists multiple counts that accuse Uribe of depriving the constitutional rights of four women while holding himself out as a federal law enforcement officer. Those counts are augmented by a separate charge alleging he brandished a firearm during a violent crime. Taken together, the charges reflect a prosecutorial strategy that emphasizes abuse of official authority and the use — or display — of a weapon to coerce compliance.

The choice to indict on federal civil‑rights grounds rather than state rape statutes signals the government's focus on the element of official power: prosecutors must prove that Uribe, while acting under color of law, willfully deprived the victims of rights secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The firearm enhancement further increases potential penalties and underscores the allegation that the officer's status and weapon were integral to the alleged offenses.

What happened in court: Uribe’s testimony and the narrative of consent

When a defendant takes the stand, jurors watch for two things: whether the testimony is plausible and whether the witness presents as credible. Uribe chose to testify in his own defense and delivered a direct denial: "I never raped anybody in my whole life," he told jurors.

His narrative was consistent on a few points. He acknowledged engaging paid sexual encounters. He insisted the encounters were consensual. He said he would not bring his duty equipment — "my gun, knife, baton and handcuffs" — to meetings with sex workers, telling jurors, "If I knew I was going to see one of these women, these prostitutes, I left my gun, knife, baton and handcuffs behind at work. All those tools I would leave it at work."

Uribe described a February 2022 meeting in which he said he paid $140 for half an hour and denied ever pulling a gun on the woman. He added an image meant to show the encounter was not hostile: "[S]he actually gave me a hug," he said of the woman at the end of the appointment.

He rejected any suggestion that he coerced the women by invoking consent plainly: "Yes it was. No means no. Stop means stop," he testified when asked whether his encounters were consensual.

The courtroom reaction to specific language was notable. On cross-examination, when asked about an encounter that followed department physical fitness time, Uribe said, "I still got a good workout in." The prosecutor responded by pressing the implications: "You're describing the rape … as a good workout??" Uribe insisted again that it "wasn't a rape, it was consensual sex."

Uribe also testified to receiving messages and requests for immigration help from at least one of the women. He described an exchange in which a woman sought assistance and, when he refused, allegedly sent a text threatening retaliation through other women who would testify against him unless he complied — a message he paraphrased to jurors: "[I]f you don't help me with all my immigration issues, help my boss, it's going to be bad for you. I suggest you help me."

Taken together, Uribe's testimony seeks to place the encounters within a consensual transactional framework, while portraying any problematic interaction as mischaracterized or misreported by the women involved.

The prosecution’s cross-examination: badge, gun and the mirror photo

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shih focused cross‑examination on elements that would undercut that account. He carried Uribe's former CBP badge into the courtroom and asked whether displaying the gun implied acting with the authority of CBP. Uribe affirmed, "Yes." That exchange aimed to connect the officer's official status directly to the alleged acts.

The prosecution introduced a photograph of Uribe posing with his gun in front of a mirror. The image functions as an exhibit that does several things at once: it humanizes the defendant in the sense jurors recognize a personal photo, but it also visually documents his access to and familiarity with the firearm. When pressed about firearm safety in the photo, Uribe told the court, "If you look closely … my finger is safe and off the trigger." Shih's pointed follow-up — "You were being safe?? This is safe??" — sought to keep jurors focused on whether the photograph reflected a casual, cavalier mindset around firearms rather than a careful, lawful approach.

The mirror photo also implicitly undercuts Uribe's earlier statements that he "left" his weapon at work. Photographs and digital evidence from personal devices can create tension between an individual's courtroom claims and what their own images reveal. For jurors, those tensions are often decisive.

Cross-examination highlighted the role of the badge and gun in the case story line: prosecutors want jurors to see the weapons not as incidental, but as tools of coercion. The mirror photo functioned as physical reinforcement of that argument.

Messaging apps, secrecy and attempts to hide conduct

Prosecutors relied on testimony and documentary context to show how Uribe concealed his conduct from family and colleagues. Uribe acknowledged using messaging apps such as WhatsApp to hide infidelity from his wife. That admission fed into a prosecutor's line of questioning designed to show patterns of concealment: "[You] were hiding your true self to all of those people," Shih told Uribe. "Yes," Uribe answered.

Text messages and app communications play a particular role in cases like this. They can corroborate timelines, contradict testimony, show interactions that implicate coercive language, or reveal consciousness of guilt if someone takes steps to hide behavior. In this prosecution, messages reportedly included threats of retaliation and demands for immigration assistance — communications that prosecutors argue tend to demonstrate the use of the officer's official influence to manipulate vulnerable women.

Defense counsel attempted to frame such communications as part of ordinary private life: affairs hidden from a spouse, transactional exchanges between sex workers and clients. Prosecutors portrayed them as evidence of an effort to manipulate and intimidate victims who had limited recourse because of language barriers and immigration vulnerabilities.

The record also includes testimony that a boss of a sex operation was communicating from China and seeking to import more women into the United States. Prosecutors presented that testimony in a way that raises the possibility of organized exploitation and human‑smuggling dynamics — context that can help jurors understand how immigration status and clandestine networks create leverage for people who want to intimidate or exploit sex workers.

The accusers: language, immigration status, and credibility challenges

The four alleged victims are Chinese women who worked in the sex trade and spoke limited English, according to court reporting. Their status — as noncitizens engaged in illegal sex work — means they face legal and practical barriers to reporting crimes and participating in prosecutions. Those barriers also shape defense strategy: the prosecutor in cross-examination acknowledged that the accusers' status could affect their credibility in jurors' eyes, and the defense explicitly raised the point that, because they were undocumented and engaged in illegal activity, jurors might be less inclined to believe them.

Concerns about credibility are common in cases involving marginalized victims. Yet federal prosecutors have for decades relied on such victims in civil‑rights and sex‑assault prosecutions. To build a case, they typically seek corroborating evidence — physical evidence, contemporaneous messages, phone records, surveillance footage, or testimony from third parties — to buttress the accusers' accounts when direct evidence such as venue testimony is otherwise limited.

Language barriers require court accommodations. Translators, certified interpreters and bilingual victim‑witness specialists often work with federal prosecutors to ensure victims can testify accurately and that jurors receive accurate translations. The presence of interpreters can slow proceedings and complicate the texture of testimony, but courts recognize that accommodating non‑English speakers is essential to a fair trial.

The prosecution's decision to emphasize the victims' vulnerabilities rather than hide them from jurors indicates an effort to show why these women might have remained silent or why their reports might contain elements perceived as inconsistent. Defense counsel's decision to underscore vulnerability is a common tactic intended to create reasonable doubt: jurors may infer motives to lie or embellish when witnesses have precarious legal situations or are engaged in illegal work.

Legal standards prosecutors must meet and likely trial strategies

Prosecutors face a clear burden: prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Uribe, while acting under color of law, willfully deprived the victims of their civil rights, and that he brandished a firearm during a violent crime. Demonstrating that those acts were willful and that the defendant was acting under color of law requires showing not simply that he was a CBP officer, but that he used that position to influence or coerce.

Typical prosecution strategies in such cases include:

• Establishing a pattern of conduct to show the alleged acts were not isolated misunderstandings but part of a repeated course of abusive behavior.
• Introducing documentary evidence — messages, photographs, receipts, hotel records, or surveillance footage — to corroborate victim testimony.
• Demonstrating proximity between official acts and the alleged crimes: for example, showing that the officer displayed his weapon, showed his badge, or referenced his authority during encounters.
• Using expert testimony to explain barriers to reporting for immigrant victims or to explain how trafficking networks operate (if trafficking or organized exploitation is implicated).

Defense strategies will focus on reasonable doubt. These commonly include:

• Asserting consent and arguing the encounters were consensual commercial sex acts.
• Contesting the authenticity, context or interpretation of messages and photos.
• Emphasizing the victims' illegal activity and immigration status to suggest motives to fabricate or embellish.
• Challenging whether any display of a firearm rose to the legal standard of "brandishing" within the meaning of the statute.

The jury will weigh these factual disputes under instructions from the judge that define the legal elements of the offenses. The prosecution must tie the alleged coercive conduct directly to the defendant's status as a CBP officer; absent that connection, a jury could acquit on the federal civil‑rights charges even if they found non‑federal sexual‑assault conduct occurred.

Evidence already revealed and its role in jurors' assessments

Courtroom reporting from the trial highlighted several pieces of evidence and testimony that will likely play a major role in juror deliberations.

• Testimony describing payment for sex and claims of consent. Uribe's own admissions that he paid for sex and his insistence on consent create a factual basis that defense counsel will use to counter allegations of coercion. Jurors must decide whether consent was freely given or coerced at the time.
• The badge and gun. Physical items tied to official authority — or images showing the defendant with those items — function as powerful symbols. When prosecution counsel physically displayed the badge in court, the goal was to remind jurors of the official capacity in which the defendant allegedly acted.
• The mirror photograph of Uribe with a gun. Photographic evidence is immediate and often persuasive. Even a single image can raise questions about access to firearms and the defendant's attitude toward weapons and authority.
• Messaging-app evidence. Texts and WhatsApp messages allegedly sent between Uribe and at least one accuser were discussed in court. Prosecutors highlighted a message that Uribe paraphrased as a threat to bring others to testify unless he provided immigration help. That message, if authenticated, could weigh heavily as corroboration of coercion.
• Testimony about leaving duty equipment at work. Uribe's claim that he left his badge and weapons at work when meeting sex workers is contradicted by the mirror photo and the prosecution's emphasis on his authority. Whether jurors find his explanation plausible will matter.

Each piece of evidence will be assessed for authenticity, context and probative value. The jury must decide how each exhibit fits into a coherent narrative: was Uribe using his position to intimidate and coerce, or did these events reflect consensual transactions that went awry after the fact?

The role of human trafficking and organized recruitment allegations

During testimony, Uribe said the "boss of the sex work operation" was in China and wanted to bring more women into the United States, a remark that drew visible reactions from the prosecution table. Whether that testimony indicates organized trafficking, smuggling or merely an informal recruitment network remains an open question in the record released publicly so far.

If evidence emerges showing organized recruitment and cross‑border facilitation, it could change the scope of the case. Human‑trafficking statutes and ancillary federal laws address coercive international recruitment and exploitation; prosecutors sometimes introduce such evidence to explain the power dynamics that make immigrant sex workers vulnerable. For jurors, proof that these women were part of a larger system could make it easier to see why they might be reluctant to report crimes or why they might have been coerced.

Defense strategy could respond by insisting the reference to a boss abroad was innocuous or mistaken. It might also argue that such testimony is speculative and should not be allowed to unfairly prejudice the jury.

Whether trafficking becomes a central issue depends on what corroborating evidence the government can introduce — phone records, payment flows, travel documentation, communications between U.S. intermediaries and overseas organizers, or witness testimony establishing a recruitment chain. The presence of such evidence would expand the case beyond individual encounters into organized exploitation, with different legal and policy implications.

Institutional implications: CBP oversight and public trust

Allegations that a federal officer used his badge and firearm to facilitate sexual assaults strike at the core of public confidence in law enforcement institutions. CBP, which operates at borders and major transit hubs such as O'Hare International Airport, depends on public compliance and trust to carry out its functions. Cases in which officers are accused of exploiting that trust for personal gain or predation complicate the agency's public standing.

Accountability mechanisms within federal agencies include internal disciplinary processes, administrative investigations and criminal referrals, in addition to prosecutions in federal court. When criminal allegations lead to an indictment, criminal courts handle the legal resolution; but administrative investigations often proceed in parallel to determine employment consequences independent of criminal outcomes.

The public and policymakers often look to outcomes in high‑profile prosecutions as indicators of systemic health. A conviction can validate concerns that oversight mechanisms work; an acquittal may raise questions about evidence thresholds or prosecutorial judgment. Either outcome tends to prompt internal reviews, training updates and calls for clearer ethical standards and reporting pathways, particularly when allegations involve vulnerable populations such as immigrants or non‑English speakers.

For CBP and other federal agencies, this case underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring officers do not exploit authority and that allegations are investigated promptly and transparently. It also raises operational questions about how to protect people who might interact with law enforcement while also being reluctant to come forward due to immigration fears.

How juries evaluate credibility in cases involving marginalized victims

Juries must decide which version of events to believe, often in the absence of conclusive physical evidence. The psychological and social dynamics in cases that involve marginalized victims shape jurors' assessments.

Several factors influence credibility determinations:

• Consistency of testimony. Jurors look for internal consistency and coherence between initial reports and subsequent testimony.
• Corroboration. Messages, third‑party witnesses, receipts, and surveillance footage can corroborate aspects of a victim's story and materially affect credibility.
• Demeanor. Jurors, judges and attorneys often weigh witness demeanor, even though scientific literature shows that demeanor is an imperfect indicator of truthfulness.
• Motive and potential bias. Defense counsel will point to reasons jurors might doubt a witness — immigration vulnerability, involvement in illegal activity, or personal animus. Prosecutors will frame those same facts as reasons the victims were targeted and intimidated.
• Language and cultural differences. Courts accommodate non‑English speakers, but jurors must interpret translated testimony and decide whether cultural contexts influence how witnesses told their stories.

Federal prosecutors are aware of these dynamics and often prepare victims carefully, secure corroborating evidence, and seek expert testimony to contextualize the barriers victims face. Defense teams will emphasize any inconsistencies or motives for falsification. The jury must reconcile these competing approaches and decide whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists.

Potential penalties and sentencing considerations

The indictment brings federal civil‑rights charges and a firearms enhancement. Penalties for federal civil‑rights violations under 18 U.S.C. § 242 depend on the severity of the deprivation. When a deprivation results in bodily injury, the statute provides for significant prison time; if death results, penalties increase further. The additional firearm count — typically charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) or related provisions — carries mandatory minimums when a firearm is used or brandished during a violent crime. Brandishing a firearm during a violent crime commonly triggers a mandatory consecutive sentence, increasing the overall exposure if convicted on multiple counts.

Sentencing, if there is a conviction, also factors in the defendant's criminal history, the number of victims and the role of aggravating circumstances, such as exploitation of official authority or premeditation. Judges use the federal sentencing guidelines as a reference point, and prosecutors can seek enhancements based on specific aggravating facts, such as the use of a weapon or the exploitation of a vulnerable population. Defendants can seek downward variances based on mitigating factors.

Exact sentencing ranges depend on the convictions, statutory minima and maxima, and the guidelines calculation — which takes into account offense levels and criminal history. Convictions on multiple counts could result in consecutive sentences that substantially increase total prison time.

Broader patterns: abuse of authority and law enforcement misconduct

While this case is fact‑specific, it aligns with a broader pattern prosecutors and watchdogs identify: when law enforcement officers abuse the symbols of their office — badges, weapons, uniforms — they can exploit the deference and fear these items produce. That pattern is not limited to any single agency.

Accountability mechanisms vary. Criminal prosecutions are an essential check, but they are seldom the first line of defense. Administrative oversight, internal affairs investigations, inspector general probes and civilian review boards play important roles in identifying and correcting misconduct. Legal scholars and advocates argue for stronger prevention: improved screening, ongoing ethics training, robust reporting channels for wrongdoing, and protections that make it easier for vulnerable victims to come forward without fear of immigration consequences.

This case also highlights the intersection of immigration and law enforcement misconduct. When victims are noncitizens who rely on informal networks or fear deportation, their ability to seek help is constrained. Federal prosecutors and victim‑witness programs sometimes provide safe reporting channels and immigration relief where appropriate, but the system can be slow and intimidating for those who have experienced trauma.

What jurors will decide and the procedural path ahead

Jurors will decide whether the government met its burden to prove Uribe willfully deprived the victims of their rights while acting under color of law and whether he brandished a firearm during at least one violent crime. Their determination will hinge on how jurors interpret the credibility of witnesses, the weight of documentary evidence, and whether the government's narrative persuasively links the defendant's official authority to the alleged coercion.

Procedurally, the trial will proceed through additional testimony, documentary evidence admission and closing arguments. After closing arguments, the judge will instruct the jurors on the legal standards they must apply. Jurors' deliberations will focus on reasonable doubt: if any juror harbors a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant committed the charged offenses as defined by the law and the jury instructions, they must acquit.

Post‑trial, whatever the verdict, administrative and policy ramifications could follow. If Uribe is convicted, disciplinary actions within CBP and broader oversight inquiries are likely. If acquitted, public debate may turn to investigative practices and victim recourse, while administrative investigations could continue independently.

The public interest and policy implications

The case reverberates beyond the walls of the courthouse because it forces a confrontation between private exploitation and public responsibility. When allegations involve an official whose role is to enforce immigration laws and protect national borders, the stakes in public trust are higher. Policymakers and agency leaders will observe closely how evidence is developed and how the court responds to claims that authority was used to intimidate and exploit.

Potential policy responses may include:

• Strengthening oversight and disciplinary mechanisms within federal agencies.
• Improving training on ethics and interactions with vulnerable populations.
• Expanding protections and reporting channels for immigrant victims of crime, including more robust use of existing immigration remedies that encourage cooperation with law enforcement without fear of deportation.
• Reassessing how agencies monitor off‑duty officers' conduct, including use-of-force protocols and policies regarding possession of duty equipment when off-duty.

Public faith in institutions depends on transparent and impartial investigations when misconduct is alleged. High‑profile prosecutions test those institutions in real time.

Practical considerations for similar cases going forward

For prosecutors: building corroborative chains of evidence where victims are reluctant to testify requires careful investigation. That includes securing phone records, obtaining hotel booking and payment confirmations, identifying third‑party witnesses, authenticating messages, and identifying surveillance or transactional evidence that can corroborate testimony.

For defense counsel: showing plausibility and reasonable doubt requires attacking the government's narrative, undermining the credibility of crucial exhibits, and offering alternative explanations consistent with the defendant's account.

For victims and advocates: understanding how immigration status, language barriers and clandestine work complicate reporting and prosecution is essential. Victim‑service programs that provide language access, legal advice and trauma‑informed support can increase the willingness and capacity of victims to work with prosecutors.

For agencies: maintaining rigorous internal controls, regular ethics training and responsive complaint mechanisms that separate criminal investigators from administrative oversight can help detect and deter abuse.

What to watch next in the Uribe trial

Key developments to monitor as the trial continues:

• Whether the government introduces additional documentary evidence such as hotel receipts, payment records or additional messages that corroborate the accusers' accounts.
• Testimony from interpreters, victim‑witness specialists, or forensic analysts who can authenticate digital evidence.
• Any expert testimony on trafficking, coercion or cultural barriers that contextualizes the accusers' reluctance to report.
• Defense efforts to impeach witness credibility or to introduce alternative explanations for documentary evidence.
• The judge's rulings on admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence that may relate to unrelated misconduct or broader organizational practices.

The trial's outcome will depend on the jury's weighing of this largely conflicting testimony and the evidentiary weight the court allows both sides to present.

FAQ

Q: What criminal statutes is Luis Uribe charged with violating? A: Federal prosecutors charged Uribe with counts alleging deprivation of rights "under color of law," which address conduct by officials who use their positions to deprive individuals of rights protected by federal law. The indictment also includes a count alleging brandishing a firearm during a violent crime. These statutes are federal and focus on the misuse of official authority and the use of weapons to facilitate or threaten violence.

Q: Why is this a federal case instead of a state rape prosecution? A: The indictment centers on allegations that Uribe used his federal position and its symbols of authority — a badge and firearm — to commit the alleged acts. When an alleged crime depends on the defendant acting "under color of law," federal courts have jurisdiction to prosecute civil‑rights violations. That does not necessarily preclude parallel state investigations for sexual assault, but the federal charge emphasizes abuse of official power.

Q: What evidence have prosecutors presented so far? A: Public court reporting indicates testimony from Uribe and references to a mirror photograph of him with a gun, the former badge he carried, and messaging‑app communications including a text he says threatened retaliation unless he helped with immigration matters. Prosecutors also elicited testimony about payment for sex and described the accusers as Chinese women with limited English who engaged in sex work.

Q: How do jurors handle testimony from non‑English speakers? A: Courts provide certified interpreters and other accommodations. Testimony is translated for the record, and jurors receive translated transcripts or summaries as needed. These accommodations ensure witnesses can testify accurately and jurors can evaluate their testimony.

Q: What defenses has Uribe presented? A: Uribe testified in his own defense, denying rape and describing the encounters as consensual. He asserted that he left his duty weapons and equipment at work when meeting sex workers and that his interactions were transactional and consensual. Defense counsel has emphasized consent and the accusers' status as sex workers to raise questions about credibility.

Q: What are potential penalties if Uribe is convicted? A: Convictions under federal civil‑rights statutes and firearm‑related statutes carry significant penalties, which increase when bodily injury results or when a gun is brandished during a violent crime. Federal sentencing depends on the specific statutes of conviction, sentencing‑guideline calculations and whether sentences are imposed consecutively.

Q: Could this case lead to broader policy changes at CBP? A: High‑profile prosecutions often prompt internal reviews and calls for stronger oversight, training or disciplinary reforms. Administrative investigations and congressional inquiries sometimes follow public concern about abuses of authority.

Q: How do immigration and trafficking concerns affect the prosecution? A: Immigration status and potential trafficking networks can explain victims' reluctance to report and may provide context for coercion claims. If evidence shows organized recruitment from abroad, prosecutors could expand the factual narrative to include trafficking elements, potentially bringing additional statutes into play.

Q: Where does the case go from here? A: The trial will continue with further testimony and documentary evidence, followed by closing arguments and jury instructions. Jurors will deliberate and render a verdict based on whether the government proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of the verdict, administrative and policy consequences may follow.

Q: How can victims in similar circumstances seek help? A: Victims of crime who are noncitizens should seek local victim‑service organizations that can provide legal referral, language access and information about immigration protections that facilitate cooperation with law enforcement. Federal Victim Witness programs and certain immigration relief measures may be available in some cases.