Australian denied entry to US, strip searched and thrown in prison hits back at Homeland Security's reasoning
EXCLUSIVE
An Australian woman who was strip searched and thrown in federal prison when denied entry to the United States to visit her American husband has hit back at Homeland Security after it aired details of her case on social media to defend its actions.
Nikki Saroukos, a former NSW Police officer from southwest Sydney, told news.com.au last week she was subjected to invasive searches and humiliating treatment for trying to spend time with her US military husband stationed in Hawaii.
Ms Saroukos said she had successfully visited the state three times in recent months using an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under the Visa Waiver Program, but this time turned into a nightmare.
The US Department of Homeland Security later issued what it described as a 'fact check' on X after she went public with the ordeal, accusing her of having 'unusual activity on her phone, including 1000 deleted text messages from her husband'.
But Ms Saroukos, who married her husband Matt in January after a whirlwind long-distance romance, said she was 'in disbelief at how ridiculous' the statement was and claimed that some of the information included had been 'twisted'.
'The reasons they came up with were not even justifiable to throw someone in prison anyway,' she told news.com.au on Monday.
Ms Saroukos strongly denies having any plans to live permanently in the US, and believes people are missing the point of her story, saying she was not hung up on the fact she had been denied entry to the country, but rather how she was treated.
'A country has a right to deport you if they don't want you in their country, fair enough,' she said.
'But I don't agree with the treatment … why are you throwing people in prison, why are they being subject to strip searches and cavity searches and being placed in handcuffs, like your rights taken away from you.'
Homeland Security addresses the uproar
Homeland Security said Ms Saroukos was selected for further screening at the airport on arrival to the US because of 'recent long-term trips' and 'suspicious luggage'.
Then, 'officers determined that she was travelling for more than just tourism,' the statement said.
The department went on to share details about Ms Saroukos' relationship.
FACT CHECK: Nicolle Saroukos’s recent long-term trips to the United States and suspicious luggage resulted in her being reasonably selected for secondary screening by CBP.
Officers determined that she was traveling for more than just tourism. She was unable to remember her… pic.twitter.com/4oyvQEw4jj
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 30, 2025
'She was unable to remember her wedding date just four months prior,' it said.
'Saroukos met her now-husband during a trip on December 13, 2024, the same day her ex-partner left her. The two spent only eight days together before she returned to Australia on December 21. Saroukos then got married on January 24, 2025, after only knowing her husband for just over a month.
'During screening, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) noted there was unusual activity on her phone, including 1000 deleted text messages from her husband because she claimed they caused her 'anxiety'.
'Saroukos even claimed that her husband was going to leave the US military, despite him telling CBP he was adding her to his military documents.
'If you attempt to enter the United States under false pretenses, there are consequences.'
'Ridiculous': Nikki Saroukos hits back
Ms Saroukos told news.com.au that while she generally agreed with the Homeland Security timeline, it left out that she had been talking to her now-husband on a dating app for months before they met in person in December.
She denied meeting him for the first time the same day she split with her ex-partner.
She explained that her relationship with her ex had been complicated, and although they had split earlier that year, they went on a holiday to Hawaii together but 'stayed in separate rooms'.
'I met my husband after my ex had left the island. I relocated to a different hotel, three days after I got that new hotel I then reached out to Matthew and we tried to organise to catch up,' she said.
As for not remembering her wedding date, Ms Saroukos said her mind went blank during the hours of interrogation.
'I was crying at this point. I was under immense stress,' she said.
'With the decision of them coming out and saying 'she didn't remember her (wedding) date', I'm like it's not a criminal offence to forget a date? I mean, I don't even remember people's birthdays let alone a date under that amount of stress.'
Explaining the 1000 deleted text messages, Ms Saroukos said if the couple were having a disagreement, she would delete their conversation on her iPhone to stop her re-reading the messages.
She claimed there was nothing officials could not recover and read from the deleted section on her phone.
'They are just saying because I deleted the text messages, it's suspicious. Again, the only thing I can come back and say with that is, it's not a bloody crime to delete text messages between you and your partner,' she said.
'It's my f***ing phone. I'm not committing an offence. They've just grabbed that and run with it and they're missing out the fact they actually read the deleted text messages and there was nothing (illegal) there.'
In regards to Homeland Security claiming there were varying statements from she and her husband about their future, she claimed the long-term plan was for her husband to apply for a visa and move to Australia after leaving the military, therefore she had no intention of getting a green card as a military spouse. Ms Saroukos told news.com.au that her husband had only mentioned he would start an application for a green card while she was being questioned because of the sudden difficulty she was facing travelling with an ESTA.
'If I was going to move to the US, I would have done it a long time ago. I would not be spending thousands of dollars going back and forth on plane tickets to go see my husband and I would have already started an application if that was the case,' she said.
'Not once did I ever say nor was there any plan that I was going to permanently live in the United States.'
Ms Saroukos still does not know for sure why her luggage was deemed suspicious, but based on comments from officers during inspection, she suspects maybe they thought she had too much luggage but argued she was 'not bringing anything illegal into the country'.
'Never been so terrified': Strip search horror
Ms Saroukos travelled to Hawaii with her mother. They were taken to a holding area at Daniel K Inouye International Airport in Honolulu where their bags and documents were inspected.
Her mother was free to go after the search but Ms Saroukos was taken to a second location where she was subjected to further interrogation.
There, she said she was forced to surrender her phone and passwords, and questioned about her work as a former NSW Police officer.
'They questioned me about the demographic of my suburb and what crimes I was exposed to as a police officer,' Ms Saroukos told news.com.au on May 22.
'They were asking me about ice and meth and whether I knew how much was being imported from New Zealand.'
She said she had 'no idea' how to answer the questions and was 'just dumbfounded'. She was also grilled me on her income, marriage and phone history.
Ms Saroukos was then subjected to a DNA swab, which she was given no explanation for, she claimed.
She was further forced to sign a document declaring she was not a part of a cartel and had no affiliation with gang members.
In the end, Ms Saroukos was still denied entry to the US.
'I've never been so terrified in my life. I froze. They said 'We'll be sending you to jail.' I was just shaking, sweating – I couldn't believe it,' she said.
Ms Saroukos said she was handcuffed, subjected to an in-depth cavity search and taken to a federal detention facility, where she was fingerprinted again, ordered to strip naked, squat and cough, and handed prison issued briefs and green outerwear.
After a night in prison, she was taken back to the airport to fly home to Sydney.
Ms Saroukos said her mother and husband were not told of her whereabouts while she was detained.
'I never want to return to the United States,' she said, adding that her husband was she was hopeful her husband could eventually move to Australia.
— with reporting by Ella Mcilveen
Why denied tourists can end up in federal prison
CBP has long had strong powers to deny entry, detain and deport foreigners at their discretion when travellers arrive in the country even if they have a valid visa or ESTA. However, what we are seeing under the Trump administration is described as 'enhanced vetting'.
Australians are being warned to not assume they are exempt to more intense checks, including inspections of emails, text messages or social media accounts at the airport.
Melissa Vincenty, a US immigration lawyer and Australian migration agent who is managing director of Worldwide Migration Partners, told news.com.au recently that being taken to federal prison with no criminal record, no drugs or anything that is a danger to society is the reality of being denied entry to the US in Hawaii.
Ms Vincenty, a dual-citizen who was a deportation defence lawyer in Honolulu before moving to Australia, explained the state did not have an immigration facility so people were taken to the Federal Detention Center Honolulu, where there was no separate wing for immigration.
It meant tourists who were denied entry to the US could be held alongside those awaiting trial — or who have been convicted and were waiting to be transferred to a mainland prison for serious federal crimes, such as kidnapping, bank robbery or drug crimes.
'It's like in the movies — you go there and there's bars, you get strip searched, all your stuff is taken away from you, you're not allowed to call anybody, nobody knows where you are,' Ms Vincenty told news.com.au in April after the experience of two young German tourists being strip searched and thrown in prison made global headlines.
Ms Vincenty said for Australians who were denied entry to the US in other locations like Los Angeles, San Francisco or Dallas, being held in detention facilities until the next available flight home was a real risk as there weren't constant return flights to Australia — meaning you might have to wait until the next day.
If not taken to a detention facility, some travellers may stay sitting for hours in what is called a secondary inspection at the airport.
A secondary inspection includes further vetting such as searching a travellers' electronic devices.
'That period can last from half an hour to 15 hours or more,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
38 minutes ago
- ABC News
Sydney man Gurvindar Singh alleged mastermind of illegal tobacco, drug ring
A man with no criminal record or prior underworld connections is the alleged mastermind behind a plot to import 20 million illegal cigarettes and almost half a tonne of drugs into Sydney. Gurvindar Singh, 42, faces a maximum penalty of life in jail if convicted. In total, police allege they have tied back 50 kilograms of cocaine from Panama, 20 million cigarettes from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and 280kg of liquid meth from Canada to Mr Singh. Police alleged they tracked Mr Singh and his associates using a messaging app, with undercover officers and telephone intercepts, before sweeping raids over the weekend. One of the intercepts, police will allege in court, captured Mr Singh saying "it's fake" when he realised police had swapped the 50kg of cocaine for an inert substance. The drugs were allegedly hidden inside cement bags imported from Panama into Port Botany last week. Police will allege Mr Singh enlisted the help of Canadians Aman Kang, 24, and Mani Singh Dhaliwal, 31, who are related by marriage, to sell the drugs to crime networks. Both have been charged with possessing a commercial quantity of drugs and have also been refused bail. It is also alleged in court documents that when the drugs arrived in the cement bags, Mr Singh wanted to sell the cement they arrived in too. Police will allege Mr Singh netted $443,000 in proceeds of crime after selling some of the illegal cigarettes on the lucrative Sydney black market. The tobacco had allegedly been illegally imported from the UAE in January. Police accuse Mr Singh of using a freight forwarding company in Punchbowl to import more than 20 million cigarettes in three consignments. The police statement of facts in this case reveals that police have been watching Mr Singh and six associates for two years under a team called the Multi Agency Strike Team (MAST). The MAST began the investigation looking for workers at ports of entry into the country helping to smuggle in drugs, before evidence led them to the men who were later charged. Police say they first identified Mr Singh as the alleged ringleader when they uncovered a plot to import 280kg of liquid meth in August 2024 from Vancouver. Police will allege they charged two men with a raft of drug offences after observing them attempting to cool and extract the liquid meth in Riverstone. Mr Singh has been charged with five counts of importing a commercial quantity of drugs and border-controlled tobacco, two counts of dealing with proceeds of crime and two relating to his role in leading a criminal group. The most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of life in jail, but Mr Singh has not entered any pleas to the offences. He appeared in Parramatta Bail Court on Sunday, where his lawyer, Ahmed Dib, argued for his release on bail. Part of his argument to remain in the community was that Mr Singh had a series of health conditions, was the breadwinner for his family, and was willing to put up his house as a surety. He was denied bail and will remain in custody until his next court appearance at the Downing Centre Local Court next month. Mr Dib was contacted by the ABC but he declined to comment on the case.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Requirement for professional carpet cleaning at end of lease ruled invalid in Tasmania
Tasmanian tenants are not necessarily required to have their carpets professionally cleaned when they vacate their rental property, despite "almost all" leases saying they are, a ruling has found. In a recent bond dispute regarding a Burnie property, the Residential Tenancy Commissioner found the tenant is only required to have the carpet professionally cleaned if they leave it in a worse state than when they began their lease. "A tenant is not responsible for carpet cleaning performed as a matter of general practice as opposed to any real need or genuine failure of the tenant, in accordance with their obligations," it states. The Tenants Union of Tasmania, which represented the tenant, said this was the first definitive ruling on the matter and was a legally enforceable decision. "It really shines a light that a blanket clause in standard tenancy agreements that says you have to have premises professionally cleaned is invalid," Tenants Union senior solicitor Andrew Smith said. "A tenant has the right not to do it, if they've left it in the same condition as when they moved in and there's proof of that. Mr Smith said despite the ruling, the condition to have carpets professionally cleaned was appearing in leases "all the time", as it was in the standard lease provided to landlords by the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania. "It is in the standard Real Estate Institute lease almost all real estate agents will use and a lot of private landlords will choose to use, even some social housing providers are using these leases," he said. The Real Estate Institute of Tasmania has declined to comment. In the case that led to this ruling, the Residential Tenancy Commissioner said the owner had provided a photo of a "small yellow stain on the carpet of one of the bedrooms, which was not recorded in the ingoing condition report". But no other photos had been supplied showing the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenant's lease. Hence, the commissioner said the tenant was only responsible for the cost of cleaning that one stain. "I will award an amount I consider reasonable given the stain in question is very small, even when photographed close up," the ruling states. "The owner is awarded $25 for carpet cleaning." The case also dealt with the cost of fumigating the property, given the tenant had a pet. The tenant had argued the same principle should apply to fumigation as carpet cleaning, but the commissioner took a different view. "While I understand they seem similar in nature, carpet cleaning is predominantly cosmetic and the requirement can be determined based on outgoing photographs," the ruling says. "Fumigation is considered a necessary measure to return the property to a hygienic state and remove pests, dander and other allergens associated with pets in the premises. "Therefore, I am satisfied that a requirement for fumigation at the end of a tenancy is reasonable and is not inconsistent with the [Residential Tenancy] Act." The Tenants Union said it did not agree entirely with the commissioner's interpretation of the law. "We think it's a similar issue and that clauses requiring professional fumigation unconditionally are also invalid if they're not required by the condition of the premises," Mr Smith said. "Say if the tenant had a dog that always stayed outside or simply a fish in a fish tank, why is a tick and flea spray required inside the premises?"
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Here are the biggest takeaways so far from Erin Patterson's testimony in her murder trial
Accused triple-murderer Erin Patterson has continued to give evidence in her own trial as it edges closer to an end. Ms Patterson's defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, called her to the stand late on Monday to begin questioning her. The 50-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder after three relatives died from death cap mushroom poisoning following a meal prepared and served by Ms Patterson. Another relative, Ian Wilkinson, fell seriously ill but survived. While Ms Patterson is expected to take the stand again on Wednesday — answering questions from her defence lawyers before the prosecution has the opportunity to cross-examine her — here are some of the key things we have learned so far during her testimony. On Tuesday, Ms Patterson conceded that the beef Wellington dish she prepared for her relatives contained death cap mushrooms. "Do you accept that there must have been death cap mushrooms in [the meal]?" her defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, asked. "Yes, I do," Ms Patterson replied. Ms Patterson has always maintained her innocence and her lawyers argue the deaths were a tragic accident. She told the court the majority of the mushrooms used in the deadly meal had come from the local Woolworths in Leongatha and some from a grocer in Melbourne. She said mushrooms she purchased from an Asian grocer in April 2023 smelt "very pungent", so she put them in a container and took them back to her Leongatha home to store them. Earlier in the trial, the jury was shown messages sent between Ms Patterson and some of her online friends criticising her in-laws. In one of those messages, Ms Patterson wrote: "This family I swear to f***ing go". "I'm sick of this shit, I want nothing to do with them … So f*** 'em," another message read. On Tuesday, she told the court she wished she had never said those things. The court heard that Ms Patterson regretted the language she had used and "played up the emotion" to get support from her online friends. In previously heard evidence, a Facebook friend of Ms Patterson said she was openly an atheist and had described clashes with her estranged husband, Simon, stemming from his rigid religious beliefs. But on Tuesday, Ms Patterson confirmed to the jury that she was Christian. "They would gently make fun of the fact that I was religious, and I would try to, I don't know, evangelise back to them in a sense," she said when asked about the online comments she made to friends that she was an atheist. "But it was all in good humour." Ms Patterson outlined to the jury that she developed an interest in wild mushrooms while going on walks during the first COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. She told the court she noticed lots of them popping up at the Korumburra Botanical Gardens during those walks. Eventually, she said, she became confident in her ability to identify different species of mushrooms, even eating some she picked herself. "They tasted good and I didn't get sick," she said. The court also heard that Ms Patterson would dehydrate mushrooms she foraged as well as some she purchased from the store to dry and preserve them. Previously, the court heard she lied to police about owning a food dehydrator and foraging for mushrooms. During her testimony on Tuesday, Ms Patterson recounted experiences that had damaged her trust in the medical system, including health episodes involving her children where she felt her concerns were not being listened to. She told the jury she often turned to "Doctor Google", including one time when she convinced herself that she had a brain tumour. She admitted to the jury that she never had ovarian cancer but that she had been experiencing chronic headaches, fatigue, abdominal pain, sudden weight gain and fluid retention. Throughout the trial, the court has heard a cancer diagnosis was the reason Ms Patterson invited her guests to the lunch in question. She also told the court she never had a needle biopsy on a lump on her elbow, which she spoke to her mother-in-law, Gail Patterson, about in messages shown to the jury. Ms Patterson outlined that she had had body image issues since she was a teenager and said that her mother had weighed her weekly as a child. "I've tried every diet under the sun … it's been a rollercoaster over the years," she said. Ms Patterson was visibly emotional when she spoke about being bulimic and binge eating. Ms Patterson spoke about multiple separations between her and her estranged husband, Simon. During her evidence, she said the separation was "difficult" but the pair "went back to just being really good friends". "I didn't want to separate, but I felt there was no choice," she said on Tuesday. "Our primary problem was, if we had a disagreement or any kind of conflict, we didn't seem to be able to talk about it in a way where either of us felt heard or understood. "We just felt hurt, and we didn't really know how to do that well." Ms Patterson told the court she had put three properties under her and Simon's names because she "wanted some way to demonstrate to Simon [that] I see a future for us". Simon previously gave evidence of the pair's tumultuous relationship. "I'll put it this way, she would leave each time … it was always her leaving me," he previously told the court.
