1. Whether the panel's decision to create an implied remedy for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in the new context of a cross-border shooting, misapplies Supreme Court precedent and violates separation-of-powers principles, whereforeign relations, border security, and the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment are some of the special factors that counsel hesitation against such an extension?

2. If the above "antecedent" question is answered in the negative, then this Court is asked to resolve the underlying constitutional issue: Whether Agent Swartz is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law applying the Fourth Amendment to protect a Mexican citizen with no significant connection to the United States, who is injured in Mexico by a federal agent's cross border shooting?

Whether the panel's decision to create an implied remedy for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in the new context of a cross-border shooting, misapplies Supreme Court precedent and violates separation-of-powers principles, where foreign-relations, border-security, extraterritorial-application-of-the-fourth-amendment