US Immigration System Puts Infants Before Judges Without Lawyers
Migrant children as young as one are appearing in US immigration courts without legal representation, as the collapse of a federal legal-aid programme leaves vulnerable children struggling to navigate proceedings they cannot understand.
By Abdullahi Yusuf
Migrant children as young as one are being brought before U.S. immigration judges without legal representation, exposing a deep humanitarian failure in the government’s system for protecting unaccompanied minors.
At least three children faced immigration proceedings alone within three weeks after a federal contract supporting legal services for migrant children expired.
On Aug. 18, a one-year-old girl appeared before an immigration judge in Arizona without an attorney beside her. The judge instructed her to submit an asylum application before her next hearing or risk removal from the United States. A lawyer from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants attended remotely but did not speak on the child’s behalf, according to court records.
The case followed two other troubling hearings.
On Aug. 6, an unaccompanied child in Los Angeles sought voluntary departure, potentially abandoning any claim to remain in the United States. A USCRI lawyer was present but did not intervene. Another attorney, appearing without pay, eventually stepped in and secured a delay.
Five days later in Texas, a seven-year-old child appeared without any lawyer. The child was granted voluntary departure without ever receiving legal advice.
Attorneys challenging the government argued that expecting an unrepresented infant to comply with complex immigration requirements is fundamentally unreasonable. They also questioned why lawyers assigned to assist children were unable to advocate for them in court.
The crisis began when the government allowed its primary contract for unaccompanied children’s legal services to expire on July 31. The program had operated for years through a network of nonprofit organizations providing legal assistance to vulnerable children.
The previous contractor, Acacia Center for Justice, refused to surrender confidential case files, arguing that doing so would violate attorney-client privilege. The dispute contributed to the collapse of the contract and left the government owing more than $65 million for completed work.
A federal judge later ordered the government to release the money, resolving the immediate payment dispute. But the larger legal aid crisis remains unresolved.
Without legal representation, fewer than one in ten migrant children succeed in obtaining permission to remain in the United States, according to advocates. For children who are too young to understand court proceedings or speak for themselves, the consequences can be especially severe.
The government has attempted to fill the gap through temporary arrangements, but those efforts have generated further controversy.
Beginning Aug. 5, USCRI received a temporary agreement worth about $20 million to provide assistance through the end of the year. According to court filings, the arrangement covers only 19 immigration courts and 57 staff members. Lawyers are reportedly appearing as friends of the court rather than as attorneys representing individual children, limiting their ability to file motions or formally advocate for them.
The administration also considered a no-bid contract worth up to $150 million for a Houston law firm with limited immigration experience. The firm denied applying for the contract and withdrew shortly afterward.
The government then awarded a separate contract worth $158 million, with a potential ceiling of $244 million, to Our Rescue, an anti-trafficking nonprofit with no previous federal legal services contract.
Advocates representing displaced legal aid organizations have questioned whether the group has the necessary experience to represent children in immigration proceedings.
The dispute is now before a federal court in a lawsuit brought by nonprofit legal service organizations seeking to restore the government’s funding for migrant children’s legal representation.
Government lawyers told the court on Aug. 13 that USCRI was providing full coverage nationwide. The plaintiffs dispute that claim, citing cases in which attorneys allegedly arrived late, left early or failed to formally appear for children.
The court is scheduled to hold another hearing on Sept. 24.
The human consequences are substantial. Many unaccompanied children arriving at the US border come from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, with Mexico also accounting for a growing share. Many are eventually released to relatives living in the United States.
For these children, an asylum application is not a routine administrative form. It can determine whether a child remains with family or is returned to a country they may have fled because of violence, poverty, exploitation or other dangers.
The youngest children are particularly vulnerable because they cannot understand the legal process, communicate their circumstances or protect their own interests.
The government has resolved the immediate $65 million payment dispute, but that does not resolve the central humanitarian problem.
A system that places infants and young children before immigration judges without meaningful legal representation risks turning complex legal proceedings into exercises that children have no realistic ability to navigate.
The question now before the court is whether the government’s replacement system can provide more than appearances in court and paperwork. For vulnerable children facing removal, the difference between being present and being represented can determine whether they have any meaningful chance to remain safe.
Source: MNTV
SPONSORED
SPONSORED
