UN Experts Warn of Child Rights Violations in U.S. Immigration Procedures

(MINNESOTA) — Children in the United States—especially unaccompanied children and children in mixed-status families—have rights during immigration enforcement and immigration court proceedings, even when a parent or child lacks lawful status.

1) Overview: rising concerns about child rights in U.S. immigration procedures

Independent human rights experts appointed through the United Nations raised renewed alarms on January 27, 2026, alleging systemic harms to children in U.S. immigration procedures. Their concerns focus on how enforcement and adjudication practices affect children’s safety, family unity, and access to fair process.

The issue is timely because the past year has included enforcement surges and policy shifts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components, including ICE and CBP, with ripple effects into EOIR immigration court dockets and access to legal services.

The experts’ statement also links certain practices to international norms, including non-refoulement, discussed later in this guide.

This article is a rights guide. It explains what rights children and caregivers typically have in U.S. immigration procedures, the legal basis for those rights, and practical steps families can take to exercise them.

Key terms used in this guide:

• Unaccompanied child (UAC): Generally, a child under 18 with no lawful immigration status, and no parent or legal guardian in the U.S. available to provide care and custody. This term is commonly used in TVPRA-related processing.
• Custody/detention: Physical custody by CBP or ICE, or placement in ORR shelter care for UACs. Children may also be held with a parent in family detention settings.
• Expedited removal: A fast-track removal process used by DHS in certain circumstances, often at or near the border, and sometimes in the interior under expanded authority. It can limit time to find counsel and gather evidence.
• “Self-deportation pressure”: A non-legal term used by advocates to describe messaging or offers that may push people to leave the U.S. quickly, sometimes without speaking to a lawyer.

2) Official DHS/USCIS statements and quoted positions

DHS has publicly framed recent enforcement as necessary to restore the “rule of law,” protect national security, and prioritize arrest of serious offenders. In DHS press materials, officials have described enforcement as “targeted,” often emphasizing public-safety objectives and characterizing removals and departures as proof of deterrence.

In a January 2026 DHS press release, the Secretary of Homeland Security highlighted large numbers of removals and self-departures and asserted significant taxpayer savings. DHS messaging has also emphasized a “worst of the worst” enforcement posture, presenting it as a public-safety strategy rather than a family-focused policy.

Separately, in public reporting that cited a DHS statement about a Minnesota incident involving a young child, a DHS spokesperson stressed that ICE did not “target a child,” and described officers staying with the child during an operation aimed at a parent.

For readers, it is important to separate three things:

1. Facts asserted by the government (what DHS says happened or how an operation was conducted).
2. Policy justifications (why DHS says the action was necessary).
3. Political messaging (how officials describe the broader enforcement strategy).

Those distinctions matter because rights analysis often depends on what actually occurred, what authority was used, and whether required procedures were followed.

3) Key facts and statistics cited by experts

The independent experts and child-advocacy groups point to several developments they say are changing children’s real-world access to due process and safety.

First, they cite a claimed disruption in counsel for unaccompanied children. They allege federally funded legal services for certain children were halted in early 2025, leaving many children to appear without representation. Lack of counsel does not automatically make a case invalid, but it can affect whether a child meets deadlines, presents evidence, or applies for relief.

Second, experts cite trends suggesting children are spending more time in custody, while releases to caregivers have declined. Those metrics matter because longer custody can increase trauma risk, make it harder to collect documents, and disrupt schooling and healthcare continuity.

Third, experts allege “coerced self-deportation” dynamics. They describe children being presented with a cash-payment option to leave, coupled with warnings about long-term detention or later transfer to ICE custody at age 18. Whether a given interaction is lawful can turn on the setting, the child’s age, who is present, what was said, and whether the child had meaningful access to counsel or a guardian.

Fourth, the experts describe Operation PARRIS as a reverification initiative affecting refugees in Minnesota, including families previously admitted through USRAP. They allege that reverification has led to detention and family disruption. The legal authority and procedures for “reverification” can vary depending on status, documentation, and whether DHS is using administrative, civil enforcement, or fraud-based theories.

The statistics that experts cite are summarized in the accompanying data tools. As a general matter, the trends are presented as: (1) reduced attorney access for children, (2) longer custody, (3) fewer releases to caregivers, and (4) enforcement initiatives affecting previously admitted refugees in Minnesota.

4) Context and significance: legal framework and international obligations

The core right: due process and fair procedures

Children in immigration proceedings are protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, which applies to “persons,” not only citizens. Due process in immigration typically means notice of proceedings and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, tailored to context. Children’s capacity and vulnerability can be relevant to what “meaningful” requires.

Immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal. That means there is generally no government-appointed counsel in immigration court. But people in removal proceedings—including minors—have a statutory privilege to be represented at no expense to the government. See INA § 240(b)(4)(A). The implementing regulation also recognizes the right to counsel in proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(1) (advisals in removal proceedings).

TVPRA protections for unaccompanied children

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) created child-specific safeguards, including screening and transfer provisions for many UACs. The point is to reduce trafficking risk and ensure children are placed in appropriate care while their immigration options are assessed.

A central TVPRA theme is that children are not processed like adults when trafficking risk or fear-based claims may exist. Narrowing how those protections apply can matter because it may increase the odds a child is rapidly removed without full screening for trafficking indicators or fear of return.

Expedited removal and why minors face sharper risks

Expedited removal is authorized by statute and implemented by regulation. It allows DHS to order removal without full immigration court proceedings in certain circumstances, unless the person expresses a fear of return and passes a threshold screening for further process. See generally INA § 235(b)(1) and 8 C.F.R. § 235.3.

For minors, expedited removal can be especially consequential because the process moves quickly, interviews may occur without a trusted adult, and children may not understand that they must articulate fear or ask for protection. Where expedited removal is used, families should assume timelines are short.

Non-refoulement and international obligations

Non-refoulement is the principle that a government should not return someone to a country where they face persecution or torture. In U.S. law, the idea appears through statutory withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture framework. See INA § 241(b)(3) (withholding of removal). CAT protections are implemented by regulation. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18.

Independent experts link child-rights concerns to non-refoulement because trafficking victims and children fleeing persecution may be unable to explain their risks without counsel, screening, and time.

5) Impact on individuals and families

When children lose access to lawyers, the harm is often procedural before it is substantive. Immigration court requires deadlines, filings, and evidence. Children without counsel may not know how to:

• Identify eligibility for asylum (INA § 208), Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, or other relief.
• Request a continuance to find counsel.
• Submit documents, translations, or sworn statements.
• Obtain school, medical, or country-condition records.
• Preserve appeal rights to the BIA.

Representation gaps also affect caregivers. A parent who is arrested may be unable to quickly arrange childcare plans, school authorizations, or medical consent. If the detained adult is the only person who knows the child’s case history, evidence can be lost.

Experts have also raised concerns about holding conditions and access to healthcare. In civil immigration custody, standards differ by facility type and contract. But basic medical access issues can become urgent for children with asthma, diabetes, disabilities, or trauma-related needs.

Even short custody periods can interrupt medications, specialty appointments, and vaccinations.

Family separation can happen through predictable pathways. One example scenario: a parent is arrested during a routine errand or at a school pickup. If no verified caregiver is immediately available, a child may be temporarily held while authorities coordinate placement.

Even when the government describes the operation as targeted at an adult, the child can still experience detention-like conditions, transportation across state lines, or extended separation.

None of these outcomes is inevitable in every enforcement encounter. But the operational reality is that fast-moving enforcement can outpace family safety planning.

6) Policy actions and enforcement programs to watch

Readers concerned about child rights should watch four practical indicators.

1) Counsel access for children

Changes in funding or program eligibility for legal services can reshape outcomes quickly. Even though there is no guaranteed appointed counsel, children with representation typically do better at meeting deadlines and presenting protection claims.

Families should monitor announcements affecting UAC legal services and local nonprofit capacity.

2) Detention and release-to-caregiver practices

Custody length and caregiver release decisions affect school attendance, medical continuity, and case preparation. If policies make releases harder, caregivers may need stronger documentation, including identity records, proof of relationship, and a stable address.

Families should track local patterns, because practice can vary by field office and contract facility.

3) “Reverification” or document-review operations

For refugees and other humanitarian entrants, documentation questions can trigger serious consequences. A reverification initiative may involve interviews, record requests, and referrals for enforcement if DHS suspects ineligibility or fraud.

People should not assume “previously approved” means “never reviewable,” but they also should not assume a request is routine. Refugees should keep copies of I-94 records, travel documents, and prior adjudication notices.

4) What to monitor next

Watch for: DHS press releases, USCIS policy memoranda, federal court litigation, budget and funding decisions affecting child counsel, and local reports of enforcement near schools, shelters, or check-in sites. Local patterns often surface before national policy is clarified.

7) Official government sources and credibility notes

When claims circulate online about child rights, enforcement, or new “programs,” the most reliable first step is to check primary sources.

• The DHS Press Room is the best starting point for enforcement announcements, leadership statements, and summaries of agency initiatives. It can help you confirm what DHS says it is doing and when it says it started.
• USCIS policy memoranda are key for adjudication standards and procedural changes affecting applications and benefits. If an issue involves asylum processing rules, humanitarian parole practices, or benefits-based pathways, policy memos can clarify agency direction.
• The UN OHCHR press release provides the independent experts’ framing and allegations, which readers can compare against U.S. legal standards and government statements.

How to verify responsibly:

1. Match the claim to the original document on an official site.
2. Check the publication date and whether the agency later updated or replaced it.
3. Distinguish between a press statement and a binding policy memo or regulation.
4. If a claim involves a local operation, confirm the responsible agency (ICE, CBP, USCIS, or EOIR).

Note on interactive tools: The sections on Key facts and statistics cited by experts and Official government sources and credibility notes are accompanied by interactive data and document lookup tools in the original publication. Those tools present the specific counts, timelines, and source documents referenced above.

Practical steps: how families can exercise child rights in real time

• Ask if you are free to leave. If an officer says yes, calmly leave with your child. If no, remain silent and ask for a lawyer.
• Use the right to remain silent. Do not answer questions about birthplace, entry, or status without counsel. This is especially important for parents speaking in front of children.
• Ask for an interpreter. Misunderstandings can create damaging “admissions.”
• Do not consent to a search. You may say, “I do not consent to a search.”
• Carry emergency caregiver authorizations. Plan for school pickup and medical consent if a parent is detained.
• Preserve documents. Keep copies of birth certificates, custody orders, immigration papers, and medical records.
• For children with medical needs: keep a one-page medication and diagnosis list, plus pharmacy contact information.

If rights are violated: what to do

• Write down names, badge numbers, locations, and times.
• Request medical care in writing if a child is ill or needs medication.
• If in immigration court, tell counsel (or the judge) immediately about coercion, lack of interpretation, or denial of access to a parent or guardian.
• File complaints where appropriate, including DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and the DHS Office of Inspector General, depending on the issue.
• Get legal advice quickly. Many remedies depend on fast action and preserved evidence.

Resources for legal help and primary sources

Official sources:

• DHS Press Room
• USCIS Policy Memoranda: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/policy-memoranda
• UN OHCHR statement (Jan. 27, 2026)
• EOIR Immigration Court information: https://www.justice.gov/eoir

Legal help:

• AILA Lawyer Referral: https://www.aila.org/find-a-lawyer
• Immigration Advocates Network (nonprofit directory)