The Trump administration ended nearly all legal-services work performed by the Acacia Center for Justice, disrupting representation and legal guidance for thousands of migrant children facing immigration proceedings. Some hearings now move within days or weeks, while children appear without lawyers.
The contract had supported legal representation and orientation for roughly 26,000 children. Estimates of those affected range from about 20,000 to 26,000, depending on whether the count covers children now without counsel or the broader group served by the contract.
The Department of Health and Human Services said it had 1,883 children in its custody in August. That figure describes children in government care, not the full population touched by the ended contract.
Some children have faced major decisions in court at very young ages. One 7-year-old accepted voluntary departure, while a 1-year-old was ordered to pursue an asylum application.
Six more, ages 13 to 17, appeared by video at a Manhattan hearing without attorneys. The group included five boys and one girl.
Children must build their own cases without a government-appointed lawyer
Immigration court generally does not provide a lawyer to a child facing removal. Under INA § 240(b)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A), a person may hire counsel at no cost to the government. The law permits private representation; it ordinarily does not require the government to appoint counsel.
That leaves a child to understand the government’s allegations and identify any legal route to remain in the United States. The child may need to file an application, meet deadlines, gather evidence and testify.
Possible forms of protection include asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Each has separate requirements. A young person may also need to understand the consequences of accepting a departure arrangement or receiving a removal order.
An agreement to leave can close a case without a formal removal order. It may set a deadline for departure and cut off the chance to pursue lawful status in the United States. A removal order, in turn, may trigger immigration-law bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(A) if the person later seeks admission.
Asylum generally requires an application within one year under INA § 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), subject to statutory exceptions. Applicants must establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution tied to a protected ground. Withholding of removal carries a higher burden of proof and additional statutory bars.
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status also requires steps beyond an immigration-court hearing. A child generally needs qualifying state-court findings about custody or dependency, reunification with one or both parents, and the child’s best interests, followed by a petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Federal safeguards do not guarantee a child can stay
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, including 8 U.S.C. § 1232, sets procedures for unaccompanied children. The rules can provide for transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement and placement with a parent, relative or another approved sponsor when release conditions are met.
The law also provides for trafficking-related screening and referral, special handling of asylum applications and access to legal orientation. Government-backed legal services depend on available funding.
Those procedures do not automatically grant asylum or block removal. A child still must qualify for relief under the applicable law and meet its requirements.
The pace of hearings has raised concerns about whether children can use those protections in practice. Advocates describe mass hearings, little time to prepare and inadequate interpretation. They also report more hearings ending with an order because a child did not appear.
One Florida advocate said some dockets were reaching 70 percent in-absentia orders. Missing a hearing can lead to a removal order, although reopening or rescission may be possible in qualifying circumstances.
Officials defend speed while advocates question the process
Administration officials have defended faster proceedings as a way to keep children from remaining in unsafe or unsuitable circumstances and to complete screening and vetting sooner. Advocates say the process can produce orders that do not reflect a child’s best interests.
Jessica Viramontes, co-director of the Children’s Due Process Project, has criticized the resulting removal and departure orders. The dispute also centers on an arrangement the administration has created or proposed for a federal legal-defense structure within HHS.
That structure has drawn criticism because the department is responsible for children’s custody while the administration pursues policies intended to increase removals. The competing responsibilities have become part of the debate over who should provide legal help and how quickly cases should proceed.
The reported schedules have sharply compressed preparation time. Hearings that previously unfolded over months are now being set within days or weeks, and some asylum interviews have been scheduled on 24 hours’ notice.
In one account, children as young as 1, 2 and 3 appeared in immigration court without attorneys. The accounts also include the 7-year-old who accepted the departure option and the 1-year-old directed to pursue an asylum claim.
Orders can trigger short deadlines for appeals
A child who receives an immigration judge’s decision may have options to challenge it, depending on the case’s procedural posture. An appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals generally must be filed within 30 calendar days under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38.
Motions to reopen face limits under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b). A missed hearing can result in an in-absentia order under INA § 240(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5), though the law allows rescission in certain circumstances.
Children who receive a hearing notice, departure agreement, removal order or in-absentia order should seek immigration counsel immediately. This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
