Source: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0126
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:22:45+00:00

Document:
The views and analyses expressed in this article are the author's and do not represent the positions of the United States Attorney General, the United States Department of Justice, the Civil Division, the Office of Immigration Litigation, or any other Government entity or the American Bar Association. Additionally, this article does not contain arguments to be relied upon in presenting a claim within the parameters of the subject matter discussed.
Child migration— it is a phenomenon of old times; it is a phenomenon of our time. Child migration is not only Joseph of the Old Testament and Claude Franklin, a 13-year-old boxcar boy of the Great Depression. Child migration is also Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Kurdish boy, who was found dead on a Turkish beach in 2015 and 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, who were declared missing in 2016.
Child migration leaves us wondering—what is our modern society, particularly our United States of America, doing to address the age-old phenomenon of child migration? This article attempts—in a limited fashion—to answer this question.
Of course, unaccompanied children—whether arriving to the United States individually or en masse—predate the term coined in the 2002 HSA. From December 1960 to October 1962, for example, 14,000 Cuban children came to the United States without parents or guardians, in what is now known as Operation Pedro Pan.4 While the Pedro Pan rate of what we now call unaccompanied child arrivals to the United States seems high, the rate pales in comparison to the current mass unaccompanied child arrivals to our country.
In fiscal year 2014 (October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014), unaccompanied child arrivals to the United States surged to over 60,000 (reported at 68,541 by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security—up from a tenth that number in fiscal year 2011).5 While "only" 39,970 unaccompanied children arrived in the United States in 2015, 10,000 of these unaccompanied children arrived in the last two months of that year, and 59,692 arrived in 2016.6 According to the Pew Research Center, "[t]he number of apprehensions of unaccompanied children shot up by 78 percent" during the first six months of fiscal year 2016.7 In short, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase in arriving unaccompanied children—tens of thousands of children—and the increase shows little sign of abating.
Typically, unaccompanied children tell government officials that even though they are not citizens or nationals of the United States, they wish to remain in the country because they are afraid to return to their country of origin—most often El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras, where there is considerable violence and poverty. This articulation is generally understood as a request for relief from removal from the United States (commonly known as deportation from the United States), in the form of asylum, and protection from a return to their country of origin, in the form of withholding of removal.
Asylum officers interview unaccompanied children with the express purpose of eliciting full accounts of past harm and fears of future harm. After the interviews, asylum officers evaluate the information unaccompanied children gave them and either grant their asylum applications or refer the applications to immigration court for further consideration.
Policies regarding whether or not unaccompanied children cases should be placed at the front of the immigration courts' case processing line have been in flux. It is a question of docketing priorities.
The immigration judge guidance and training indicate that the government favors fair adjudication of unaccompanied children's immigration court claims. Of course, guidance and training, in contrast to statutory and regulatory provisions, are not in and of themselves legally binding and thus, do not create enforceable rights for unaccompanied children.
Because of the adversarial nature of hearings before immigration judges, despite the above measures accounting for the needs of unaccompanied children, the question of legal representation of unaccompanied children arises. Controlling law and policies address the question in a number of ways.
Unaccompanied children referred to immigration court by asylum officers have the opportunity to further pursue asylum and to additionally pursue withholding of removal. Governing law provides unaccompanied children certain leniencies, as they pursue these forms of relief and protection from removal in immigration court.
Unaccompanied children gain certain advantages through this exemption from the timely application submission requirement. Most importantly, in the vast majority of cases, unaccompanied children can pursue their claims of future persecution under the more lenient asylum "well-founded fear burden of proof" standard instead of the more stringent withholding of removal "more likely than not" standard.30 The lighter burden of proof increases unaccompanied children's chances of being able to establish they are eligible for asylum and thereby, has the practical effect of minimizing the possibility that the children will be removed from the United States. Other potential advantages flowing from the exemption and broader access to asylum relief are increased opportunities: to obtain employment authorization (helpful to unaccompanied children of working age); to designate derivative asylum applicants or riders on their applications; and to obtain government welfare benefits.
The federal courts have issued a handful of decisions which have potential impact on unaccompanied children seeking asylum, so far. These decisions have addressed only two questions.
First, the courts have reviewed administrative adjudications of asylum applications filed by individuals asserting that they should be considered unaccompanied children. These individuals argue that they should benefit from the TVPRA protection of having a USCIS asylum officer consider an asylum application prior to having an immigration judge consider it.
The legal frameworks—some well-established, some newly-crafted—address at least some of the needs associated with unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United States. As the huge influx of child migrants to our country moves forward in unpredictable fashion, there appears to be only one legitimate close to this article—to be continued.
1 The narrow focus of this article means that there are many important child migration issues which this article does not address. Unaddressed issues include: custody and housing issues, family migration issues, and family reunification issues. Further areas this article does not address are legal avenues other than asylum which are available to unaccompanied children who wish to avoid removal from the United States (commonly known as deportation from the United States). See, e.g., 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1101(a)(27)(J)(Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, for children with a severely troubled parent), (15)(T)(T visas, for individuals who have been victims of severe human trafficking), (15)(U)(U Visas, for individuals who have suffered substantially as victims of crime).
2 6 U.S.C. § 279(g).
3 See, e.g., Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728, 734 (6th Cir. 2014).
4 Operation Pedro Pan Group, Inc., History: The Cuban Children's Exodus, available at www.pedropan.org.
5 See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016, (Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016), available at https://www.cbp.gov/ newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2016 ; see also William Kandel, Cong. Research Serv., Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, at 1 (May 11, 2016), available at http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P11767.pdf.
6 See Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016. See supra note 5.
7 Jens Krogstad, Pew Research Center, U.S. Border Apprehensions Of Families And Unaccompanied Children Jump Dramatically (May 4, 2016), available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/04/u-s-border-apprehensions-of-families-and-unaccompanied-children-jump-dramatically/.
8 See HHS, ORR, Division of Children's Services, What You Need to Know About Your Rights and Responsibilities Under the Law, (Apr. 20, 2015), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites. . . /orr/legal_resource_guide_ introduction_4_20_15.pdf.
9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 1208.13(b)(2)(A).
10 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
11 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c) and 1208.18.
12 See William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA) § 235(d)(7)(C), entitled Enhancing Effort To Combat The Trafficking Of Children, Permanent Protection For Certain At-Risk Children, Access To Asylum Protections, Initial Jurisdiction, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(3)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 208.9(b); see also Ted Kim, Acting Chief of Asylum Division to All Asylum Office Staff, Memorandum, Updated Procedures for Determination Of Initial Jurisdiction Over Asylum Applications Filed By Unaccompanied Alien Children to All Asylum Office Staff (May 28, 2013)(citing Implementation of Statutory Change Providing USCIS with Initial Jurisdiction over Asylum Applications Filed by Unaccompanied Alien Children (Mar. 25, 2009)), available at library.law.yale.edu/…/uscis-memo-updated-procedures-determination-initial-jurisdiction. Also note, The unaccompanied children's opportunity to pursue withholding of removal in addition to asylum occurs later in the process, i.e., before the immigration court.
13 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14.
14 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b), 1208.2(b).
15 See, e.g., David L. Neal, Chief Immigration Judge, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 07-01, Guidelines for Immigration Court Cases Involving Unaccompanied Alien Children (Sept. 16, 2007)(Guidelines for Immigration Court Cases Involving Unaccompanied Alien Children), available at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/oppm07/07-01.pdf.
16 See Immigration Court Practice Manual (Practice Manual), Chapter 4.22(b), at 91 (Dec. 15, 2016), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ office-chief-immigration-judge-0; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
17 See Brian M. O'Leary, Chief Immigration Judge, Docketing Practices Relating To Unaccompanied Children Cases . . . In Light Of The New Priorities (Mar. 24, 2015)(rescinded), available at http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2015,0330-EOIR.pdf; Print Maggard, Chief Immigration Judge (Acting), Revised Docketing Practices Relating to Certain EOIR Priority Cases (Feb. 3, 2016)(rescinded), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/819736/download.
18 Mary Beth Keller, Chief Immigration Judge, Case Processing Priorities, (Jan. 31, 2017), available at www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile /70632; see also Caitlin Dickerson and Liz Robbins, Justice Dept. Reverses Policy That Sped Up Deportations, New York Times, Feb. 2, 2017, available at https://nyti.ms/2k6tSff.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1); JEFM v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1039 (9th Cir. 2016).
20Guidelines of Immigration Court Cases Involving Unaccompanied Alien Children, at 4, 7. See supra note 15.
21 See Practice Manual, Chapter 4.22(a), at 91. See supra note 16.
22 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(1); see also Practice Manual, Chapter 4.22(a), at 91. See supra notes 16, 20.
23 See, e.g., Press Release, Department of Justice, Justice Department and CNCS Announce $1.8 Million in Grants to Enhance Immigration Court Proceedings and Provide Assistance to Unaccompanied Children (Sept. 12, 2014), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-cncs-announce-1.8-million-grants-enhance-immigration-court-proceedings; see also Announcement of Award of Two Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants To Support Legal Services to Refugees Under the Unaccompanied Alien Children's Program, 79 Fed. Reg. 62,159-01 (Oct. 16, 2014).
25 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(6).
26 See JEFM, 837 F.3d at 1026. See supra note 18; F.L.B., et al. v. Lynch, 2016 WL 3458352 (9th Cir. June 24, 2016)(Order).
27 See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c).
28 See TVPRA § 235(d)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).
29 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(ii).
30 Contrast 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2) with 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(2) and (c)(2).
31 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d).
32 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3).
33 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(2).
34 See 6 U.S.C. § 279(g); see also Harmon, 758 F.3d at 734-735. See supra note 3; Mazariegos-Diaz v. Lynch, 605 Fed. Appx. 675 (9th Cir. 2015); Xin Yu He v. Lynch, 610 Fed. Appx. 655 (9th Cir. 2015)(Mem).
35 See JEFM, 837 F.3d at 1026. See supra notes 18, 25.
36 See, e.g., Errol Lincoln Uys, Letters From The Boxcar Boys And Girls, available at erroluys.com/letter2.html; History: The Cuban Children's Exodus.
37 Kandel, Cong. Research Serv., Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview. See supra note 5.

References: § 279
 v. 
 § 1158
 § 1208
 § 1231
 § 1208
 § 235
 § 1158
 § 208
 § 1003
 § 1003
 § 1229
 v. 
 § 1229
 § 1240
 § 1232
 v. 
 § 1240
 § 235
 § 1158
 § 1208
 § 1208
 § 1003
 § 1003
 § 279
 v. 
 v.