Opinion ID: 786219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: R. at 454, 456-57.

Text: 5 The full text of 18 U.S.C. § 116 provides: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is — (1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or (2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife. (c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual. 6 The full text of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-34 provides: (a) Except as otherwise permitted in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris of another commits the offense of female genital mutilation. Consent to the procedure by a minor on whom it is performed or by the minor's parent or guardian is not a defense to a violation of this Section. (b) A surgical procedure is not a violation of subsection (a) if the procedure: (1) is necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed and is performed by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches; or (2) is performed on a person who is in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches. (c) Sentence. Female genital mutilation is a Class X felony. 7 Although federal courts generally do not interfere in family matters, see Lossman v. Pekarske, 707 F.2d 288, 292 (7th Cir.1983), we do have the duty to act within the bounds of our authority when an individual may be removed from the United States and subjected to procedures or punishment `antipathetic to a federal court's sense of decency.' In re Burt, 737 F.2d 1477, 1485 n. 11 (7th Cir.1984) (quoting Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir.1960)); see also Nwaokolo, 314 F.3d at 308 (granting a stay of deportation when it was arguable that the BIA abused its discretion in denying Ms. Nwaokolo's motion to reopen if it failed to consider the threat that [her] four-year old daughter Victoria will be subjected to FGM as direct consequence of the decision to remove her mother); Ejelonu v. INS, 355 F.3d 539, 544-53 (6th Cir.2004) ( sua sponte construing petition for review as a request for a writ of audita querela, and granting the writ to prevent the DHS from using a juvenile's probation sentence for embezzlement as basis for removing her to Nigeria); Casem v. INS, 8 F.3d 700, 702-03 (9th Cir.1993) (instructing the BIA to consider the effect Ms. Casem's deportation to the Philippines would have on her nine-year-old son, despite the absence of any requirement in the statute that the BIA consider hardship to an alien's family when considering whether to waive deportation). 8 The DHS' predecessor organization, the INS, previously interceded to prevent alien parents from returning their son to the former Soviet Union, where he potentially faced persecution because of his religion See Polovchak v. Meese, 774 F.2d 731 (7th Cir.1985). In that case, the INS suggested that the state of Illinois institute proceedings to terminate the parents' custody rights. See id. at 732-33. The INS then assisted the child in applying for asylum and even went so far as to issue a departure control order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1185; 8 C.F.R. § 215.3, to prevent the child's parents from removing him to the Soviet Union. See Polovchak, 774 F.2d at 732-33. 9 Children of removable aliens do not have a right to representation in immigration proceedings unless they themselves are charged with removability. This is a flaw in the system and a problem that has long concerned us, see Salameda v. INS, 70 F.3d 447, 451 (7th Cir.1995), because in such situations there is a potential conflict between the parents' interests and those of the children. Ms. Olowo's daughters are both thirteen years old. They therefore are at least at the lower end of an age range in which a minor may be mature enough to assert certain individual rights that equal or override those of [their] parents. Polovchak, 774 F.2d at 736; see also Johns v. Dep't of Justice, 624 F.2d 522, 524 (5th Cir.1980) (directing the INS to ensure that a five-year-old child is represented by a guardian ad litem in deportation proceedings). But cf. Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir.2000) (finding that the INS' determination that six-year-old children lack sufficient capacity to assert, on their own, an asylum claim — is [not] unreasonable). The children should, therefore, have the benefit of an impartial advocate to assist them in expressing whether they wish to return to Nigeria and possibly face FGM. See, e.g., Crommelin-Monnier v. Monnier, 638 So.2d 912, 916 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (When a trial court is faced with the proposed removal of minor children to a foreign country, the appointment of a guardian ad litem for each child for the protection of their best interests will be required.); Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, H.R. 3361, 108th Cong. (2003) (proposed law would require appointment of counsel or guardian ad litem for inadmissible alien children); Peter Margulies, L.J. 289, 301-02 (2001) (discussing necessity for independent representation for minors in immigration proceedings).