a short-term plan to address the central american refugee situation

8/17/2019 A Short-Term Plan to Address the Central American Refugee Situation

1/43 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG

A Short-Term Plan to Address the

Central American Refugee SituationBy Philip E. Wolgin May 2016


2/43

A Short-Term Plan to Address theCentral American Refugee SituationBy Philip E. Wolgin May 2016


3/43

1 Introduction and summary

5 The increase in asylum seekers from Central America

9 Upon arrival

18 During custody determinations and inimmigration detention

24 In immigration proceedings

30 Conclusion

31 About the author

32 Endnotes

Contents


4/43

1 Center for American Progress | A Short-Term Plan to Address the Central American Refugee Situation

Introduction and summary

Over he pas hal -decade, rising violence and s ruc ural pover y in he Nor hernriangle region o Cen ral America which encompasses El Salvador, Honduras,

and Gua emala have pushed housands o children and amilies o ee or sa e y.Tese hree coun ries are some o he mos dangerous on he plane , wi h highra es o homicide and specically emicide he killing o women and girls.1 Violence, corrup ion, and ex or ion play a big par in everyday li e.2

Since 2014, more han 120,000 children and ano her 120,000 people in amilyuni s rom his region have arrived in he Uni ed S a es seeking pro ec ion. Teow o hese asylum seekers peaked in scal year 2014 be ore dipping, perhaps

emporarily, in FY 2015.3 Tis drop occurred no because condi ions improvedin he region bu because o a sus ained effor by he U.S. governmen wi h hehelp o Mexico and he Nor hern riangle coun ries o s op people rom mak-ing he dangerous journey or o in ercep hem on he way o he Uni ed S a es.4 Tis year, in FY 2016, he numbers o children and amilies arriving in he Uni edS a es have begun o rise again as condi ions in he region con inue o de eriora e.5

Tis repor lays ou shor - erm recommenda ions or ensuring ha all asylumseekers who reach he Uni ed S a es receive a ull and air sho a pro ec ion. Terecommenda ions are s ruc ured o ollow he process ha children and amiliesgo hrough when seeking pro ec ion: arrival in he Uni ed S a es, cus ody de ermi-na ions and de en ion, and proceedings in he immigra ion cour s.

In a companion repor , he Cen er or American Progress lays ou a series omedium- erm recommenda ions, o crea e a sa e place or children and amilies oee in La in America and o process hem as asylees and re ugees, and long- erm

recommenda ions, o ackle he roo causes o violence and s ruc ural pover y ac-ing he Nor hern riangle coun ries o Cen ral America. oge her, hese repor slay ou a comprehensive approach o mee ing he challenge presen ed by re ugeesarriving rom he Nor hern riangle.


5/43


Upon arrival

• As soon as possible ollowing apprehension, each person should receive a “know your righ s” presen a ion by a qualied nongovernmen al organiza ion, or NGO.6

•Te U.S. governmen mus ensure ha he pro ec ions or unaccompa-nied children in he rafficking Vic ims Pro ec ion eau horiza ion Ac , or

VPR, 7 remain in ac .

• Every immigra ion agency dealing wi h children rom he U.S. Depar meno Homeland Securi y and he Execu ive Office o Immigra ion eview o heOffice o e ugee esetlemen should adop he “bes in eres o he child”principle in all aspec s o care rom apprehension, shel er, and release oimmigra ion proceedings. Te U.S. Congress should codi y his principle in o

he Immigra ion and Na ionali y Ac .8

• Congress should leave he responsibili y o care or unaccompanied children wi h he Office o e ugee esetlemen , or O .

– Te O should do more o ensure ha sponsors are horoughly screened be ore children are released o hem and mus expand pos -release services oensure he sa e y o children released rom heir cus ody.

– Congress mus give he O he resources o conduc hese pre-releasescreenings and provide expanded pos -release services.

During custody determinations and in immigration detention

• Te adminis ra ion should close he Sou h exas Family esiden ial Cen er inDilley, exas, and he Karnes Coun y esiden ial Cen er in Karnes Ci y, exas,and release hose de ained mo hers and children who do no pose a securi y origh risk ha canno o herwise be mi iga ed.

• a her han placing amilies who have expressed ear o re urning o heirhome coun ry in expedi ed removal, he U.S. Depar men o HomelandSecuri y, or DHS, should place hem in o ormal removal proceedingsknown as 240 proceedings ha allow hem o make heir case or pro ec ionin ron o an immigra ion judge.9


6/43


• Te adminis ra ion should crea e shor - erm processing cen ers or amiliesupon arrival ha unc ion like shel ers ra her han prisons. Tese cen ers wouldgive amilies he abili y o ge heir bearings in he Uni ed S a es; atend legalorien a ions and connec wi h pro bono counsel; and receive medical, men alheal h, and o her needed care.

– Te DHS should also comple e he ini ial securi y and background checksin hese cen ers and place individuals in o ormal removal proceedings a

hese cen ers.

– Unless amilies pose a securi y or igh risk ha canno be mi iga ed wi h anal erna ive o de en ion, such as communi y supervision or an ankle brace-le , he DHS should release hem rom processing cen ers wi hin 72 hourso apprehension.

• Te de aul response when i comes o cus ody de ermina ions should be orelease asylum seekers while hey awai heir immigra ion proceedings, unless

here is a clear reason or using an al erna ive o de en ion or de en ion i sel .In each case, such decisions should use he leas res ric ive orm o supervisionnecessary and should ake in o accoun he unique circums ances o each amily.

In immigration proceedings

• Congress should quickly pass he Fair Day in Cour or Kids Ac , which wouldins ruc he U.S. atorney general o appoin atorneys or all children as wellas o her vulnerable individuals such as hose wi h disabili ies and vic ims oabuse or violence in immigra ion proceedings.10

• Te adminis ra ion should explore setlemen nego ia ions o resolve J.E.F.M. v.Holder in which advoca es are challenging he governmen ’s ailure o appoincounsel or children in immigra ion cour s and/or adop a policy o appoin edcounsel or children ha would render he case moo .11

• Te U.S. Depar men o Jus ice, or DOJ, should appoin child advoca es or unac-companied children in immigra ion proceedings; curren ly, he governmen doesno appoin advoca es excep in ex reme cases o rafficking or o her mi iga ing cir-cums ances. Congress should appropria e he necessary unds or such a change.12


7/43


• Te governmen should end i s use o rocke docke s speedy rial da es orchildren and amilies seeking pro ec ion.

• Congress should increase s affing and resources or he immigra ion cour s, which are creaking under he weigh o a crushing caseload and backlog.13

In he shor erm, providing all hose eeing violence wi h he oppor uni y omake a ull and air case or pro ec ion will ensure ha he Uni ed S a es lives up

o i s moral and legal obliga ions. Tese obliga ions s ar as soon as an asylumseeker arrives in he Uni ed S a es and con inue hrough cus ody de ermina ionsand de en ion and hen hrough he immigra ion cour proceedings.

Cer ainly, all immigra ion laws on he books mus be ollowed. No hing in hisrepor sugges s ha people who receive a ull and air process including access

o counsel and proper adjudica ion and s ill lose heir cases mus be allowed o

remain in he Uni ed S a es. Bu he coun ry also has an obliga ion o make cer ainha i s re ugee laws are ully en orced which means ensuring due process or

persons who arrive in his coun ry o reques pro ec ion.

Ul ima ely hough, hese shor - erm xes canno address he bigger issue: he vio-lence and s ruc ural pover y ha plague he Nor hern riangle coun ries and orcechildren and amilies o look or sa e y wherever hey can. Un il he Uni ed S a es,Nor hern riangle coun ries, and na ions hroughou he Wes ern Hemisphere work o ackle hese roo causes, children and amilies will con inue o seek pro-

ec ion a U.S. borders and in o her coun ries hroughou he region.


8/43


The increase in asylumseekers from Central America

Violence and s ruc ural pover y in he Nor hern riangle o Cen ral Americahave increased signican ly in he pas hal -decade.14 El Salvador, Honduras, andGua emala are hree o he mos violen coun ries in he world: Homicides in ElSalvador increased 196 percen be ween 2011 and 2015. Tese coun ries also rankrs , second, and our h, respec ively, in emicide he murder o women and girls.15

Concurren ly, he number o unaccompanied children and amily uni s which

U.S. Cus oms and Border Pro ec ion, or CBP, denes as “individuals (ei her achild under 18 years old, paren or legal guardian) apprehended wi h a am-ily member” arriving rom he Nor hern riangle has increased, peaking in2014.16 (see Figure 1)

FIGURE 1

Unaccompanied children and family units apprehended by year, FY 2010–2016*

* FY 2016 projections based on average monthly data from October through February. Data on the number of families is not available for FY 2010 and 2011.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "United States Border Patrol Total Unaccompanied Alien Children (0-17 Years Old) Apprehensions By Month–FY 2010–2016 To Date Through Janu(2016); U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "United States Border Patrol Total Family Unit* Apprehensions by Month–FY 2013–FY 2016 To Date Through January" (2016); Lazaro Zamora, "AIncrease in Unaccompanied Minor and Family Apprehensions," Bipartisan Policy Center, September 24, 2015, available at http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/august-increase-in-unaccompa-nied-minor-and-family-apprehensions/; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Statement By Secretary Jeh C. Johnson On Southwest Border Security," Press Release, March 9, 2016, available ahttps://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/03/09/statement-secretary-jeh-c-johnson-southwest-border-security.

Number of Children Number of Families

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0


9/43


Breaking hese gures down by coun ry o origin pu s hese numbers in o evens arker relie . While arrivals o unaccompanied children rom Mexico have ebbedand owed over he years and have decreased since 2013 he Nor hern

riangle coun ries saw a s eady increase in children eeing rom 2011 hrough hepeak o 2014. (see Figure 2)

Similarly, he number o people arriving rom El Salvador, Honduras, andGua emala who have received credible or reasonable ear screenings has skyrock-e ed over he pas ew years. (see Figure 3) Credible or reasonable ear screen-ings in erviews wi h rained U.S. Ci izenship and Immigra ion Services, orUSCIS, personnel are conduc ed in cases where people express ear o re urning

o heir coun ries o origin afer being placed in expedi ed removal proceedings or while being o herwise ordered removed rom he coun ry ou side o he immigra-

ion cour process.17 People rom he hree Nor hern riangle coun ries now rank

in he op hree or number o mon hly credible and reasonable ear screenings as ark con ras o jus a ew years ago, when hose rom o her coun ries such asChina, Hai i, or India rou inely broke in o he op hree.18

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

FIGURE 2

Unaccompanied children by country of origin, FY 2010–2016*Arrivals to the United States from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico

* FY 2016 projections based on average monthly data from October through February.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children Statistics FY 2015," available athttp://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2015 (last accessed March 2016); U.S. Customsand Border Protection, "United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien Children ApprehensionsFiscal Year 2016," available at http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2016 (last accessedMarch 2016).

El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0


10/43


In he rs ve mon hs o his scal year, rom Oc ober 2015 hrough February2016, more han 23,000 unaccompanied children arrived in he Uni ed S a es. Onan annualized basis, hese numbers are on rack o exceed he 2015 o als while

alling roughly 10,000 children below he record level in FY 2014. Likewise, closeo 28,000 people in amily uni s have arrived so ar in FY 2016 on rack o come

in jus below he 2014 surge level.19

And because he numbers o children and amilies rom Cen ral America ra-di ionally rise and all wi h he seasons ewer people arrive in win er whencold wea her can make ravel more difficul , while more arrive in summer heFY 2016 s a is ics are likely o increase.20 Te Office o e ugee esetlemen isalready preparing or a new inux o children by crea ing emporary shel er spacein places such as Homes ead, Florida.21

Te violence pushing children and amilies ou o he Nor hern riangle region

has mean con inued arrivals rom hese coun ries, even as overall unau horizedmigra ion o he Uni ed S a es has dropped signican ly. From 2010 o 2014, orexample, he unau horized popula ion as a whole dropped 7 percen , and unau-

FIGURE 3

Credible and reasonable fear screenings by country of origin,FY 2011–2016*

* FY 2016 projections based on average monthly data from October through December.

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Monthly Credible and Reasonable Fear Nationality Reports Top Five Countries”(last accessed March 2016); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Credible Fear Workload Report Summary FY 2011 TotalCaseload” (last accessed March 2016); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Credible Fear Workload Report Summary FY 2012

Total Caseload” (last accessed March 2016); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Credible Fear Workload Report Summary—FY09-13” (2013); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Credible Fear Workload Report Summary—FY 09-14" (2014); U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration Services, "Credible Fear Workload Report Summary—FY 09-15" (2015).

El Salvador Guatemala Honduras

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,00060,000

70,000

80,000


11/43


horized migra ion rom Mexico o he Uni ed S a es dropped 13 percen .22 Fromhe up ick in 2014 hrough February 2016, more han 120,000 children and an

addi ional 120,000 people in amily uni s rom he Nor hern riangle o Cen ral America arrived in he Uni ed S a es.23 o pu his gure in perspec ive, approxi-ma ely 80,000 re ugees ed o Europe in jus he rs mon h and a hal o 2016.24


12/43


Upon arrival

Upon arriving in he Uni ed S a es and being apprehended generally byCus oms and Border Pro ec ion afer urning hemselves in a he border unac-companied children and amily uni s, made up o mo hers and children, acediffering pa hways under immigra ion law.25

Pathways for unaccompanied children and families under U.S. law

Unaccompanied children

Under he Homeland Securi y Ac o 2002 and he rafficking Vic ims Pro ec ioneau horiza ion Ac , unaccompanied children rom noncon iguous coun ries

coun ries ha do no share a border wi h he Uni ed S a es who are apprehendedin he Uni ed S a es are rs placed in ormal removal hearings.26 Wi hin 72 hours,

hey mus be rans erred o he cus ody o he Office o e ugee esetlemen in heU.S. Depar men o Heal h and Human Services, or HHS.27 Te O houses chil-dren emporarily and works o release hem o paren s, rela ives, or o her sponsors while hey wai or heir cour hearings.28 Under he erms o a 1997 cour -orderedagreemen known as heFloressetlemen , children mus be released rom cus ody“wi hou unnecessary delay” o a paren , amily member, guardian, or sponsor.29

By con ras , an unaccompanied child rom Mexico or Canada con iguouscoun ries mus rs be screened wi hin 48 hours by he CBP o de ermine

ha he child:

• Is no a vic im o severe rafficking

• Would no be a risk o being rafficked i re urned o his or her home coun ry

• Does no have a credible ear o persecu ion i re urned o his or her home coun ry


13/43


• Has he capaci y o make his or her own decision o wi hdraw his or her applica-ion or admission in o he Uni ed S a es and ins ead be volun arily re urned o

his or her home coun ry 30

I he CBP agen or officer is unable o make even one o hese ndings, he unac-

companied child is placed in ormal removal proceedings o appear in ron o animmigra ion judge and is rans erred o O cus ody, as wi h any unaccompaniedchild rom a noncon iguous coun ry. Children rom con iguous coun ries who meeall o he CBP cri eria, however, can be volun arily re urned o heir home coun ries wi hou ever appearing in immigra ion cour , based on he DHS’s discre ion.31

Family units

Unless hey express ear o persecu ion in heir home coun ries, people arriving

in amily uni s can be quickly depor ed rom he border hrough he expedi edremoval process.32 Upon expressing ear o persecu ion, such amilies mus bein erviewed by a specially rained U.S. Ci izenship and Immigra ion Servicesasylum officer o de ermine whe her hey mee an ini ial hreshold or a credibleor reasonable ear o persecu ion, depending on heir circums ances. Only hose who mee his hreshold ei her ollowing he in erview wi h he asylum officeror upon review by an immigra ion judge are en i led o make heir case orpro ec ion in an immigra ion cour .33 All o hers may be removed rom he coun ry wi hou an immigra ion cour hearing or ur her process.

o pro ec agains re urning people o dangerous condi ions, Congress in en-ionally se he s andard or es ablishing a credible ear lower han he s andardor proving a ull claim or asylum; as such, i may be somewha unsurpris-

ing ha he ear- ound ra es or amilies who ge hese in erviews are high. Inhe second quar er o FY 2015, or example, 86 percen o amilies rom he

Nor hern riangle who received credible ear in erviews in a amily de en ionacili y were ound o possess such ear.34

On he o her hand, he s andard or es ablishing a reasonable ear applied o

people who have prior removal orders ha are being reins a ed or who are beinggiven adminis ra ive removal orders is iden ical o he s andard or winningasylum. Because such persons are s a u orily ineligible or asylum, however, being

ound o possess a reasonable ear only means ha hey will have he oppor uni yo go be ore an immigra ion judge o reques a orm o pro ec ion ha requires a


14/43


s ill higher s andard o proo : ei her s a u ory wi hholding o removal or pro ec-ion under he Conven ion Agains or ure.35 Never heless, i is s riking ha inhe second quar er o FY 2015, 82.5 percen o hose rom he Nor hern riangle

who received reasonable ear in erviews in amily de en ion were ound o possesssuch ear and, here ore, would have me he s andard or winning asylum in he

Uni ed S a es were hey only eligible or ha orm o pro ec ion.36

Some por ion o amilies who arrive a he border are placed in o he expedi edremoval process and de ained, while o hers are placed in o ormal removalproceedings be ore an immigra ion judge and released while hey wai or heirhearings, ofen wi h an al erna ive o de en ion such as communi y supervision oran ankle moni or.37 Te decision by DHS personnel generally rom ei her U.S.Immigra ion and Cus oms En orcemen , or ICE, or he CBP o whe her or no

o place a par icular amily in de en ion is largely arbi rary, based on he avail-abili y o bed space ra her han individualized considera ion o whe her he amily

presen s a risk o igh or a danger o he public ha canno be mi iga ed wi houde en ion.38 Te DHS curren ly has jus more han 3,000 beds available in amily

acili ies; las year, in FY 2015, close o 40,000 people arrived in amily uni s.39

Security screenings for asylum seekers from Central America

While laws such as the TVPRA require children to be released from custody without unnecessary delay, nothing mandates

that a child or family be released if they pose a threat to security. 40 In fact, every single person who arrives in the United States

claiming asylum goes through a multilayered security screening process prior to any decisions being made about custody.

All individuals who are apprehended—the vast majority of whom turn themselves in to DHS personnel—at the southern

border have their ngerprints, if they are 14-years-old or older, and biometric measures taken, which are then checked

by the DHS against various federal databases for prior criminal history, ties to gangs, or any national security concerns. 41

No one who raises any security concerns is released, including unaccompanied children, who may be held in secure ORR

facilities if they pose a threat to themselves or others. 42 Many of those released still receive some form of monitoring, from

community supervision to GPS-enabled ankle monitors, and the decision to release an individual can be reversed by ICE if

he or she is later determined to be a security or ight risk. 43

Likewise, children in ORR shelters are subject to multiple layers of screenings by case managers, teachers, psychologists, andpro bono attorneys. Vulnerable children are also eligible to receive post-release services and case management after being

placed with a family member or sponsor, all of which add additional layers of screening in case any security ags arise. 44


15/43


Due process concerns

Under bo h domes ic and in erna ional law, he Uni ed S a es has a legal obliga-ion o allow hose seeking pro ec ion o make a ull and air claim or asylum.45

Ensuring ha hese asylum seekers receive ull due process pro ec ions guaran-

eed o all people wi hou regard o immigra ion s a us by he Fifh Amendmeno he Cons i u ion mus be he s andard or which he Uni ed S a es s rives.46

Ye ailures o due process are eviden hroughou he asylum process. ake, orexample, he dispara e rea men o unaccompanied children rom con iguousand noncon iguous coun ries: Bo h he Governmen Accoun abili y Office, orGAO, and he Uni ed Na ions High Commissioner or e ugees, or UNHC ,have ound serious deciencies in he screening procedures ha he CBP uses

or children rom con iguous coun ries. Te GAO ound ha CBP agen s “madeinconsis en screening decisions, had varying levels o awareness abou how hey

were o assess cer ain screening cri eria, and did no consis en ly documen hera ionales or heir decisions.”47 Even worse, he GAO ound ha he CBP wasno adhering o i s own policies: I has long been CBP policy o presume hachildren younger han age 14 canno make independen assessmen s o volun-

arily wi hdraw heir applica ions or admission in o he Uni ed S a es. Unlessha presump ion can be overcome, he VPR prohibi s DHS personnel rom

quickly re urning unaccompanied children o heir coun ries o origin. Ye heGAO ound ha be ween FY 2009 and FY 2014, he CBP re urned more han 9ou o 10 Mexican children younger han age 14 wi hou any indica ion ha heCBP applied and overcame he presump ion ha hese young children wereunable o make decisions on heir own.48

Similarly, he UNHC ound a li any o issues wi h he con iguous coun ry screen-ing process, including a lack o raining or CBP personnel on wha cons i u eshuman rafficking or risk o human rafficking wo o he ac ors ha agen s andofficers mus affirma ively rule ou be ore such children can be volun arily re urned

rom he border.49 And while CBP personnel are only supposed o screen childrenor any ear o re urn under he VPR, he UNHC ound ha ins ead, some

agen s and officers were aking he addi ional s ep o de ermining hose ears o

no be valid.50

Making hese de ermina ions in he rs place viola es he VPR;even worse, CBP personnel lack he relevan raining o de ermine wha is or is noa valid claim. Te UNHC concluded ha hese ac ions have “likely resul ed inMexican children being re urned despi e heir need or ur her evalua ion o heir

Ensuring that

these asylum

seekers receive

full due process

protections ... mu

be the standard fo

which the United

States strives.


16/43


pro ec ion needs.”51 Such aul y prac ices have real li e consequences: Sendingsomeone back could lead o harm or dea h. In i s repor “Children on he un,”

or example, he UNHC ound ha 64 percen o he unaccompanied Mexicanchildren i in erviewed raised in erna ional pro ec ion needs.52

A he heigh o he spike in children and amilies arriving rom Cen ral Americain mid-2014, bo h he Obama adminis ra ion and some members o Congressoa ed various proposals o amend and roll back pro ec ions provided o children

rom noncon iguous coun ries under he VPR ha would rea unaccompa-nied children rom Cen ral America like hose rom con iguous coun ries.53 Suchchanges would have allowed many o he children eeing violence in he Nor hern

riangle o be re urned o heir home coun ries wi hou any legal sa eguards or ahearing be ore an immigra ion judge.54

Al hough effor s o change he VPR ailed,55 members o Congress con inue o

propose similar changes: When he U.S. Sena e considered he FY 2016 budgeresolu ion, or example, Sen. John McCain ( -AZ) in roduced a symbolic resolu-

ion o roll back hese pro ec ions ha passed by a vo e o 58-42.56 wo o herproposals ep. Jason Chaffe z’s ( -U ) Asylum e orm and Border Pro ec ion Ac and ep. John Car er’s ( - X) Pro ec ion o Children Ac have been vo ed

avorably ou o he U.S. House o epresen a ives Judiciary Commitee and could be brough up on he House oor a any ime.57

Likewise, he recen highly publicized raids on Cen ral American asylum seek-ers ha he Obama adminis ra ion has carried ou since he s ar o 2016 havehighligh ed signican due process concerns. Tese include migran s’ lack oknowledge o he righ o claim asylum, ailures by he DHS and he immigra ioncour s o in orm children o heir cour da es, and inadequa e or lack o counselduring immigra ion proceedings.58 Te U.S. governmen can and should bols erdue process pro ec ions or asylum seekers, rom apprehension hrough de en ionand rom release hrough immigra ion proceedings.

Recommendations

Te Uni ed S a es is rs and oremos a na ion o laws, and all immigra ion lawsmus be ollowed. Anyone who receives ull due process including, bu nolimi ed o, access o counsel and he abili y o make a case or pro ec ion and

The U.S. governm

can and should

bolster due proces

protections for

asylum seekers,

from apprehensio

through detention

and from releasethrough immigrati

proceedings.


17/43


s ill loses his or her case does no have he righ o au oma ically s ay in hecoun ry. Bu due process mus be paramoun , and all re ugee laws and re ugeepro ec ions mus be afforded o anyone who reaches our borders and earsre urning o heir home coun ry.

Ensure that asylum seekers are fully informed of their legal rights

Firs and oremos , as soon as possible ollowing apprehension, each personshould receive a “know your righ s” presen a ion by a qualied NGO. Such pre-sen a ions would explain he legal righ ha each individual eeing persecu ion orharm has o claim asylum or o her orms o pro ec ion, such as visas or vic-

ims o human rafficking or U visas or vic ims o crime who coopera e wi hlaw en orcemen ;59 he complica ed process or winning pro ec ion; and he con-sequences o ailing o appear in cour or removal proceedings. Te presen a ion

could also provide in orma ion per aining o securing pro bono represen a ion.60

Te Legal Orien a ion Program, run by he Depar men o Jus ice in conjunc-ion wi h he Vera Ins i u e o Jus ice and o her NGO par ners, is one impor an

model. Te program ocuses on adul s in immigra ion proceedings as well ashose responsible or caring or unaccompanied children, giving hem in orma-ion abou heir righ s and he immigra ion cour process. I also works o connec

vulnerable immigran s o pro bono counsel.61 Tis program curren ly opera esin only 35 ou o 77 de en ion acili ies,62 bu i or similar programs should be expanded o cover all immigran s in removal proceedings, including hose inexpedi ed removal and hose in CBP cus ody pos -apprehension.

Maintain protections for unaccompanied children in the TVPRA

Second, he Uni ed S a es mus ensure ha he pro ec ions or unaccompaniedchildren in he VPR remain in ac . Te law provides impor an sa eguards opro ec children rom rafficking, persecu ion, and o her orms o abuse. Given hesignican issues in he screening process or unaccompanied children rom con-

iguous coun ries raised by he GAO and he UNHC , his s andard or dealing wi h children rom con iguous coun ries should no be expanded.63

... the United Stat

must ensure that

the protections for

unaccompanied

children in the

TVPRA remain in


18/43


Adopt the “best interest of the child” principle

Finally, every immigra ion agency rom he DHS and he Execu ive Office orImmigra ion eview, or EOI , o he O ha deals wi h children, whe her

hey are unaccompanied or wi h heir paren s, should adop he “bes in er-

es o he child” principle in all aspec s o care rom apprehension, shel er,and release hrough immigra ion proceedings. Tis principle, as dened byhe Young Cen er or Immigran Children’s igh s, akes in o accoun severalac ors, including children’s own opinions o heir care; heir sa e y, securi y,

and men al and physical heal h; heir amily rela ionships; heir well-being anddevelopmen ; and heir background.64

While he VPR manda es ha children’s bes in eres s be aken in o accoun when making cus ody decisions and when appoin ing child advoca es or par-

icularly vulnerable children, immigra ion law as a whole does no recognize he

principle, nor are he DHS and he immigra ion cour s compelled o consider achild’s bes in eres s when making cus ody and removal decisions.65 Given heunique vulnerabili ies o children, Congress should codi y his principle in o law

or all immigra ion decisions.66

The ORR should ensure that children released from its custody are protected

Under he Homeland Securi y Ac o 2002, he care o unaccompanied childrenresides wi h he Office o e ugee esetlemen .67 Te O con rac s wi h NGOs

o run a ne work o shel ers across he coun ry ha care or children afer heyarrive and are rans erred rom he cus ody o he DHS. I also holds legal orien a-

ion programs, makes connec ions o pro bono represen a ion, and works o placechildren wi h sponsors generally immedia e rela ives or amily riends while

hey awai immigra ion proceedings.68

Prior o he surge o children arriving in he Uni ed S a es rom Cen ral Americain mid-2014, he O conduc ed robus inves iga ions o every sponsor, includ-ing background checks, ngerprin ing, and home s udies.69 Te large numbers o

children who arrived in 2014, however, pushed he agency o relax i s s andardsin order o move children hrough he sys em and ou o heir cus ody as soonas possible.70 In doing so, he O dropped requiremen s such as ngerprin -ing sponsors and running sponsors’ in orma ion hrough Federal Bureau oInves iga ion background checks.


19/43


An Associa ed Press inves iga ion uncovered mul iple cases in which children were released in o si ua ions in which hey were subjec ed o human raffickingand sexual exploi a ion.71 In one case in Marion, Ohio, mul iple children werereleased o sponsors pre ending o be amily members, only o end up o workingas pseudo slave laborers on an egg arm.72 Al hough he O has resumed con-

duc ing ull background screenings on sponsors and ollowing up on each child by phone wi hin 30 days o placemen , as well as crea ing a ho line or childreno repor sa e y issues, he agency only comple es home s udies i a background

check raises red ags or i a child requires ex ra care due o heir special needs.73

Beyond a phone check, mos children receive no pos -release services.74 In FY2014, or example, he O conduc ed home visi s udies which included background checks, inves iga ions o make sure he needs o he child can be me by he sponsor in ques ion, and educa ion or he sponsor on he needs o hechild or only 2.5 percen o children placed wi h sponsors.75 Similarly, only 7

percen o children released o sponsors received any ype o services, such as casemanagemen by social workers o mee physical and men al heal h needs.76

O emails rom 2015 released by he Sena e Commitee on Homeland Securi yand Governmen al Affairs Permanen Subcommitee on Inves iga ions reveal

ha he agency has based heir budge reques s “his orically on he assump ionha 10% o [unaccompanied children] would have home assessmen s and ha

[ he] same 10% would have pos -release service.” Tese emails make i clear hahe O has viewed hese pos -release services as par o a pilo program based

on available unding ra her han as a s andard or moni oring children who have been released o sponsors.77

A GAO s udy rom February 2016 also ound ha he O lacks he resourceso do si e visi s or all o he NGOs wi h whom i con rac s o provide shel er,

educa ional, heal h, and well-being services o unaccompanied children. TeGAO also ound ha he O lacks appropria e processes o collec and ana-lyze da a on children who are released rom i s cus ody o sponsors, po en iallyleaving children a risk.78

While he O has made mis akes in i s rea men o unaccompanied children, iis s ill he agency bes posi ioned o ake he needs and vulnerabili ies o chil-dren in o accoun when i comes o cus ody and release. Ins ead o removing hecare o unaccompanied children rom he O , as legisla ion curren ly pending be ore he House o epresen a ives has called or,79 he O should horoughly


20/43


screen sponsors be ore children are released o hem, including a a mini-mum collec ing ngerprin s and running background checks or all sponsorsand increasing he number o sponsors who receive home s udies. Afer release,

he O should regularly check up on all released children and provide robuscase managemen and access o social services and men al heal h care when

appropria e, on a case-by-case basis.80

Congress mus give he O he resources needed o per orm hese pre-releasescreenings and pos -release services. Te proposed HHS budge or FY 2017 which includes bo h $1.23 billion in base unding or unaccompanied childrenand up o an addi ional $400 million in con ingency unding in case grea er numbers o children han an icipa ed arrive is a good s ar .81 Congress should gran

he HHS’s reques or a con ingency und ha would enable he O o s abilizei s unding s ream. Congress should also appropria e sufficien unding or heO o ully ve sponsors be ore children are released o hem and o provide all

children wi h a leas basic, con inual ollow-up.

Following he GAO’s February 2016 recommenda ions, he O should imple-men procedures o adequa ely and regularly screen i s NGO par ners haprovide services o children and o cap ure and analyze da a abou children whohave been released o sponsors.82 In i s response o he GAO repor , he Oagreed o “improve i s da a collec ion process o provide more sys ema ic ands andardized in orma ion on pos -release services.”83 Advoca es and he GAOmus ensure ha hey do so.


21/43


During custody determinationsand in immigration detention

The rebirth of family detention

Family de en ion has had a shor and con en ious his ory in he Uni ed S a es.In 2001, he Immigra ion and Na uraliza ion Service he precursor o heDepar men o Homeland Securi y began de aining amilies in a ormer nurs-ing home in Berks Coun y, Pennsylvania, ha had bed space or sligh ly more

han 80 people.84 In 2006, U.S. Immigra ion and Cus oms En orcemen opened

he . Don Huto esiden ial Cen er, known as Huto, ou side o Aus in, exas, wi h bed space or 512 people.85

Unlike he Berks acili y, Huto had previously been a prison, which he Lu heranImmigra ion and e ugee Service, or LI S, and he Women’s Commission or

e ugee Women and Children now he Women’s e ugee Commission, or W C described as “a ormer criminal acili y ha s ill looks and eels like aprison, comple e wi h razor wire and prison cells.”86 A lawsui brough by he American Civil Liber ies Union, or ACLU; he Universi y o exas School oLaw Immigra ion Clinic; and LeBoeu , Lamb, Greene & Mac ae LLP orcedICE o implemen wha should have been basic requiremen s or he care ochildren, such as ensuring ha discipline or children did no include hrea s o being separa ed rom heir paren s, no orcing children o wear prison garb, andhaving a ull- ime pedia rician on si e.87 In 2009, he Obama adminis ra ion nallyelimina ed he amily acili y a Huto, leaving only he smaller and less prison-likeBerks amily de en ion acili y open.88

In response o he surge o children and amilies rom Cen ral America in he sum-mer o 2014, however, he Obama adminis ra ion resurrec ed large-scale amily

de en ion as par o i s “aggressive de errence s ra egy” designed o s op amiliesrom making he journey nor h.89 Tis process commenced wi h he opening ohe now-shutered Ar esia acili y in remo e cen ral New Mexico.90


22/43


ICE curren ly runs hree amily de en ion acili ies called amily residen ialcen ers in Dilley, exas; Karnes Coun y, exas; and Berks Coun y, Pennsylvania. Al oge her, hese acili ies have he capaci y o de ain approxima ely 3,000 people.91

The fight over licensing family detention centersUnder the terms of the 1997 Flores settlement, all children held in DHS custody who

have not been charged or convicted of a crime, who are not a ight risk, and who are

not deemed a danger to themselves or others—regardless of whether or not they

came with family members—must be kept in licensed, nonsecure facilities. Flores de-

nes such licensed facilities as “any program, agency or organization that is licensed

by an appropriate State agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services

for dependent children.” 92

These licensing provisions are currently at the center of the ght to end family deten-tion. In July 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee found the DHS to be in violation

of Flores, in part because facilities such as the Karnes County Residential Center were

not licensed by the state of Texas. 93 The federal government argued that because Texas

does not license facilities that hold both children and parents, it could not be required

to seek licensing—an argument that Judge Gee rejected out of hand. The DHS has ap-

pealed this ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.94

In late January, the Department of Human Services for the state of Pennsylvania

revoked the Berks facility’s operating license due to the fact that it was housing families

instead of just children. In the process, the state also denied a request from Berks

County to double the size of the facility to 192 beds. 95 While the county has appealed

the denial, the future of the Berks facility is currently unclear.96

Even as Pennsylvania has moved away from licensing the Berks facility, the Texas

Department of Family and Protective Services changed its own rules in February 2016

to open the door to licenses for the Dilley and Karnes family detention centers—a

move that advocates in Texas have vehemently opposed. 97 As the Austin American-

Statesman put it, “Until now, the state … had maintained that it didn’t have the legal

authority to license, inspect and investigate the facilities. This week, the agency gaveitself that power.” 98 While the licensing process will likely take months to complete, the

facilities remain open in the interim.


23/43


Family de en ion can have a devas a ing impac on children and paren s, ofenur her rauma izing people who have ed violence and persecu ion. Te LI S and

W C, in heir s udy o amily de en ion, iden ied a li any o physical and psycho-logical harms o children and amilies in de en ion, rom weigh loss and depression

o cases o sexual assaul and abuse by guards.99 Advoca es have led mul iple com-

plain s wi h he DHS Office or Civil igh s and Civil Liber ies highligh ing caseso pos - rauma ic s ress disorder among amily de ainees, as well as inadequa emedical care.100 Likewise, he American Academy o Pedia rics wro e o Secre aryo Homeland Securi y Jeh Johnson ha “con inued de ainmen o any children andmo hers … pu s hem a grea er risk or physical and men al heal h problems andunnecessarily exposes children and mo hers o addi ional psychological rauma.”101

Detention as deterrence

Since he Ar esia acili y opened in mid-2014, he adminis ra ion has por rayedhe need o lock up amilies as par o a s ra egy o de er u ure arrivals rom

Cen ral America.102 o be clear: Under domes ic and in erna ional law, i is noillegal o reques asylum.103 And as he U.N. High Commissioner or e ugees haspoin ed ou , “de en ion policies aimed a de errence are generally unlaw ul underin erna ional human righ s law.”104

Given he roo causes o violence ha are pushing children and amilies ou oCen ral America, scholars have ound such de errence s ra egies o be largelyineffec ive. In ac , surveys o Cen ral Americans who have experienced crime and violence sugges ha knowing he po en ially dangerous consequences o migra-

ion makes no difference in heir decisions o ee. Tese ndings make clear hadespi e he dangers o seeking re uge elsewhere, Cen ral Americans nd migra ionpre erable o con inuing o live wi h violence every day.105

In February 2015, a ederal judge issued a preliminary injunc ion barring he admin-is ra ion rom using de errence as a ra ionale or de aining amilies. In par icular,

he lawsui R.I.L.R. v. Johnsonchallenged ICE’s policy o ei her denying amiliesrelease on bond en irely or seting a bond so high as o make i impossible or a am-

ily o be released.106

As a resul o he injunc ion, ICE ceased using de errence as ara ionale or cus ody de ermina ions in May 2015 and announced a series o effor s

o increase oversigh o i s amily de en ion cen ers.107

Family detention c

have a devastating

impact on children

and parents, often

further traumatizin

people who

have ed violence

and persecution.


24/43


Since hen, calls o end amily de en ion en irely have only increased: In la e Mayand early June 2015, 136 House represen a ives and 33 sena ors called on headminis ra ion o ully end he prac ice, arguing in he words o he sena ors

ha “ here is [no] sys em o mass amily de en ion ha will work or is consis en wi h our moral values.”108 Pressure rom Congress and he advocacy communi y

pushed Secre ary Johnson o announce a ur her se o re orms in June 2015,including beginning o release amilies who me he s andard o credible ear andensuring ha hese credible ear de ermina ions were comple ed expedi iously. Johnson claimed ha “ he de en ion o amilies will be shor - erm in mos cases” bu s opped shor o ending amily de en ion en irely.109

One mon h la er, a dis ric cour judge ound he DHS o be in viola ion o heFlores setlemen , which requires ha children be placed in he “leas res ric iveseting” and released o sponsors as quickly as possible; he adminis ra ion hasappealed he ruling o he U.S. Cour o Appeals or he 9 h Circui .110 Even afer

disavowing he use o de errence as a reason or amily de en ion in May 2015,he adminis ra ion’s brie o he 9 h Circui in January 2016 once again arguedha amily de en ion is a necessary par o i s response o s op u ure Cen ral

American amilies rom coming o he Uni ed S a es.111

Never heless, he adminis ra ion has signaled he s ar o a po en ial reduc ionin amily de en ion. In he DHS’s FY 2017 budge reques , he adminis ra ionreques ed unding or 960 amily de en ion beds, down rom he 2,760 bedsreques ed he previous year.112 Concurren ly, he DHS reques ed a 10 percenincrease in unding or i s al erna ives- o-de en ion program.113 I is oo early o

ell i his is a rue shif in priori ies away rom amily de en ion he adminis ra-ion’s appeal o heFloresdecision hrows such a con en ion in o doub , al hough

ICE Direc or Sarah . Saldaña has hin ed ha Karnes may cease unc ioning as aamily de en ion acili y 114 bu he adminis ra ion should make i so.


25/43


Recommendations

Close family detention facilities

Firs and oremos , he adminis ra ion should close he Dilley and Karnes amilyde en ion cen ers and release hose de ained mo hers and children who do nopose a securi y or igh risk ha canno o herwise be mi iga ed. When de en ionin a secure loca ion is no necessary o promo e public sa e y or o ensure haindividuals appear hroughou immigra ion proceedings, i serves only o hinderaccess o due process.

Addi ionally, he DHS should discon inue i s prac ice o placing amilies whoarrive in he Uni ed S a es in expedi ed removal and should ins ead place hem in240 proceedings ha is, ormal removal proceedings ha allow hem o make

heir case or pro ec ion in ron o an immigra ion judge.115

Create short-term processing centers

Second, he adminis ra ion should consider crea ing shor - erm processingcen ers ra her han de en ion cen ers or amilies upon arrival and use hesavings rom he closure o amily de en ion acili ies o cover he cos s o hesecen ers. Te cen ers would unc ion more like shel ers han prisons a response

ar more beting his re ugee ow, which is made up primarily o mo hers wi hchildren. Upon arrival, each and every amily would receive a legal orien a ion and would have he oppor uni y o be connec ed wi h pro bono counsel; hey wouldalso receive medical, men al heal h, and o her needed care. Each amily would be placed in o ormal removal proceedings, allowing hem o make heir case orasylum in ron o an immigra ion judge. As long as amilies do no pose a secu-ri y or igh risk ha canno be mi iga ed by an al erna ive o de en ion such asmoni oring or an ankle bracele hey should be released. Te DHS should doevery hing in i s power o make sure ha amilies are released rom hese cen ersas quickly as possible, in no more han 72 hours afer apprehension.

Such processing cen ers are rou inely used in o her coun ries o process largegroups o re ugees. For example, a processing si e in Amman, Jordan ha isrun join ly by he In erna ional Organiza ion or Migra ion and he Canadiangovernmen provides an orderly way o care or and screen Syrian re ugees orresetlemen in Canada.116


26/43


Prioritize alternatives to detention

Finally, whenever possible, he DHS should priori ize he use o al erna ives ode en ion ra her han locking people up. Tese al erna ives range rom basic moni-

oring where a person checks in regularly wi h a case manager or an ICE officer,

ei her by phone or in person o more in rusive orms o moni oring, such asGPS-enabled ankle bracele s or house arres .117 Tese al erna ives have provenhighly success ul a ensuring ha individuals appear a heir immigra ion proceed-ings, wi h various s udies nding ha more han 80 percen o hose who receiveal erna ives appear.118 Tey are also much cheaper han de en ion: While amilyde en ion cos s anywhere rom $161 o $343 per day,119 ICE’s ormal al erna ives-

o-de en ion program cos s only $5.16 per day.120 In each case, he DHS’s de aulresponse should be o use he leas res ric ive orm o moni oring possible or, when appropria e, o release individuals wi hou using ormal al erna ives while

hey awai heir immigra ion proceedings.

... whenever possi

the DHS should

prioritize the

use of alternatives

to detention rather

than locking

people up.


27/43


In immigration proceedings

The importance of access to counsel

Immigra ion cour proceedings are adversarial, wi h a rained governmen ator-ney arguing or he depor a ion o each child or amily who comes be ore hecour .121 Even so, children as young as oddlers have his orically been permited

o appear be ore he cour s wi hou lawyers,122 despi e he obvious reali y ha no3-year-old wi hou represen a ion could possibly receive a ull and air hearing

as required under he Fifh Amendmen ’s due process clause.123 Te governmennow appoin s counsel or some vulnerable popula ions, such as hose wi h seri-ous men al disabili ies, as a resul o a policy adop ed in connec ion wi h a classac ion lawsui , bu i does no ye do so rou inely or children appearing be ore

he immigra ion cour s.124

Te ransac ional ecords Access Clearinghouse, or RC a research cen erha collec s da a abou immigra ion en orcemen and immigra ion cour s, among

o her issues ound ha as o March 2016, only 46 percen o all minors and 40percen o mo hers wi h children had represen a ion in immigra ion proceed-ings.125 Access o counsel drama ically increases an individual’s chance o winningan asylum case: RC s udies o closed cases uncovered ha children were nearlyve imes more likely o win heir cases wi h a lawyer han wi hou , while amilies were a whopping 14 imes more likely o win heir cases wi h a lawyer.126

Access o counsel also helps o ensure ha children and amilies appear in couror heir immigra ion proceedings. According o an American Immigra ion

Council s udy, rom FY 2005 hrough FY 2014, children wi h atorneys appeareda heir hearings 95 percen o he ime.127 Meanwhile, 98 percen o amilies wi h

represen a ion who arrived in FY 2014 appeared a heir hearings, according o a July 2015 Human igh s Firs repor .128 Many o hose wi hou represen a ion endup being ordered depor ed in absen ia, ofen or missing a single hearing.129


28/43


When a child is released rom O care o a sponsor, i is he child’s obliga iono le he appropria e paperwork o in orm he immigra ion cour s o a change

in address.130 Children who do no have counsel racking heir cases ofen ail oreceive in orma ion abou where and when o appear or cour hearings, cur ail-ing heir abili y o make a case or pro ec ion.131 A Migra ion Policy Ins i u e

s udy o closed cases rom Oc ober 2013 hrough Augus 2015 involving unac-companied children ound ha 48 percen were ordered depor ed in absen ia.132 Similarly, he Los Angeles Times repor ed in March 2015 ha more han 7,000unaccompanied children who had arrived in he Uni ed S a es since he all o2013 were ordered depor ed in absen ia.133

As wi h heir overall policies oward Cen ral American asylum seekers, somemembers o he adminis ra ion have ramed heir opposi ion o providing counsel

or children around he idea o de errence. In connec ion wi h a lawsui argu-ing ha children have a s a u ory and cons i u ional righ o appoin ed counsel,

Depu y Assis an Atorney General Leon Fresco old a ederal cour ha orderinghe governmen o appoin atorneys or children especially wi hou he guaran-ee ha Congress would appropria e sufficien unds o appoin such atorneys

would bring proceedings o a hal and would signal ha “ he border is comple elyopen o children under 18.”134 Given he s rides he Uni ed S a es has made insecuring he border over he pas decade, such a commen is hyperbolic a bes .135

And during a recen deposi ion aken in ha case, Assis an Chie Immigra ion Judge Jack H. Weil argued ha he had “ augh immigra ion law li erally o 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds” and ha “you can do a air hearing” or oddlers wi houcounsel, hough he added, “I ’s going o ake you a lo o ime.”136 Under ques ioningabou Judge Weil’s deposi ion by Sen. Pa rick Leahy (D-V ), however, AtorneyGeneral Loreta Lynch conceded, “In no way does he Depar men o Jus ice eel

ha children o ha age, or even, rankly children even older, can or should represenhemselves individually.” Asked why he DOJ does no simply re use o hear immi-

gra ion cases wi h unrepresen ed children, he atorney general said, “We may ndourselves here,” wi hou commiting o such a change a presen .137

Al hough he adminis ra ion has provided unds or a pilo program o rain

lawyers and paralegals o represen some unaccompanied children, i has alsocon inued o oppose a legal challenge atemp ing o ensure ha i appoin scounsel or all children.138


29/43


Speedy trials for asylum seekers

S ar ing in mid-2014, as he number o unaccompanied children and amiliesgrew, he adminis ra ion began expedi ing immigra ion hearings or he newarrivals in special “rocke docke s” designed o move children and amilies quickly

hrough he process.139

Under hese proceedings, he immigra ion cour s havesough o ge children and amilies o a mas er calendar hearing he rs s ep inremoval proceedings wi hin 21 days o a no ice o appear in immigra ion cour being led by DHS personnel.140 Te adminis ra ion’s goal has been o quicklyprocess and remove people in order o send a message o u ure arrivals.141

In February 2016, he DOJ announced ha i was expanding his ime ramesomewha a child’s mas er calendar hearing is now o be held no earlier han 30days and no la er han 90 days rom he immigra ion cour ’s receip o he no ice

o appear. While a welcome change, he ime rame is s ill oo expedi ed o allow a

child air access o he immigra ion cour sys em.142

o be clear, no one should have o wai in limbo or years be ore geting a courhearing and a decision on one’s pro ec ion claim; he average wai ing ime o gea hearing in he immigra ion cour s is curren ly 666 days,143 which is ar oo long.However, children and amilies mus be allowed ime o nd counsel and o ga her

he evidence needed o prove heir well- ounded ears o persecu ion he s an-dard by which judges assess heir claims or asylum.144 And ins ead o solving heproblem, rocke docke s have only led o longer wai ing imes or anyone else wi ha pending case be ore he immigra ion cour s.145

Te immigra ion cour s con inue o creak under he weigh o a crushing caseload. Te average person wai s or nearly wo years or heir case o be comple ed, wi h many cases dragging on or more han double ha ime.146 Te enormouscase load means ha some people are only in ron o a judge or mere minu es be ore a decision is made.147 Judge Dana Leigh Marks, presiden o he Na ional Associa ion o Immigra ion Judges, has compared he rushed process and heenormous s akes involved in immigra ion proceedings o “dea h penal y casesheard in raffic cour setings.” Tis hardly gives children and amilies he ime or

resources o have a air sho a making heir cases or pro ec ion.148


30/43


Recommendations

Pass the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act

Firs and oremos , Congress should quickly pass Sen. Harry eid’s (D-NV) andep. Zoe Lo gren’s (D-CA) Fair Day in Cour or Kids Ac o 2016.149 Te bill would make a number o impor an changes and clarica ions when i comes ocounsel or children, specically by ins ruc ing he atorney general o appoinrepresen a ion or all children, as well as o her vulnerable individuals in immigra-

ion proceedings, such as hose wi h disabili ies and vic ims o abuse or violence.Te bill would also manda e legal orien a ion programs or all de ained immi-gran s and crea e a pilo program o provide legal orien a ions o nonde ainedimmigran s a he immigra ion cour s.150 Tese changes would as Wendy Young,

he presiden o he nonpro Kids in Need o De ense, has pu i “promo e

grea er efficiency and in egri y in our immigra ion sys em” by giving children and vulnerable amilies he abili y o gain meaning ul represen a ion.151

Ensure counsel for kids

Te adminis ra ion should explore setlemen nego ia ions o resolve J.E.F.M.v. Holder , a lawsui ha seeks o es ablish he s a u ory and cons i u ional righ

o appoin ed counsel or children in immigra ion proceedings, and/or consideradop ing a policy o appoin ed counsel or children ha would render he casemoo .152 Even wi hou he passage o legisla ion or cour -ordered relie , headminis ra ion has he abili y under exis ing law o appoin counsel or children,and i should do so.153 In he mean ime, he DHS and he immigra ion cour sshould gran con inuances o children and amilies who do no have counsel, giv-ing hem ime o secure i .

Likewise, Congress should appropria e unding o cover he cos s o appoin edcounsel. Tis proposal can be cos effec ive: In 2014, NER Economic Consul ingproduced a repor examining he scal impac o providing counsel or all indigen

people in removal proceedings and ound ha i s $208 million cos would likely be ully offse by reduced cos s associa ed wi h immigran de en ion, os er care,and legal orien a ion programs.154


31/43


And because so many children wi hou represen a ion are being ordered depor edin absen ia ofen wi hou even knowing when and where hey were supposed oappear or immigra ion hearings he Execu ive Office or Immigra ion eviewshould reopen he cases o anyone whose ruling was made in absen ia.155

End rocket dockets

Te governmen should also end i s use o rocke docke s. No good comes romspeeding up asylum hearings when he consequences o shor -cuting a airprocess could mean depor ing a person back o a dangerous or deadly si ua ion.Congress should also consider a broader res ruc uring o he immigra ion cour ssys em such as conver ing hem in o Ar icle I cour s o achieve judicial inde-pendence rom he DOJ and he adminis ra ion.156

Appoint an advocate for every unaccompanied child

Te governmen should appoin child advoca es individuals appoin ed spe-cically o represen he bes in eres s o he children, including by advising hecour s on maters such as de en ion, care, and depor a ion or every unaccom-panied child in immigra ion proceedings. Similar o counsel, he governmendoes no curren ly appoin an advoca e excep in ex reme cases o raffickingor o her mi iga ing circums ances. Under he rafficking Vic ims Pro ec ion

eau horiza ion Ac , he Depar men o Heal h and Human Services has heau hori y o appoin independen child advoca es or vulnerable children “ oeffec ively advoca e or he bes in eres o he child.”157 Te O curren ly has asmall child advoca e program run by he Young Cen er or Immigran Children’s

igh s, bu only roughly 1 percen o unaccompanied children in FY 2015received an advoca e hrough he program.158 All unaccompanied children, by vir ue o heir age and s a us, are vulnerable. Ensuring ha a child advoca e ispresen and expanding he child advoca e program would help children naviga e

he complexi ies o he immigra ion cour s.159 Congress should appropria e henecessary unds o make such a change.

No good comes

from speeding

up asylum

hearings when the

consequences of

short-cutting a fai

process could mea

deporting a person

back to a dangero

or deadly situation


32/43


Increase funding for immigration courts

Finally, Congress should sufficien ly und he immigra ion cour s. In December2015, Congress gran ed unds or 55 new immigra ion judge eams a good s ar

oward shoring up an overworked sys em.160 Bu given he curren caseload, wi h

more han 470,000 cases pending, an even grea er number o judges are necessary.161

Te roughly 250 immigra ion cour judges have, on average, close o 1,800 cases onheir docke s nearly our imes as many as a ederal dis ric cour judge.162 Morehan hal o hese judges are curren ly eligible o re ire, meaning ha he sys em will

s ruggle o main ain even i s curren pace over he nex ew years.163

o x hese dispari ies, Human igh s Firs has called or an addi ional 75 judgeso be added each year or he nex hree years a a cos o $223 million, while

Daniel Cos a o he Economic Policy Ins i u e has called or a ripling o henumber o immigra ion judges a a cos o roughly $500 million.164 Tese changes

would bring he average docke down o be ween 600 cases and 870 cases per year, a ar more manageable load.165


33/43


Conclusion

Wi h he number o children and amilies arriving in he Uni ed S a es rom heNor hern riangle expec ed o increase over he course o FY 2016,166 he Uni edS a es mus ensure he highes s andards o due process, access o asylum, and heavailabili y o o her orms o relie or all hose eeing violence and persecu ion. As a na ion, he Uni ed S a es mus mee he challenge o grea er numbers o asy-lum seekers wi h a con inued commi men o pro ec ion, ra her han urning away

hose in need o America’s help. Ta commi men mus begin upon arrival by

ensuring ha each individual seeking pro ec ion has he knowledge and abili y odo so and mus con inue in o cus ody de ermina ions and de en ion, as well as

hrough he immigra ion cour proceedings.

Given he overwhelming evidence ha violence and s ruc ural pover y are push-ing children and amilies ou o Cen ral America, such ows will no end un il

he roo causes pushing people ou are addressed.167 In a companion repor , heCen er or American Progress lays ou medium- erm recommenda ions or crea -ing a sa e place or children and amilies in he region and or building an orderlyre ugee processing sys em o provide hem wi h durable in egra ion and resetle-men solu ions. Ta repor also de ails he longer- erm s eps ha he Nor hern

riangle coun ries, in conjunc ion wi h he Uni ed S a es and o her na ions inhe Wes ern Hemisphere, mus ake o s em he ide o violence and s ruc ural

pover y in El Salvador, Honduras, and Gua emala.

Only by ruly ackling he roo causes o violence and insecuri y will childrenand amilies no longer eel he need o risk he dangerous journey o sa e y. In hemean ime, he Uni ed S a es has a moral and legal obliga ion o pro ec hose indanger who arrive a our borders.

As a nation, the

United States mus

meet the challeng

of greater number

of asylum seekers

with a continued

commitment to

protection, rather

than turning away

those in need of

America’s help.


34/43


About the author

Philip E. Wolgin is he Managing Direc or or he Immigra ion Policy eam ahe Cen er or American Progress. He direc s CAP’s research and publica ions

on immigra ion and has helped lead he eam’s work on a diverse se o issues,

such as immigra ion re orm, re ugees, border securi y, execu ive ac ion, andE-Veri y. Wolgin has direc ed repor s on a range o subjec s rela ed o immigran sin America, rom s udies on he daily lives o he undocumen ed hrough he“Documen ing he Undocumen ed” series o producing a cuting-edge survey oDe erred Ac ion or Childhood Arrivals recipien s and heir economic ou comes. Wolgin serves on he na ional board o direc ors o he re ugee organiza ion HIASand holds a Ph.D. in American his ory rom he Universi y o Cali ornia, Berkeley.

Acknowledgments

Te au hor hanks om Jawe z and Silva Ma hema o he Cen er or AmericanProgress, as well as in erns Kayla Lee and Cesar Hernandez Es rada; Wendy Young,Megan McKenna, Cory Smi h, Alex Pender, and Lisa Frydman o Kids in Need oDe ense; Michelle Brané, Jenni er Podkul, and Ka harina Obser o he Women’s

e ugee Commission; Kerri albo o he VENG Group; Kevin Appleby o heCen er or Migra ion S udies o New York; and Jessica Jones o he Lu heranImmigra ion and e ugee Service or heir assis ance in drafing his repor .


35/43


Endnotes

1 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, “Global Study onHomicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data” (2014), availableat http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf ; Geneva Declara-tion Secretariat, “Global Burden of Armed Violence2015: Chapter Three, Lethal Violence against Womenand Girls” (2015), available at http://www.genevadecla-ration.org/leadmin/docs/GBAV3/GBAV3_Ch3_pp87-120.pdf .

2 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “Women onthe Run: First-Hand Accounts of Refugees Fleeing El Sal-vador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico” (2015), avail-able at http://www.unhcr.org/5630f24c6.html; StevenDudley and Michael Lohmuller, “Northern Triangle isWorld’s Extortion Hotspot,” InSight Crime, July 1, 2015,available at http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/northern-triangle-world-extortion-hotspot ; Organiza-tion of American States, “OAS Observatory on CitizenSecurity – Data Repository,” available at http://www.oas.org/dsp/Observatorio/database/indicatorsdetails.aspx?lang=en&indicator=28 (last accessed February2016).

3 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “United StatesBorder Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject andUnaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions FiscalYear 2016,” available at http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2016 (last accessed March 2016); U.S. Customs andBorder Protection, “Southwest Border UnaccompaniedAlien Children FY 2014,” available at http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompa-nied-children/fy-2014 (last accessed March 2016).

4 Adam Isacson, Maureen Meyer, and Hannah Smith,“Increased Enforcement at Mexico’s Southern Border:An Update on Security, Migration, and U.S. Assistance”(Washington: Washington Office on Latin America,2015), available at http://www.wola.org/les/WOLA_In-creased_Enforcement_at_Mexico’s_Southern_Bor-der_Nov2015.pdf ; Muzaffar Chishti and Faye Hipsman,“Increased Central American Migration to the UnitedStates May Prove an Enduring Phenomenon,” MigrationPolicy Institute ,February 18, 2016 available at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/increased-central-american-migration-united-states-may-prove-endur-ing-phenomenon .

5 David Gagne, “InSight Crime’s 2015 Latin AmericaHomicide Round-up,” InSight Crime, January 14, 2016,available at http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/insight-crime-homicide-round-up-2015-latin-america-caribbean .

6 See, for example, National Immigrant Justice Center,“Know Your Rights” (2011), available athttp://im-migrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/les/NIJC%20%20KYRs%20Manual%20Feb%202011%20ENG.pdf ; National Immigrant Justice Center, “Im-migration and You. Know Your Rights: Manual forChildren and Youth 2014” (2014), available at http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/les/Immigration%20and%20You%202014.pdf .

7 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reau-thorization Act of 2008 , H. Rept. 7311, 110 Cong. 2 sess.(Government Printing Office, 2008), available at http://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htm .

8 Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, “YoungCenter Proposal for Best Interests of the Child Standard”(2013), available at http://theyoungcenter.org/wp-con-tent/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdf.

9 Human Rights First, “Frequently Asked Questions:Asylum Seekers and the Expedited Removal Process,”November 13, 2015, available at http://www.human-rightsrst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-process .

10 Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016, S. 2540, 114Cong. 2 sess. (Government Printing Office, 2016),available at http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Fair-Day-in-Court-for-Kids-Act.pdf ;Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016, H. Rept. 4646, 114Cong. 2 sess. (Government Printing Office, 2016), avail-able at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q={%22search%22%3A[%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22]}&resultIndex=1.

11 American Immigration Council, “Appointed Counselfor Children in Immigration Proceedings,” available athttp://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/appointed-counsel-children-immigration-proceedings (lastaccessed April 2016).

12 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reau-thorization Act of 2008 .

13 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, “Im-migration Court Backlog Tool: through January 2016,”available at http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/ (last accessed February 2016); MattGraham, “Funding Immigration Courts Should Not beControversial,” Bipartisan Policy Center, May 20, 2015,available at http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/funding-immigration-courts-should-not-be-controversial/ ;Human Rights First, “Reducing the Immigration CourtBacklog and Delays” (2016), available at http://www.hu-manrightsrst.org/sites/default/les/HRF-Background-er-Immigration-Courts.pdf ; American ImmigrationCouncil, “Empty Benches: Underfunding of ImmigrationCourts Undermines Justice” (2015), available at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/les/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_nal.pdf .

14 Silva Mathema, “They Are Refugees: An IncreasingNumber of People Are Fleeing Violence in the Northern Triangle,” Center for American Progress, February 24,2016, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-eeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/ .

15 Ibid.

16 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “United StatesBorder Patrol: Total Family Unit Apprehensions byMonth – FY 2013–FY 2016 To Date Through January,”available at http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/les/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdf (last accessed March 2016).

17 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Ques-tions & Answers: Credible Fear Screening,” available athttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fear-screening

(last accessed April 2016); U.S. Citizenship and Im-migration Services, “Questions & Answers: ReasonableFear Screenings,” available at https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screenings (last accessed April2016).

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdfhttp://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/GBAV3/GBAV3_Ch3_pp87-120.pdfhttp://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/GBAV3/GBAV3_Ch3_pp87-120.pdfhttp://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/GBAV3/GBAV3_Ch3_pp87-120.pdfhttp://www.unhcr.org/5630f24c6.htmlhttp://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/northern-triangle-world-extortion-hotspothttp://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/northern-triangle-world-extortion-hotspothttp://www.oas.org/dsp/Observatorio/database/indicatorsdetails.aspx?lang=en&indicator=28http://www.oas.org/dsp/Observatorio/database/indicatorsdetails.aspx?lang=en&indicator=28http://www.oas.org/dsp/Observatorio/database/indicatorsdetails.aspx?lang=en&indicator=28http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2016http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2016http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2016http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2014http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2014http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children/fy-2014http://www.wola.org/files/WOLA_Increased_Enforcement_at_Mexico's_Southern_Border_Nov2015.pdfhttp://www.wola.org/files/WOLA_Increased_Enforcement_at_Mexico's_Southern_Border_Nov2015.pdfhttp://www.wola.org/files/WOLA_Increased_Enforcement_at_Mexico's_Southern_Border_Nov2015.pdfhttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/increased-central-american-migration-united-states-may-prove-enduring-phenomenonhttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/increased-central-american-migration-united-states-may-prove-enduring-phenomenonhttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/increased-central-american-migration-united-states-may-prove-enduring-phenomenonhttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/increased-central-american-migration-united-states-may-prove-enduring-phenomenonhttp://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/insight-crime-homicide-round-up-2015-latin-america-caribbeanhttp://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/insight-crime-homicide-round-up-2015-latin-america-caribbeanhttp://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/insight-crime-homicide-round-up-2015-latin-america-caribbeanhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC%20%20KYRs%20Manual%20Feb%202011%20ENG.pdfhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC%20%20KYRs%20Manual%20Feb%202011%20ENG.pdfhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC%20%20KYRs%20Manual%20Feb%202011%20ENG.pdfhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC%20%20KYRs%20Manual%20Feb%202011%20ENG.pdfhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Immigration%20and%20You%202014.pdfhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Immigration%20and%20You%202014.pdfhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Immigration%20and%20You%202014.pdfhttp://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htmhttp://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htmhttp://theyoungcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdfhttp://theyoungcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdfhttp://theyoungcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-processhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-processhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-processhttp://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Fair-Day-in-Court-for-Kids-Act.pdfhttp://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Fair-Day-in-Court-for-Kids-Act.pdfhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q=%7b%22search%22%3A%5b%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22%5d%7d&resultIndex=1https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q=%7b%22search%22%3A%5b%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22%5d%7d&resultIndex=1https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q=%7b%22search%22%3A%5b%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22%5d%7d&resultIndex=1http://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/appointed-counsel-children-immigration-proceedingshttp://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/appointed-counsel-children-immigration-proceedingshttp://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/funding-immigration-courts-should-not-be-controversial/http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/funding-immigration-courts-should-not-be-controversial/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-Backgrounder-Immigration-Courts.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-Backgrounder-Immigration-Courts.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-Backgrounder-Immigration-Courts.pdfhttp://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_final.pdfhttp://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_final.pdfhttp://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_final.pdfhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdfhttp://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdfhttp://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdfhttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fear-screeninghttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fear-screeninghttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screeningshttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screeningshttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screeningshttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screeningshttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screeningshttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-reasonable-fear-screeningshttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fear-screeninghttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fear-screeninghttp://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdfhttp://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdfhttp://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Units%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY13-FY16TD-Jan.pdfhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/02/24/131645/they-are-refugees-an-increasing-number-of-people-are-fleeing-violence-in-the-northern-triangle/http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_final.pdfhttp://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_final.pdfhttp://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_-_immigration_court_backlogs_final.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-Backgrounder-Immigration-Courts.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-Backgrounder-Immigration-Courts.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-Backgrounder-Immigration-Courts.pdfhttp://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/funding-immigration-courts-should-not-be-controversial/http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/funding-immigration-courts-should-not-be-controversial/http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/http://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/appointed-counsel-children-immigration-proceedingshttp://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/appointed-counsel-children-immigration-proceedingshttps://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q=%7b%22search%22%3A%5b%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22%5d%7d&resultIndex=1https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q=%7b%22search%22%3A%5b%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22%5d%7d&resultIndex=1https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4646?q=%7b%22search%22%3A%5b%22fair+day+court+for+kids+act%22%5d%7d&resultIndex=1http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Fair-Day-in-Court-for-Kids-Act.pdfhttp://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Fair-Day-in-Court-for-Kids-Act.pdfhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-processhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-processhttp://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/frequently-asked-questions-asylum-seekers-and-expedited-removal-processhttp://theyoungcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdfhttp://theyoungcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdfhttp://theyoungcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-Young-Center-Proposal-for-Best-Interests-Standard.pdfhttp://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htmhttp://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htmhttp://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Immigration%20and%20You%202014.pdfhttp://immigrantjusti

a short-term plan to address the central american refugee situation

Documents