Ninth Circuit Immigrant Right to Counsel Decision
Maura Dolan for the Los Angeles Times reports on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that upheld an immigration judge’s decision to deny asylum to a minor identified as C.J.L.G., who left Honduras at age 13 after being threatened by gangs. The minor did not have a lawyer, and his mother was unable to find free legal help. The 9th Circuit said federal law did not guarantee paid lawyers for children in immigration court and that the teenage boy failed to show that he needed a lawyer to safeguard his rights.
Here is the decision. Judge Consuelo M. Callahan wrote for the three judge panel: “Because we hold that neither the Due Process Clause nor the INA creates a categorical right to court-appointed counsel at government expense for alien minors, and because we conclude that the Board’s determination on the merits is supported by substantial evidence, we deny C.J.’s petition.” (footnote omitted). The two other judges on the panel were John B. Owens, Circuit Judge, and David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Judge Owens’ concurrence notes the narrow scope of the panel’s ruling:
“I concur in the majority opinion and its narrow scope. It holds that the Due Process Clause does not mandate government-funded counsel for C.J.L.G, an accompanied minor. The opinion does not hold, or even discuss, whether the Due Process Clause mandates counsel for unaccompanied minors. That is a different question that could lead to a different answer. ” (citations omitted).
KJ