Unaccompanied Alien Children: Policies and Issues

Unaccompanied Alien Children: Policies and Issues

ȱ
—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ
˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
‘Š?ȱǯȱ Š??Š•ȱ
—Š•¢œ?ȱ’—ȱ ––’?›Š?’˜—ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
Š—žŠ›¢ȱŗśǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ?˜Ÿȱ
řřŞşŜȱ
ȱŽ™˜›?ȱ?˜›ȱ˜—?›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are aliens under the age of 18 who come to the United
States without authorization or overstay their visa, and are without a parent or legal guardian.
Most arrive at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended along the border with Mexico. With the
passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), UAC tasking was split between the newly
created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Refugee Removal (ORR). DHS was delegated the task of apprehension,
transfer and repatriation of UAC, while ORR was tasked to provide long-term detention and
foster placement. The issue for Congress concerns whether the current system provides adequate
protections for unaccompanied alien children.
The debate over UAC policy has polarized in recent years between two camps: child welfare
advocates arguing that the UAC are largely akin to refugees by being victims of abuse and
economic circumstances, and immigration security advocates charging that unauthorized
immigration is associated with increased community violence and illicit activities. Consequently,
these two camps advocate very different policies for the treatment of UAC. This polarization is to
some degree reflected in the tension between DHS and ORR, which despite attempts and
congressional urging have failed to produce a Memorandum of Understanding between the two
agencies.
In FY2007 DHS detained 8,227 UAC. Of these UAC, 76% of UAC were male and 24% female,
with 85% being between the ages of 14 and 18 and the remaining 15% being ages 0 to 13 years
old. Three countries—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—accounted for 85% of the UAC
detained in ORR custody.
In 1996, an agreement known as the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) was reached between
the government and human rights organizations that governs policy for the processing, detention,
and release of juveniles. Despite the implementation of the FSA, advocacy groups have charged
that DHS has failed to comply fully with the settlement terms. Among the concerns raised by
these groups are allegations of deliberate misclassifications of UAC as “accompanied,” inaccurate
age determination techniques, the use of UAC as bait for apprehending unauthorized alien family
members, and unsafe repatriation practices. Congress has also expressed concerns over several of
these issues.
As an outgrowth of the debates regarding the treatment of UAC, child welfare advocates have
contended that legal representation for UAC would prevent potential maltreatment and be in the
best interests of the child. Security advocates argue that aliens should not be granted legal
representation in civil proceedings at the government’s expense, because it would drain valuable
resources from the judicial system. Additionally, since the division of responsibility for handling
UAC was divided between DHS and ORR, custodial disputes have occasionally surfaced. This
report will be updated as warranted.

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
˜—?Ž—?œȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Standard Practices ........................................................................................................................... 3
Apprehension ............................................................................................................................ 6
Detention Facilities ................................................................................................................... 7
Philosophical Tensions .................................................................................................................. 10
Legal Representation............................................................................................................... 12
Custody ................................................................................................................................... 13
Legal Custody ................................................................................................................... 14
Claiming Asylum .............................................................................................................. 14
Gangs and Smuggling ............................................................................................................. 15
Apprehensions, Detentions, and UAC Characteristics.................................................................. 17
CBP Apprehensions................................................................................................................. 17
Juveniles Held by ORR ........................................................................................................... 18
Juveniles Held by DHS ........................................................................................................... 21
Current Issues ................................................................................................................................ 25
Advocacy Group Criticisms and DHS Responses .................................................................. 25
DHS Transfers................................................................................................................... 25
Defining “Unaccompanied”.............................................................................................. 26
Age Determination............................................................................................................ 27
Repatriation....................................................................................................................... 27
Legislation............................................................................................................................... 28

’?ž›Žœȱ
Figure 1. General Process for Juvenile Aliens Involved with the Immigration and Juvenile
Justice System .............................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Apprehensions of Unauthorized Juveniles by Customs and Border Protection,
FY2001-FY2006 ........................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 3. ORR Detentions of Unaccompanied Alien Children, FY2003-FY2007........................ 19
Figure 4. Country of Origin of Detained Unaccompanied Alien Children in ORR
Custody, FY2007........................................................................................................................ 21

Š‹•Žœȱ
Table 1. ORR Facilities by Location and Type, December 2006 .................................................... 8
Table 2. ICE Juvenile Facilities, December 2006 ........................................................................... 9
Table 3. Gender, Age and Country of Origin of Unaccompanied Alien Children in ORR
Custody, FY2004-FY2007 ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 4. UAC in ICE DRO Custody by Hours Held, FY2005-FY2006........................................ 22
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Table 5. UAC Held by ICE DRO 72 Hours or Longer by Reason for Extended Detention,
FY2005-FY2006 ........................................................................................................................ 24

˜—?ŠŒ?œȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 28

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
—?›˜?žŒ?’˜—ȱ
Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are aliens under the age of 18 who either come to the
United States without authorization or overstay their visa, and are without a parent or legal
guardian. They often arrive at United States ports of entry or are apprehended along the
southwestern border with Mexico. Less frequently they are apprehended in the interior (usually
on suspicion of illicit activity) and determined to be a juvenile and unaccompanied. Generally,
immigration authorities have apprehended more than 80,000 juveniles (both accompanied and
unaccompanied) annually, several thousand of whom are usually detained as UAC. The majority
of these children are aged 14 or older, although a number of them are younger—some as young as
infants.
Although individual circumstances dictate each juvenile’s case, the motivations of economic
need, persecution, or family unification have all been cited as the reason for UAC coming to the
United States.1 Detained UAC largely stem from less economically developed countries, such as
El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.2 Frequently, families will save up money to pay for a
child to travel to the United States to find work.3 U.S. wages and economic conditions generally
offer better opportunities than the economy of the child’s home country.4 In some UAC cases,
children come to the United States attempting to flee the violence or natural disasters they are
subjected to in their home countries.5 Other UAC cases may stem from parents or other family
members who have settled in the United States and have sent for a child to be transported from
the home country. In these latter cases, the parent or sibling sometimes entered the United States
and established employment as an unauthorized immigrant.6 Thus, it is not uncommon for
children categorized as UAC to actually have family living in the United States.7
The debate over UAC policy has polarized in recent years between two camps: child welfare
advocates and immigration security advocates. The former group has for decades advocated a
more refugee-oriented policy toward UAC, arguing that the UAC are largely victims of
trafficking, abuse, and economic circumstances. Security advocates, by contrast, advocate a more
restrictive policy of deportation and repatriation, charging that unauthorized immigration is
associated with increased community violence and illicit activities such as gang memberships.

1 Jacqueline Bhabha and Susan Schmidt, Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Refugee
Protection in the U.S., The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, June 2006, pp. 20-23, at
http://www.humanrights.harvard.edu/conference/Seeking_Asylum_Alone_US_Report.pdf, visited February 1, 2007
(hereafter, Jacqueline Bhabha and Susan Schmidt, Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and
Refugee Protection in the U.S.).
2 Based on CRS correspondence with Susana Ortiz-Ong, Deputy Director, Division of Unaccompanied Children’s
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, December 13, 2006.
3 Sylvia Moreno, “A Set of Borders to Cross: For Children Seeking Immigrant Relatives in U.S., Journey is Twofold,”
The Washington Post, October 23, 2006, pp. A1, A7.
4 Jacqueline Bhabha and Susan Schmidt, Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Refugee
Protection in the U.S., p. 20.
5 Ibid, p. 13.
6 It is not always the case that parents of UAC are unauthorized immigrants. In some cases, parents or legal guardians
have failed to obtain authorizing documentation for their children prior to travel to the United States.
7 Based upon CRS discussions with officials at the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee
Resettlement, September 6, 2006.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
The UAC policy question is how to provide for the security of the United States while
simultaneously safeguarding the rights and safe treatment of unaccompanied alien children.
ŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱ
During the 1980s, allegations of mistreatment of UAC by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) resulted in a series of lawsuits against the government. These
lawsuits culminated with the Supreme Court case of Reno v. Flores, which has become the
guiding case law for government agencies’ handling of UAC. Although the Court ruled in favor
of the INS’s UAC policy, a settlement agreement was drafted between the parties. Known as the
Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), this document spelled out specific guidelines for the
detainment, release and repatriation of UAC by the INS. The FSA remains the guiding document
regarding the treatment of UAC for both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which
are the two agencies currently involved in handling UAC.
The implementation of the Flores Settlement Agreement stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s
judgment in Reno v. Flores.8 The case was brought by human rights advocacy organizations
against the INS charging that the release policy and conditions of detention violated the legal
rights of alien juveniles. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that the INS’ release policy was
reasonable, as were the conditions of detention.9 Yet, three years later the plaintiffs in Flores
negotiated a settlement agreement with the INS on the processing, detention and release of
juveniles. The language of the agreement became the basis on which some of the new regulations
were drafted.10 The agreement also provided procedural instructions to field officers for
implementing the new policies.11
For several years following the FSA, criticism continued over whether the INS had fully
implemented the regulations that had been drafted.12 Then, with the passage of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HSA),13 the task of handling UAC was split between the newly created
DHS and ORR. DHS was delegated the task of apprehension, transfer and repatriation of UAC,
while ORR was tasked to provide long-term detention and foster placement. The HSA

8 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
9 The Supreme Court determined that the detention of alien juveniles fell within the scope of the government’s interest
under parens patrie. Additionally, striking down the former-INS’ policy would endanger the government’s role in a
host of other parens patrie functions, including handling orphans. Also, the conditions of detention were deemed
sufficient by the court, provided that they complied with regulations (507 U.S. 292 (1993).
10 U.S. Department of Justice, “Delegation of Authorities for Various Detention and Removal Authorities and the
Parole, Detention, Care and Custody of Alien Juveniles,” Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 110 (July 24, 1998), pp. 39255-
39260.
11 Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, Flores v. Meese: Final Text of Settlement Establishing Minimum
Standards and Conditions for Housing and Release of Juveniles in INS Custody, Exhibit 2, at
http://web.centerforhumanrights.net:8080/centerforhumanrights/children/Document.2004-06-18.8124043749/.
12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Open Inspector General Recommendations
Concerning the Former Immigration and Naturalization Service from Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, a
Report by the Department of Justice Inspector General, Executive Summary, Report No. OIG-05-45, September 2005
(hereafter, DHS, Open Inspector General Recommendations Concerning the Former Immigration and Naturalization
Service from Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, a Report by the Department of Justice Inspector General).
13 P.L. 107-296.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
additionally established a statutory definition of UAC as juveniles without the accompaniment of
a parent or legal guardian. Despite the government’s delegation of UAC responsibility between
two agencies, the criticism of UAC handling (particularly concerning initial detention) has not
subsided.14
Child welfare advocacy groups have continued to protest the detention conditions of DHS
facilities and the agency’s policies on UAC. In 2001, these protests led the Department of Justice
(DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to investigate the charges of continuing
mistreatment of alien juveniles in custody. The report found that although the INS had developed
a Juvenile Protocol Manual15 and strategic implementation plans for the FSA, the report
concluded that there were ongoing deficiencies in the agency’s handling of UAC with
“potentially serious consequences for the well-being of the juvenile.”16 The DOJ report
additionally provided 28 open recommendations for complying with the FSA. In 2004, the DHS
OIG wrote a report on the implementation of the DOJ recommendations.17 The OIG report found
that several recommendations remained open due to uncertainty over responsibility between DHS
and HHS.
According to one study on children in government custody, between January 2003 and July 2006,
approximately 70% of adjudicated cases resulted in the deportation of the child.18 Furthermore,
approximately 2% of the children in closed cases were granted asylum, while the majority of the
remaining cases were closed because the juveniles requested to have their applications
withdrawn.19
?Š—?Š›?ȱ›ŠŒ?’ŒŽœȱ
When a juvenile is apprehended by a DHS officer, a standard set of procedures take effect. These
procedures are listed in the flow chart presented in Figure 1 below. First among these procedures
is determining whether a juvenile is accompanied. The standard practice of classifying an alien
juvenile as “unaccompanied” is based upon the statutory definition of “unaccompanied alien
juvenile” from the Homeland Security Act. The HSA amended the United States Code in 6 USC
§279(g)(2) to provide the following statutory definition:

14 Although a 2005 report by the DHS OIG found that the DHS had complied with its responsibility to treat
apprehended UAC with dignity and concern, there were still outstanding issues for bringing the agency into compliance
with the FSA. Advocacy groups have also continued to charge that DHS has failed to comply fully with the FSA, often
citing anecdotal evidence of agency misconduct such as failing to inform juveniles of free legal services (DHS, Open
Inspector General Recommendations Concerning the Former Immigration and Naturalization Service from
Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, a Report by the Department of Justice Inspector General).
15 When CRS checked the online version of the manual, on December 12, 2006, the Manual had last been updated in
November 2003. The manual also referred to INS duties and policies, rather than DHS and ORR.
16 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, Executive
Summary, Report no. I-2001-009, September 28, 2001.
17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Open Inspector General Recommendations
Concerning the Former Immigration and Naturalization Service from Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, a
Report by the Department of Justice Inspector General, Report no. OIG-04-18, March 2004.
18 The figures are from a forthcoming study by the Vera Institute of Justice that analyzes 18,000 cases of children in
government custody. The figures are cited in Cara Anna, “Few Aiding Children Facing Deportation,” The Associated
Press, December 1, 2006.
19 The article is unclear as to whether the 18,000 cases being analyzed are only for cases of UAC or if detained
accompanied children are analyzed as well.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
The term ‘unaccompanied alien child’ means a child who:
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom—
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and
physical custody.
If neither a parent or a legal guardian (with a court-order to that effect) is with the juvenile at the
time of apprehension, or within a geographical proximity20 to quickly provide care for the
juvenile, the juvenile alien is classified as “unaccompanied.”21 The statutes and regulations do not
provide definitions for what constitutes a legally “accompanied” alien child.

20 The term “geographical proximity” is not defined. CRS conversations with DHS officials suggested that there was
some discretion for field officers to determine what constitutes a reasonable geographic proximity.
21 8 CFR §236.3(b)(1)
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. General Process for Juvenile Aliens Involved with the Immigration and Juvenile Justice System

Source: CRS Presentation of chart from National Juvenile Justice Network, “Undocumented Immigrant Youth: Guide for Advocates and Service Providers,” Policy Brief No.
2, November 2006.
Ȭśȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
™™›Ž‘Ž—œ’˜—ȱ
Unaccompanied alien children are generally apprehended at the border by the DHS Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) or in the interior by DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
If local law enforcement authorities contact ICE to notify them that a possible unauthorized alien
minor is in their custody, ICE immediately places a detainer on that minor until the child can be
transferred to a DHS facility.22 ICE subsequently attempts to determine whether the minor has
any family living in the United States. For cases that are ambiguous, the field officers23 and
regional juvenile coordinators may contact the National Juvenile Coordinator24 in Washington,
DC, for clarification. If a child is determined to be unaccompanied, he or she is usually
transferred to Office of Refugee Removal (ORR) custody within 72 hours. The FSA allows for a
3-5 day time frame for transfer from DHS to ORR, although 72 hours has been established as the
standard practice by DHS. However, if the juvenile is determined not to be “unaccompanied”
then the juvenile remains in the custody of DHS, according to DHS officials.
Once an unaccompanied alien child is detained by DHS, the juvenile is held separately from
adults in either a flexible use or continuous use facility.25 During this time period, DHS
authorities will determine the juvenile’s age, conduct background checks, ascertain the juvenile’s
nationality, and notify the appropriate consulate that the juvenile is being detained by DHS.26 At
any point the juvenile may withdraw his or her application for admission and be allowed to return
to his or her country of origin.27 If the juvenile is from Mexico or Canada, consular officials from
those countries are contacted to arrange for the transfer of the juvenile.28 If the child is from
another country, transportation is arranged in consultation with that country’s consulate.
However, if the juvenile does not withdraw his application for admission, the child will be placed
in removal proceedings.
Most unaccompanied children are placed in a removal proceeding under §240 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA).29 However, there are a few circumstances which serve as exceptions.
Generally, UAC are not eligible for expedited removal,30 but if a child has previously been issued

22 In conversations with CRS, DHS officials noted that they have “strict standards” for any facility to operate as a
secure juvenile facility under DHS contract which includes a list of 162 criteria.
23 The term “field officer” refers throughout this report to apprehending agents of either CBP or ICE.
24 The DHS ICE Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) National Juvenile Coordinator has direct authority over DHS
field personnel in decisions relating to the proper handling of juveniles, including the placement of juveniles in DHS-
funded facilities, the transfer of juveniles to other facilities, or their release from DHS custody.
25 DHS has three continuous use facilities, which all serve as family unity facilities. All other facilities used by DHS to
detain UAC are flexible use, meaning the usage varies depending on whether DHS has a need for the available bed
space.
26 The FSA has established the right of an apprehended UAC to be informed of their rights to contact someone, to be
represented by an attorney, to a hearing before an immigration judge, to judicial review of their case, and to a list of
free legal services in the area. The only exception for these rights is for UAC that are eligible for expedited removal.
27 8 CFR §236.3(g). The cited regulation also requires that all juveniles must establish contact with a parent, relative,
friend, free legal services organization, or consular officer prior to being released.
28 Ibid.
29 Whenever an unaccompanied child is placed in removal proceedings, the child’s relatives in the United States, if any,
are contacted. If these relatives (individuals who are either parents, legal guardians, adult siblings, aunts, uncles, or
grandparents) accept custody of the child, they sign documents acknowledging custody. Additionally, these relatives
become responsible for producing the juvenile at any immigration proceedings. (8 CFR §236.3)
30 Under expedited removal, an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful
(continued...)
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
a final order of removal, or the child has a criminal record, that juvenile is not subject to the same
procedural practices as other unaccompanied alien juveniles. Rather, those children may be
placed in expedited removal.31 Additionally, DHS may detain any unaccompanied alien child that
is deemed to be a security threat, and has some discretion in making such determinations.
This decision to place an unaccompanied alien child in expedited or formal removal is made by
the field officers. A child erroneously placed in expedited removal (by mistakenly being identified
as having a previous criminal conviction or final order of removal) may be transferred out of that
process.32 Juveniles in expedited removal are placed under ORR’s care and ORR is not allowed to
release them.
Ž?Ž—?’˜—ȱŠŒ’•’?’Žœȱ
Generally, a child who is classified as a UAC and has no previous criminal conviction or removal
order issued against him is transferred into the custody of ORR within 72 hours. In the time-span
between the apprehension and the transfer of the UAC, however, DHS must still provide safe and
sanitary detention facilities for juveniles in compliance with the FSA.33 For those juveniles that
must be detained,34 ICE DRO is largely responsible for detentions, although CBP occasionally
must hold UAC until they can be transferred to DRO. DHS currently has contracted with a
number of flexible-use facilities, particularly in the southwestern United States, as temporary bed
space for apprehended minors. DHS must detain children separately from unrelated adults.35
Furthermore, the FSA held that a juvenile may only be held in secure facilities under one or more
of the following conditions:
• A child is charged or chargeable with criminal or delinquent actions;
• A child threatens or commits violence;
• A child’s conduct becomes unacceptably disruptive in a shelter facility;
• A child presents an escape risk;

(...continued)
misrepresentation of facts to gain admission into the United States is inadmissible and may be removed from the United
States without any further hearings or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear
of persecution (CRS Report RL33109, Immigration Policy on Expedited Removal of Aliens, by Alison Siskin and Ruth
Ellen Wasem).
31 The term “expedited removal” refers to removal under INA §235(b). For more information on expedited removal,
see CRS Report RL33109, Immigration Policy on Expedited Removal of Aliens, by Alison Siskin and Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
32 A “criminal alien juvenile” as referred to in this report is a juvenile who is removable on criminal grounds under INA
§212(a)(2) or INA §237(a)(2).
33 Prior to the HSA, the INS held juveniles in five different types of facilities: short-term housing, foster homes, shelter
care facilities, medium-secure facilities, and secure detention facilities (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody. Executive Summary, Report no. I-2001-009, September
28, 2001). All of these facilities were licensed by state or local governments. ORR has since taken over foster care
programs. CRS is not aware of whether DHS currently uses the other categorical distinctions for its facilities.
34 It is the policy of DRO to transfer all UAC, including those with criminal convictions, to ORR custody within 72
hours. This transfer policy, however, does not extend to UAC that are deemed potential threats to national security;
rather, such juveniles remain in the custody of DHS.
35 The FSA stipulates that where such a separation is not possible, a juvenile may be held with an unrelated adult for no
more than 24 hours.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
• A child is in danger and is securely detained for their own safety; or
• An emergency, or influx of minors, results in insufficient bed space at non-secure
facilities.36
When under the care of ORR, UAC are placed in licensed facilities37 that are contracted or under
cooperative agreements.38 These facilities are largely located near areas of high juvenile
apprehension rates to minimize the transfer time from DHS custody. These facilities provide
children with education, health care, mental health services, socialization/recreation, access to
legal services, and family reunification services. There are also special needs services available
for children with acute medical and mental health needs. The facilities range in level of security
and openness, from nonsecure to staff secure39 to secure detention.40 Foster care placement is also
available for children with special needs through the refugee foster care program network.41
As Table 1 shows, as of December 2006 there were 42 facilities operated by ORR for the care of
UAC.42 A significant majority of these facilities were located in states that have either major ports
of entry into the United States or have large inflows of unauthorized aliens. ORR strategically
placed the largest number of facilities in the border states of Arizona, California, and Texas,
which combined hold 56% of ORR’s UAC facilities. Of the 42 facilities ORR operated, 36 were
shelter care, group homes, and transitional foster care programs. Additionally, ORR operated
three staff-secure facilities and two secure detention facilities. ORR contracts with residential
treatment centers for children with psychiatric and mental health needs on an as needed basis.43
Table 1. ORR Facilities by Location and Type, December 2006
State Facilities
Arizona
4 shelter and transitional foster care programs;
1 long-term foster care site
California
5 shelter programs;
1 secure program

36 Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, Flores v. Meese: Final Text of Settlement Establishing Minimum
Standards and Conditions for Housing and Release of Juveniles in INS Custody, Exhibit 2, at
http://web.centerforhumanrights.net:8080/centerforhumanrights/children/Document.2004-06-18.8124043749/.
37 In addition to being licensed, these facilities must meet a number of ORR requirements.
38 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Removal, “Social Services.” Unaccompanied
Alien Children, May 8, 2006, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/benefits/rss.htm.
39 A “staff secure” facility is generally understood as a group facility or home at which each juvenile is continuously
under staff supervision and at which all services, including but not limited to education and treatment, are provided on
site. A staff secure facility may or may not be a locked facility. These facilities are commonly used by ORR for
children with behavioral management issues.
40 The secure detention facilities are used by ORR for individuals with a criminal history. ORR has discontinued the
use of county lock-down juvenile detention centers, and has reduced the number of secure detention centers from 32 in
FY2003 to 2 in FY2006 (based on CRS correspondence with Susana Ortiz-Ong, Deputy Director, Division of
Unaccompanied Children’s Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, December 13, 2006).
41 ORR increased the number of annual foster care placements available to UAC to 100 in FY2006. These long-term
foster care placements are performed through the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services and the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops. (Ibid.)
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Şȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
State Facilities
2 shelter programs;
Florida
1 long-term foster care site;
1 residential treatment center
Illinois 1
shelter
program
Indiana
1 staff-secure program;
1 secure program
Massachusetts
1 long term foster care site
Michigan
3 long-term foster care sites
New York
1 shelter program
Pennsylvania
1 long-term foster care site
Texas
11 shelter, group home and transitional foster care programs;
1 long-term foster care site
Virginia
1 long-term foster care site
2 shelter and transitional foster care programs;
Washington
1 staff-secure program;
2 long-term foster care sites
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished HHS ORR data (2006).
In terms of the facilities available to DRO for detaining juveniles, there were 22 facilities in the
United States as of December 2006, as displayed in Table 2. Of these facilities, three were under
continuous use, while the remaining 19 served as flexible use facilities as needs for bed space
arises. The three facilities under continuous use served as family unity facilities. All DRO
juvenile only facilities were under flexible use contracts, with no specific bed space reserved for
DRO. The only states that had both DRO juvenile facilities and ORR facilities were Arizona,
California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. As a result of the 30 ORR facilities
in these six states, a total of 73% of all ORR facilities had a DRO facility in the same state. By
contrast, only 41% of DRO facilities had an ORR facility in the same state.
Table 2. ICE Juvenile Facilities, December 2006
State
Facility Name
Facility Typea #
Bedsb
Alaska
McLaughlin Youth Center
Flexible
NA
Arizona
Gila County Juvenile Detention Center
Flexible
NA
California
Casa San Juan
Continuous
As needed and
as available
Idaho
Snake River Juvenile Detention Facility
Flexible
NA
Kansas
Shawnee County Juvenile Detention
Flexible
NA
Anoka County Shelter
Flexible
NA
Anoka County Juvenile Center
Flexible
NA
Minnesota
Carver County Juvenile Detention Facility
Flexible
NA
East Central Regional Juvenile Center
Flexible
NA
Washington County LEC Juvenile Home
Flexible
NA
Montana
Ted Lechner Youth Services Center
Flexible
NA
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
şȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
State
Facility Name
Facility Typea #
Bedsb
Compass House Shelter
Flexible
NA
New York
Casey House Shelter
Flexible
NA
Equinox Youth Shelter
Flexible
NA
Sarpy County Juvenile Justice Center
Flexible
NA
Nebraska
NE Nebraska Juvenile Service, Inc.
Flexible
NA
North Dakota
Grand Forks County Juvenile Detention Center
Flexible
NA
Oregon
NOROC Juvenile Detention Facility
Flexible
NA
Berks County Youth Center
Flexible
NA
Pennsylvania
Berks Family Shelter
Continuous
84
Texas
T. Don Hutto
Continuous
512
Washington
Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention
Flexible
NA
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished ICE DRO data.
a. Facilities deemed ‘flexible use’ are those facilities that are used on an as-needed basis, with no beds
specifically reserved for ICE DRO. Facilities deemed “continuous use” are those facilities for which all beds
are for the exclusive use of ICE DRO. These latter facilities are noted with italics in the table.
b. Only family unity facilities are designated as “continuous use.” These family unity facilities are: T. Don Hutto
Family Shelter, Berks Family Shelter, and Casa San Juan, a facility shared between ICE DRO and the U.S.
Marshall’s Office. Casa San Juan houses only adult females and their minor children.
Some of the facilities for ORR and DRO had are within four hour ground transportation44 of each
other, but a number of the facilities fall outside this range. For example, for juveniles detained at
the six DRO facilities in Minnesota or North Dakota, the closest ORR facilities are located in
Illinois. Therefore, the likelihood that a juvenile will be held for more than 72 hours by DHS
increases, because arranging such transportation is not always possible.
‘’•˜œ˜™‘’ŒŠ•ȱŽ—œ’˜—œȱ
An underlying tension in dealing with UAC is the philosophical positions of the government
agencies involved in the handling of the children. Specifically, the dominant cleavage line from
which many other issues spring is that of whether the UAC should be treated as humanitarian
refugees or as unauthorized aliens subject to expedited removal. Those who advocate more of a
refugee approach see the children as victims who have been forced to migrate across borders out
of hardship circumstances.45 Alternatively, those who focus on the enforcement issues tend to
highlight the cost burden placed upon U.S. citizens and legal immigrants by creating incentives
for unauthorized juvenile immigration, including detrimental spillover effects such as increased
criminal enforcement costs.46 These tensions have resulted in legislation pitting government

44 Four hours of ground transportation or less from DRO to ORR facilities is a transport time that DHS officials
consider desirable.
45 For example, see Jacqueline Bhabha and Susan Schmidt, Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated
Children and Refugee Protection in the U.S.
46 Stephen Johnson, “Immigration Plans Need a Foreign Policy Component,” The Heritage Foundation, Webmemo
#948, December 19, 2005, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm948.cfm.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŖȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
agencies with conflicting missions against each other,47 and generating confusion among
advocates and government actors alike.48
There are a few notable sources of these philosophical tensions, including the guiding principles
and the agency tasking stemming from the HSA. ORR’s experience with juvenile aliens prior to
UAC had been the handling of unaccompanied refugees and Cuban-Haitian entrants.49 These
juveniles have been provided with various forms of services and care governed by child welfare
regulations. Thus, when absorbing the UAC detention program, ORR employed many of the
policies and procedures that it uses in treating unaccompanied refugees and Cuban-Haitian
entrants.50 This same philosophy is reflected in the guiding principles the agency has for the UAC
program, including (1) treating UAC with “dignity, respect, and a special concern for their
particular vulnerabilities;” and (2) accounting for the unique nature of each child’s situation in
making placement, case management, and release decisions.”51
As guided by the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), DHS is also concerned with the safety and
well-being of juveniles that it apprehends. Yet, in contrast to ORR’s refugee-based mission, the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) of DHS
has the mission of enforcing U.S. immigration laws to ensure “the departure from the United
States of all removable aliens.”52 This agency also has the difficult task, however, of balancing
potential security threats alongside child welfare concerns. DHS and its subagencies operate
under a strategic goal of identifying potential threats and vulnerabilities to the homeland
(including terrorist and criminal risks).53 The previous actions of DHS indicate that it does not
rule out the potential use by terrorists of alien juveniles for terrorist actions against the United
States.54 DHS therefore must not only provide dignified care to a juvenile in their custody, but
they simultaneously must evaluate the potential security and criminal risk that each apprehended
UAC poses.

47 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, A
Review of DHS’ Responsibilities for Juvenile Aliens, OIG-05-45, September 2005, pp. 23-24.
48 Based on CRS discussions with attorneys from both the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children and the
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) & Council Migration Service of Philadelphia.
49 The term “refugee” refers to those juveniles that were screened prior to their arrival in the United States. The term
“entrants” in this context refers to juveniles arriving from Haiti or Cuba, and who are subsequently reclassified as
unaccompanied refugee minors. For additional information on refugees and Cuban and Haitian entrants, see CRS
Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno; CRS Report RS21349, U.S.
Immigration Policy on Haitian Migrants, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; and CRS Report RS20468, Cuban Migration Policy
and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
50 Based on CRS discussion with Maureen Dunn, Director of the Division of Unaccompanied Children’s Services at
HHS ORR, September 6, 2006.
51 Additional guiding principles for the ORR UAC program are (1) providing “care and services free from
discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex handicap, or political beliefs,” as well as (2) placing a UAC
“in the least restrictive setting appropriate for to their age and special need.” (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Refugee Removal, “Services,” Unaccompanied Alien Children, May 8, 2006, at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/uac.htm).
52 U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ENDGAME: Office of Detention an
Removal Strategic Plan, 2003-2012, June 27, 2003.
53 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Strategic Plan—Securing Our Homeland, September 23, 2006, at
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/strategicplan/index.shtm.
54 Nina Bernstein and Eric Lichtblau, “Two Girls Held As U.S. Fears Suicide Bomb,” The New York Times, April 7,
2005, p. B1.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŗȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
A significant result of these interagency philosophical tensions is the lack of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between DHS and ORR.55 Despite a number of contentious issues
between the agencies, a previous effort was made by the agencies to draft an MOU, but the
negotiations resulted in a “stalemate.”56 Issues such as information sharing, location of facilities,
release notification, age determination, and UAC classification are some of the contentious points
that have yet to be addressed by an MOU. At present, there is a Statement of Principles between
DHS and HHS, but the statement is broad and does not address all of the interagency issues.57
This Statement of Principles constitutes the only current, formal agreement between HHS and
DHS on UAC.
Ž?Š•ȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—?Š?’˜—ȱ
Providing UAC with legal representation has long been an important issue for child welfare
advocates, and was one of the central tenets of the FSA. Legal representation is seen by many
child welfare advocates as a necessary safeguard to not only prevent maltreatment, but also to
secure the rights and protect the best interests of the children. According to the terms stipulated
by the FSA, each unaccompanied alien child is to be provided with (1) a form I-770,58 which
explains the immigration process; (2) a list of free legal services; and (3) an explanation of the
right to judicial review. Additionally, in accordance with terms from the decision in Perze-Funez
v. INS, UAC are to be advised by DHS of their right to a hearing before being presented with a
voluntary departure form.59
Under the current regulations, the immigration courts and handling agencies are not required to
provide UAC with legal representation. Removal proceedings are civil proceedings, and therefore
aliens are allowed to have council but are not entitled to counsel at government expense as they
are in criminal proceedings.60 Reportedly, many alien juveniles appear at legal proceedings
without representation.61 Immigration judges reportedly find this lack of legal representation
frustrating because the juveniles are frequently unable to comprehend the proceedings.62
Juveniles often need the proceedings explained to them through a translator. In this respect, the
difficulties for judges at juvenile proceedings mirror those of adult proceedings, since many
adults facing removal experience linguistic and legal comprehension difficulties as well.63

55 This lack of an MOU was highlighted in a report by the DHS Office of the Inspector General (U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, A Review of DHS’
Responsibilities for Juvenile Aliens, OIG-05-45, September 2005, p. 24).
56 According to a 2005 DHS OIG report, ORR had been concerned with privacy and social services issues, while ICE
DRO had security concerns. These contrasting concerns resulted in the agencies reaching an impasse on the MOU.
(Ibid.)
57 Statement of Principles Between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human
Services, Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Program, April 6, 2004.
58 Form I-770 is the “Notice of Rights and Disposition.”
59 619 F. Supp. 656 (C.D. Cal. 1985). Additionally, the Perez-Funez decision ordered the INS to allow UAC
apprehended near the Mexican or Canadian border, and who resided in the respective border country, to contact by
telephone a parent, close relative, friend, or pro bono legal services agency.
60 INA §240(b)(4)(A).
61 Cara Anna, “Few Aiding Children Facing Deportation,” The Associated Press, December 1, 2006.
62 Ibid.
63 For additional discussion of linguistic issues in adult removal proceedings, see Detention Working Group,
Massachusetts Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor...: A Report on Due Process
Issues in the Handling of Immigration Detainees in Massachusetts, June 29, 2005, at http://www.nlgmass.org/
(continued...)
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŘȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
According to one news report, judges will occasionally ask volunteer lawyers to step in and assist
on the juvenile’s behalf.64
To provide legal representation for UAC, many child welfare advocates have developed
organizations that offer pro bono legal services.65 To encourage more pro bono representation,
some of these organizations provide training for attorneys on representing child clients,66 as well
as online reference materials and mentoring attorneys. However, since legal representation for
UAC is not required, one of the difficulties cited by these groups for the pro bono services is
getting juveniles to contact them. Despite available pro bono services, many children reportedly
do not seek out legal representatives.67
žœ?˜?¢ȱ
Since 1999, custody for UAC has become an increasingly complex issue. One complicating
factor was the arrival of and subsequent tensions over Elian Gonzalez, which raised questions
over a child’s ability to claim asylum in the United States without a parent’s consent.68 Additional
complications occurred when the INS was dissolved following the HSA transferring
responsibilities for UAC to ORR. Apprehensions became the duty of both CBP and ICE, and ICE
DRO became responsible for transferring UAC to ORR. Consequently, these DHS agencies were
responsible for determining whether an individual was an unaccompanied alien child or an
adult—a responsibility resulting in occasional age determination and custodial disputes between
DHS and advocacy groups.69

(...continued)
DWGreport070105.pdf.
64 Cara Anna, “Few Aiding Children Facing Deportation,” The Associated Press, December 1, 2006.
65 For example, one such organization is The National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children, which was
established in 2005.
66 Some recent child welfare efforts have proposed assigning guardians ad litem to each UAC that is detained.
Guardians ad litem are individuals who are assigned to represent the best interest of the child. These individuals would
in some cases be an immigration attorney, but other professionals could be used as well. Social workers and other
trained professionals may also be used for these purposes (Jacqueline Bhabha and Susan Schmidt, Seeking Asylum
Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Refugee Protection in the U.S., pp. 81-85).
67 According to some accounts, the most likely reason these children do not seek out pro bono legal services could be
attributed to the possibility that the children are intimidated by the process of taking such actions on their own (see
Jacqueline Bhabha and Susan Schmidt, Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Refugee
Protection in the U.S., p. 6, or Cara Anna, “Few Aiding Children Facing Deportation,” The Associated Press,
December 1, 2006. Furthermore, this pattern of lacking legal representation mirrors that of adult aliens in removal
proceeding. In FY2005, the immigration courts completed 314,218 removal proceedings, and 65% of the aliens in these
proceedings lacked representation (Executive Office of Immigration Review, FY2005 Statistical Yearbook, February
2006, p. G1).
68 For a discussion on the Elian Gonzalez case, see CRS Report RL30570, Elian Gonzalez: Chronology and Issues, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem and Barbara A. Salazar; and CRS Report RS20450, The Case of Elian Gonzalez: Legal Basics, by
Larry M. Eig.
69 Jennifer Smythe, “Age Determination Authority of Unaccompanied Alien Children and the Demand for Legislative
Reform,” Interpreter Releases, vol. 81, no. 23 (June 7, 2004), pp. 753-763.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗřȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Ž?Š•ȱžœ?˜?¢ȱ
Numerous issues pertaining to which agency has legal custody have yet to be resolved. One
example of such ambiguity is when an unaccompanied alien child is under ORR care. There is no
memorandum of understanding between the two agencies on such matters, only a broad statement
of principles. Furthermore, age determination methods and assumptions play an important role in
who takes custody of a potential unaccompanied alien child, since current scientific methods do
not offer precise age results.70 Some child welfare advocates believe that a significant number
children may be placed in the custody of the wrong agency because they are misclassified as
adults.71
According to DHS officials, the overriding principle in determining custody of a juvenile for
DHS is HSA.72 Generally, if a juvenile is determined to be unaccompanied as defined by HSA,
then the juvenile is transferred to ORR’s custody. Such transfers also include juveniles with a
criminal conviction or who are under expedited removal proceedings.
Occasionally, state or local jurisdictions will have custody of an unaccompanied alien child. If a
child is apprehended by local or state authorities for some type of criminal action,73 and the child
is suspected of being an unauthorized alien, DHS is notified by the authorities to come and make
a determination. If a child is determined by DHS to be an unaccompanied alien child, DHS will
not take that child into custody until the state or local authorities have determined that their
proceedings are complete.74 This may mean that an unaccompanied alien child has to serve a state
sentence in a county juvenile detention facility or juvenile shelter care facility before being
transferred to DHS custody. Some localities, however, choose to terminate their proceedings
when a juvenile is determined to be an unaccompanied alien child, in order to expedite the
transfer to DHS. Such state and local proceeding terminations means that DHS has no record of
the criminal charges in their database if the juvenile is apprehended in the future.75 Consequently,
DHS would have no information in its records to indicate whether the individual represented a
criminal threat upon a future inspection or apprehension.
•Š’–’—?ȱœ¢•ž–ȱ
For those UAC who wish to claim asylum in the United States, the asylum process is broadly
similar to the adult process, but with some key distinctions. While the general statutory
requirements for children remain the same as adults,76 both the DHS guidelines and case law

70 Ibid.
71 Based on CRS discussions with attorneys from both the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children and the
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) & Council Migration Service of Philadelphia.
72 Based on CRS discussion with John Pogash, Chief of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit in DHS ICE’s Office
of Detention & Removal, December 19, 2006.
73 Since a juvenile may be apprehended by local officials for delinquent activities (e.g. violating curfew), a delinquent
juvenile could potentially be reported to ICE DRO by state and local officials as well.
74 A detainer is placed on the UAC so that the child is not released from custody when proceedings are complete, but is
instead transferred to DHS. This is similar with alien adults who, under statute, must complete their criminal sentences
prior to being taken into ICE custody.
75 Based on CRS discussion with John Pogash, Chief of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit in DHS ICE’s Office
of Detention & Removal, December 19, 2006.
76 Generally see Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŚȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
provide an unclear picture of the qualifying requirements. For example, to qualify for asylum, a
child does not need to show that his or her persecutor had malicious intent, nor that he or she
sought government protection.77 Yet simultaneously, there is ambiguity as to how old a child
separated from a parent must be before that child can apply for asylum without parental consent.
The cases of Walter Polovchak78 and Elian Gonzalez79 established that while a 12-year-old minor
was old enough to independently seek asylum, a six year old needed to be represented by an adult
in immigration matters. The lack of a definitive age for asylum is further complicated by the fact
that these two cases were decided in the context of highly charged foreign affairs considerations,
concerning the former-Soviet Union and Cuba, respectively.
Š—?œȱŠ—?ȱ–ž??•’—?ȱ
Recent years have seen a rise in gangs with cross-national affiliations, particularly ties from the
regions of Central America and East Asia to the United States.80 Observers have been concerned
with the growing involvement of these gangs in human smuggling of unauthorized individuals
across U.S. borders. A number of these smuggled individuals are juvenile aliens; some are
smuggled with family members and others come unaccompanied. The increased border security
along the southwestern border with Mexico has made the smuggling of persons both more
difficult and more profitable.81 Some have maintained that children have become especially
lucrative for smugglers, who frequently charge twice as much to smuggle a child than an adult.82
Reportedly, gangs have become a common link in the smuggling of UAC and are charging as
much as $6,000 per child in Central America.83
In regard to the issues of UAC and gang involvement in migration, there are two concerns for
policy makers. Mirroring the broader debate, the gang-related discussions divide the refugee
advocates against the security advocates. These two issues concern the (1) UAC as impoverished
victims that are easily exploited during smuggling operations, and (2) the inflow of UAC as
potential or existing gang members.84 The first of these issues represents a view largely held by
refugee agencies, as well as a position largely reflected in policies of ORR. Advocates of treating
all UAC as victims point to the allegedly significant levels of physical and sexual abuse85 that

77 Memorandum from Jeff Weiss, Office of International Affairs, to all INS Asylum Officers, File NO. 120/11.26,
Guidelines for Children’s Asylum Claims (December 10, 1998).
78 Polovchak v. Meese, 774 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1985).
79 Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000).
80 For discussion on Central American gang violence, see CRS Report RL34112, Gangs in Central America, by Clare
Ribando Seelke.
81 An article highlighted the fact that the smuggling of persons was both less risky (due to less punitive sentences) and
more profitable than drug trafficking, making the transition to such illicit activity appealing for many criminal
organizations (Patrick Radden Keefe, “The Snakehead,” The New Yorker, June 24, 2006, at
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060424fa_fact6).
82 Tim Gaynor, “Children Cross U.S. Border Solo as Security Rises.” Reuters, December 4, 2006.
83 Sylvia Moreno, “A Set of Borders to Cross: For Children Seeking Immigrant Relatives in U.S., Journey is Twofold,”
The Washington Post, October 23, 2006, pp. A1, A7.
84 Recent news accounts have noted that the number of immigrants seeking asylum on the basis of gang activity in their
home country has increased. These asylum claims include children, who claim they are threatened to be killed by gang
members in their home country if they do not join the gang (N.C. Aizenman, “More Immigrants Seeking Asylum Cite
Gang Violence,” The Washington Post, November 15, 2006, p. A8.
85 According to ORR officials, human smuggling through criminal organizations has become especially troublesome
because of the physical and psychological effects it has upon children. Increasingly, the children have become targets
(continued...)
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗśȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
occurs en route to the United States by smugglers and gang members.86 Additionally, a number of
these children reportedly do not travel of their own accord. Instead, they are sent by impoverished
families to find work in the United States and send remittance payments to their home country.
According to advocacy groups, these mitigating circumstances, along with their legal juvenile
status, warrants a refugee paradigm for UAC policy similar to how the U.S. treats refugees.87
Some border security proponents contend, however, that despite what the UAC may endure en
route to the United States, from an immigration perspective they are not victims; rather, these
UAC are participants in human smuggling. These advocates assert that participation in human
smuggling is a criminal action and should be treated with expedited removal.88 Other security
proponents further point out the connection of some UAC to violent crimes, noting that there
have been cases of UAC committing criminal acts after being released in the United States.89 Of
particular concern are the potential links that some UAC may have to both gangs and terrorism.90
Gangs such as MS-1391 have strong ties to Central America and have sought to bring members to
the United States.92 The gangs are increasingly involved in the trafficking of guns, arms, and
people, thereby increasing the likelihood that youth gang members would promote these
trafficking activities in the United States.93 Finally, security proponents have noted the high rate
of foreign-born members in these more violent gangs.94
Some security proponents believe that such gangs may eventually court terrorist connections in
order to raise revenues for their gang activity.95 The arrests of two unaccompanied alien children
arriving from East Asia on suspicion of terrorist intentions further elevated the concerns of

(...continued)
for physical and sexual abuse by traffickers on their journey to the United States. According to ORR officials, it is not
uncommon that children arrive in the United States with special needs requiring professional services. These special
needs cover a wide range of issues, but include teenage pregnancy, acute mental illness, severe depression, and other
physical illnesses. Also, the physical and psychological damage caused to children by human smuggling may be
compounded by the fact that some children have experienced trauma or domestic abuse in their country of origin
(Based upon CRS discussions with officials at ORR, September 6, 2006).
86 Jennifer Smythe, “Age Determination Authority of Unaccompanied Alien Children and the Demand for Legislative
Reform,” Interpreter Releases, vol. 81, no. 23 (June 7, 2004), pp. 754-763.
87 Christine M Gordon, “Are Unaccompanied Alien Children Really Getting a Fair Trial? An Overview of Asylum Law
and Children,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 33, no. 4, (September 22, 2005), pp. 641-674.
88 For discussion, see CRS Report RL33200, Trafficking in Persons in Latin America and the Caribbean, by Clare
Ribando Seelke.
89 Based on CRS discussion with John Pogash, Chief of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit in DHS ICE’s Office
of Detention & Removal, December 19, 2006.
90 Nina Bernstein and Eric Lichtblau, “Two Girls Held as U.S. Fears Suicide Bomb,” The New York Times, April 7,
2005, Section B, Column 5, p. 1.
91 MS-13 is shorthand for Mara Salvatrucha.
92 The Mara Salvatrucha was originally formed in Los Angeles, California, by immigrants and refugees from El
Salvador. Having recently spread to become significant threats to the Washington, DC, and Baltimore metropolitan
area, the gang is estimated to have between 8,000 and 10,000 dedicated members. (For further discussion see CRS
Report RL33400, Youth Gangs: Background, Legislation, and Issues, by Celinda Franco.)
93 CRS Report RL33200, Trafficking in Persons in Latin America and the Caribbean, by Clare Ribando Seelke.
94 Monisha Bansal, “Chertoff: Street Gangs a Threat to National Security,” Cybercast News Service, March 13, 2006, at
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200603%5CNAT20060313b.html.
95 The Associated Press, “Immigrant Gang Suspected of Al-Qaida Ties,” September 3, 2005, at
http://www.terrorismknowledgebase.net/NewsStory.jsp?storyID=84214.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŜȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
security advocates.96 There has been no evidence to date, however, of any such gang-terrorist
connection.97 The subsequent release of these juveniles, however, has provoked refugee paradigm
advocates to further condemn the security paradigm.98 These advocates further believe that UAC
are more likely to be victims of gang activity than complicit actors.
™™›Ž‘Ž—œ’˜—œǰȱŽ?Ž—?’˜—œǰȱŠ—?ȱȱ
‘Š›ŠŒ?Ž›’œ?’Œœȱ
The data on UAC are important for evaluating the current policies toward UAC by both ORR and
DHS. Prior to the HSA, the former-INS was responsible for all aspects of handling UAC. Since
the dissolution of the INS, UAC statistics have been collected by ORR, CBP, and ICE. These data
are not consolidated into any publically available database, although they are made available
upon request from the various agencies.
ȱ™™›Ž‘Ž—œ’˜—œȱ
Figure 2 depicts the apprehensions of unauthorized alien juveniles (and not UAC specifically) by
CBP for the time period FY2001-FY2006. The number of apprehensions has exceeded 86,000
annually since FY2001. The highest rate of apprehensions came in FY2005, when the CBP
apprehended 114,563 juveniles. This number represented a 17% higher rate than that of FY2001,
which had 97,954 juvenile apprehensions. FY2006 did see a decline of nearly 11% from FY2005
in juvenile apprehensions. The FY2006, CBP apprehension rate constitutes an average of 279
juvenile apprehensions per day. CBP does not keep separate apprehension figures on UAC.
Furthermore, the data do not delineate how many children were released to border patrol
authorities in Mexico or Canada, rather than being detained. Official numbers from the CBP’s
Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE) indicate that in recent years approximately four
out of every five juveniles apprehended in the border sectors are nationals of Mexico.99

96 Nina Bernstein and Eric Lichtblau, “Two Girls Held as U.S. Fears Suicide Bomb,” The New York Times, April 7,
2005, Section B, Column 5, p. 1.
97 For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL33400, Youth Gangs: Background, Legislation, and Issues, by Celinda
Franco.
98 Nina Bernstein, William Krashbaum, and Souad Mekhennet, “Questions, Bitterness, and Exile for Queens Girl in
Terror Case,” The New York Times, June 17, 2005, p. A1.
99 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, A
Review of DHS’ Responsibilities for Juvenile Aliens, OIG-05-45, September 2005, p. 3.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŝȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. Apprehensions of Unauthorized Juveniles by Customs and Border
Protection, FY2001-FY2006

Source: CRS presentation of unpublished Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection
(2006).
Note: FY2003 includes combined data from the CBP and INS. FY2001 and FY2002 data are INS statistics.
žŸŽ—’•Žœȱ Ž•?ȱ‹¢ȱȱ
As demonstrated in Figure 3, in FY2007 ORR detained 8,227 UAC, which is a 27.1% increase
over the FY2004 total of 6,471, the first fiscal year for which complete data are available. In
FY2005, a total of 8,015 UAC were detained by ORR, while in FY2006 the total was 8,160. The
detention total constitutes a 26% increase from FY2004 to FY2005, while the increase from
FY2005 to FY2006 represented a rise of less than 2%. The increase from FY2006 to FY2007 was
approximately 1%. For all years where data are available, over 80% of the ORR detentions were
the result of DHS referrals. The remaining children were brought in or reclassified by the
Division of Unaccompanied Children’s Services (DUCS).
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŞȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Figure 3. ORR Detentions of Unaccompanied Alien Children, FY2003-FY2007
Total
DHS Referral
DUCS Transfer
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
f UAC 5,000
ns o
6
tio 4,000
015
160
6
227
0
n
7
e
8,
0
8,
8,
399
1
7,
471
7,
7,
Det 3,000
6,
8
23
792
5,
2,000
4,
1,000
5
233
394
1,
91
828
0
FY2003*
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Year

Source: CRS presentation of unpublished HHS ORR data (2006) for FY2003, and of data provided to the
Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) by Susana Ortiz-Ang, Deputy Director of the Division of
Unaccompanied Children’s Services (DUCS) and published in the CPPP backgrounder entitled “Apprehension
and Custody of Unaccompanied Migrant Children.”
Note: (*) denotes that FY2003 data do not include all detentions by the INS.
The children detained by ORR have held relatively steady demographic patterns in the past
several years. Table 3 provides statistical breakdowns of UAC that show that the majority of
juveniles in detention are males. Between FY2004 and FY2007, the gender proportion of UAC
males that were detained by ORR remained approximately the same, fluctuating between 73%
and 76%. For this same time period, the proportion of UAC in ORR’s custody that were in the
age range of 15 to 18 also remained nearly constant,100 fluctuating between 80% and 81%. For
FY2006, the proportions of UAC were 74% male and 26% female, with 80% being from the ages
of 15 to 18 and the remaining 20% being ages 0 to 14 years old. The data reported for FY2007
alter the age grouping of UAC in ORR custody. Thus, in FY2007, 85% of UAC were in the age
group of 14 to 18, while the remaining 15% of UAC were below the age of 14.

100 Even though 18 year olds are no longer considered UAC, they may be held beyond their 18th birthday by ORR due
to transfer delays.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗşȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Table 3. Gender, Age and Country of Origin of Unaccompanied Alien Children in
ORR Custody, FY2004-FY2007
Category FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
Gender

Male
74% 73% 74% 76%
Female
26% 27% 26% 24%
Age

15-18
80% 81% 80% -
14-18 -
-
-
85%
0-14
20% 19% 20% -
0-13 -
-
-
15%
Countries of Origin

Honduras
30% 35% 28% 29%
Guatemala
20% 23% 26% 29%
El
Salvador
26% 24% 31% 27%
Mexico
10% 6% 7% 9%
Ecuador
2% 2% 1% 1.4%
Nicaragua
0.8% 0.9% 1% 1.1%
Brazil
3% 3% 1% 0.8%
China
2% 1% 1% 0.6%
Other
6.2% 5.1% 4% 3.2%

Source: CRS presentation of HHS ORR data (2006 and 2007).
Note: For FY2006 data, countries of origin rounded to the nearest percent. Percentages may not add to 100%
throughout table due to rounding errors in source data.
Most UAC in ORR’s custody come from three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
Figure 4 demonstrates that in FY2007, these three countries accounted for 29%, 29%, and 27%
of the ORR detainees, respectively. Thus, these countries combined for 85% of the UAC detained
by ORR. The only other country with more than 1% of detainees was Mexico, which in FY2007
accounted for 9% of the UAC total. China is the only non-Latin American country accounting for
more than 0.5% of UAC in ORR custody. When comparing these statistics to those in Table 3 for
FY2004-FY2006, a few points are worth noting. First, according to data from ORR the top four
sending countries of UAC have remained in the top four from FY2004 through FY2007.
Guatemala’s share of UAC detainees has increased by 9% since FY2004, whereas Honduras has
decreased by 1% (and down by 6% from FY2005). El Salvador’s detainee share decreased by 4%
from FY2006 to FY2007, whereas Mexico’s share increased by 2% in the same time span. All of
these four countries represent sending totals that are multiple times higher than any other sending
country with UAC in ORR custody.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŖȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Figure 4. Country of Origin of Detained Unaccompanied Alien Children in ORR
Custody, FY2007
Ecuador, 0.80%
Nicaragua, 0.60%
China, 1.10%
Other, 3.20%
Brazil, 1.40%
Mexico, 9%
El Salvador, 27%
Guatemala, 29%
Honduras, 29%

Source: CRS presentation of unpublished HHS ORR data (2006).
žŸŽ—’•Žœȱ Ž•?ȱ‹¢ȱ ȱ
Contrary to the data on the longer term juvenile detentions by ORR, data from ICE DRO depicts
apprehended UAC that were detained by the agency in excess of 72 hours. Table 4 displays the
number of UAC held in DRO facilities by fiscal year and month, and identifies the number of
UAC that were held by DRO both under and in excess of 72 hours. The total number of UAC
held by this agency during FY2005-FY2006 was 2,707, of which 1,365 were held in FY2005 and
1,342 were held in FY2006. As the table demonstrates, the number of juveniles held by DRO for
a period of 72 hours or longer in FY2005 was 142, representing 10.4% of the total UAC
detentions for the fiscal year. By FY2006, this proportion had dropped significantly to a level of
2.8%, or 37 UAC. The highest rates of extended detentions occurred in the summer months of
FY2005. In the months of July, August, and September of FY2005, the extended detention rate of
UAC in DRO custody was 49%, 37.9%, and 19.5%, respectively. Subsequently, the rates of
extended detention dropped significantly, although in August of FY2006 the rate began to
increase again. For September of FY2006, the rate was at 9.5%.101

101 Statistically, there is little evidence of any relationship between the number of juveniles held in a month and the
number that were held for over 72 hours. Pearson correlation scores are a measure of the strength of the relationship
between two variables. It is measured on a continuous scale between -1 to 1, with -1 indicating a linear inverse
relationship, 1 indicating a direct linear relationship, and 0 indicating no relationship.
The Pearson correlation scores for FY2005 and FY2006 were -.11 and -.1, respectively. Not only does their proximity
(continued...)
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŗȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Table 4. UAC in ICE DRO Custody by Hours Held, FY2005-FY2006
# of Juveniles
# of Juveniles
# of Juveniles
# of Juveniles
FY2005
Held Under
Held 72 Hours
FY2006
Held Under
Held 72 Hours
72 Hours
or Longer
72 Hours
or Longer
October 111
11
October 102
8
November 126
2 November 75
6
December 150
0 December 82
4
January 67 0
January 76 1
February 85
0
February 79
0
March 131 1
March 131 0
April 123 0
April 76 0
May 119 17
May 177 1
June 119 8
June 171 1
July 98 48
July 134 0
August 103 29
August 113 4
September 133
26 September 126
12
Total 1365 142
Total 1342 37
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished DRO data (2006).
Table 5 displays the number of unaccompanied alien juveniles (UAC) held longer than 72 hours
in DRO facilities by fiscal year and month, and indicates the explanation (see legend) for
extended detention. It is clear from the data in Table 5 that despite a 74% drop from FY2005 to
FY2006 in the number of UAC held in excess of 72 hours, there continues to be a geographic
disconnect between the placement of some ORR facilities and DRO facilities. As the table
demonstrates, the predominant reason for a UAC being held in excess of 72 hours was the lack of
ORR bed space or no beds available in a “reasonable”102 commuting area. For FY2005, the 79
cases that were categorized in this manner accounted for 55.6% of juveniles held in excess of 72
hours for that fiscal year. The corresponding 22 cases in FY2006 accounted for 59.5% of the
extended detentions for FY2006. Consequently, while the absolute numbers of such difficulties
decreased, difficulties in transferring UAC from DRO to ORR remained the principal reason for
the majority of extended detentions.
The second highest cause of extended DRO detention in FY2005 was escorting staff shortages in
conjunction with the lack of ORR bed space within reasonable proximity, with 27 cases (or 19%)
being classified as such. In FY2006, a total of two cases were attributed to such difficulties. A
similar pattern is evident with the number of UAC held in excess of 72 hours due to being in the
custody of CBP. The decline from 24 cases in FY2005 to 2 cases in FY2006 represents a 95%

(...continued)
to zero indicate a very weak relationship, but the negative sign on the correlation indicates that the two data columns
actually had an inverse relationship. Thus, as the number of juveniles held by DRO increased, the proportion of
juveniles held 72 hours or longer would show a tendency to slightly decrease. One possible explanation for this lack of
correlation would be that ORR bed space openings varied in relation to where juveniles were apprehended. A random
variation in bed space location would drive down the correlation.
102 The term “reasonable” was not defined by DHS in the data they provided to CRS.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŘȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
reduction in absolute terms. Cases of UAC being held in excess of 72 hours for voluntary return
dropped from eight cases in FY2005 to four cases in FY2006. The only two categories which saw
absolute increases in the number of juveniles held for extended duration were cases with
escorting staff shortages and unavailable flights. The former category had five cases, whereas the
latter had two cases in FY2006. Neither category had any cases in FY2005.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řřȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Table 5. UAC Held by ICE DRO 72 Hours or Longer by Reason for Extended Detention, FY2005-FY2006
# of Juveniles Held 72 Hours or Longer
# of Juveniles Held 72 Hours or Longer
FY2005
(see legend below)
Total

FY2006
(see legend below)
Total
Month
A
B
C
D
E
F
A&D

Month
A
B
C
D
E
F
D&F

October
3

8 11

October 7
1

8
November 2 2
November 5 1
6
December

December 4 4
January

January 1

1
February

February

March
1
1
March

April

April

May
3 14 17
May
1 1
June
4 4
8
June
1 1
July
38 10 48
July

August 12

17 29

August 1

1

1
1 4
September 24 2
26
September 3 2 4 2 1 12
Total
79 24 0 0 4 8 27 142
Total
22 2 2 5 0 4 2
37
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished DRO data (2006).
Legend:
A=Lack of ORR Bed Space and/or No Beds Available in a “Reasonable” Commuting Area
B=Juveniles in CBP (Border Patrol) Custody
C=Flights Unavailable
D=Lack of Escorts/Transportation Officers
E=Quarantined Due to Chicken Pox - No Facility Available for Quarantined Juveniles
F=Held for Voluntary Return
ȬŘŚȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
ž››Ž—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
Although policy changes regarding UAC treatment and procedures have responded to the
concerns of both security and child welfare advocates, criticism continues to be leveled against
the various agencies. Advocates for both security and refugee paradigms for UAC policy point to
several practices that they claim violate existing agreements and laws. Consequently, some
advocates wish to see additional involvement by Congress to address these policy and compliance
issues.
?Ÿ˜ŒŠŒ¢ȱ ›˜ž™ȱ›’?’Œ’œ–œȱŠ—?ȱ ȱŽœ™˜—œŽœȱ
ȱ›Š—œ?Ž›œȱ
Advocacy groups have leveled charges against DHS that the agency is not complying with the
terms of the Flores Agreement governing the rights and treatment of UAC.103 DHS is responsible
for the transportation and removal of any unaccompanied alien child from the United States, as
well as the transportation and transfer of any unaccompanied alien child into ORR’s care. Those
unauthorized juveniles who are “unaccompanied” under the HSA statutory definition belong in
the custody of the ORR, and under the FSA any such juvenile must be transferred to their custody
within 3-5 days of apprehension (with 72 hours being the standard practice).104 Critics charge that
DHS frequently fails to achieve this task, and that children are detained at DHS facilities for
longer than 72 hours. Additionally, UAC under ORR’s care who are to be deported from the
United States must be transferred back into DHS custody. Frequently, such removals take more
than a month. Congress has taken notice of these transfer issues, and has directed ICE to contact
ORR immediately upon apprehension of an unaccompanied alien child, and ensure that the UAC
is transferred to ORR within 72 hours.105
Officials at DRO have contended that many such transfer difficulties arise from staff shortages or
on the difficulties in arranging transportation to ORR facilities that require anything other than
standard ground transportation.106 DHS has requested that ORR contract with rural detention
centers and consider a child “placed” when deposited at a contracted detention center. Under such
a contracting arrangement, ORR would be charged with the responsibility of transporting the
juvenile from a rural contract center to a permanent facility. Despite such placement difficulties,
DHS maintains that it makes every effort to keep unaccompanied children separate from criminal
juvenile aliens.107

103 Based on CRS discussions with attorneys from both the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children and
the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) & Council Migration Service of Philadelphia.
104 This time-frame is stipulated by the Flores Settlement Agreement (Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)) and was
detailed in the proposed rules presented in U.S. Department of Justice, “Processing, Detention, and Release of
Juveniles,” Federal Register, no. 63, vol. 142 (July 24, 1998), pp. 39759-39763.
105 H.Rept. 110-181.
106 Based on CRS discussion with John Pogash, Chief of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit in DHS ICE’s Office
of Detention & Removal, December 19, 2006.
107 Ibid.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řśȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Ž?’—’—?ȱȃ—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?Ȅȱ
A related issue to the transfer criticism has been the procedural definition of “unaccompanied” in
classifying UAC. Specifically, critics charge that DHS has misclassified many juveniles as either
“accompanied” or “unaccompanied,” and that in a number of cases these misclassifications are
deliberate. The critics charge that DHS is separating children from their parents and classifying
the children as UAC in order to avoid spending additional resources on “family unity” housing.
Additionally, some advocacy groups have claimed that children who have no accompanying adult
have on occasion been declared “accompanied” by virtue of having previously lived in the United
States with a parent or legal guardian. Critics of these practices contend that it is unnecessary and
harmful to the juveniles to separate them from their parents if they are available, and that DHS
should prevent such separations from occurring.108 In certain cases, critics have argued that DHS
has classified juveniles as UAC and used the juvenile as bait to draw out parents who are
suspected of being unauthorized. In other cases, the critics charge, DHS has misclassified
juveniles as “accompanied” in order to keep the juveniles in secure DHS facilities on suspicion of
criminal intent.
Although children who are apprehended with a parent or legal guardian are not legally
unaccompanied, they are sometimes separated from the adult and detained as an unaccompanied
alien child.109 Such a scenario may occur when the parent or legal guardian is a criminal alien and
must be housed in a detention unit for criminal aliens. In such cases, DRO is legally unable to
keep the child with the parent or legal guardian and places the child under the care of ORR, since
such facilities are not considered “suitable” for juveniles under 8 CFR §236.3. In other cases, the
separation of children from their family is based upon a shortage of bed space. DHS’ Office of
Inspector General (OIG) has noted that longer-term care facilities are frequently not readily
available to accommodate families. Under such circumstances the juveniles are treated as
unaccompanied minors and placed under ORR’s jurisdiction.110 In each of these above cases, the
children involved default to a status of “unaccompanied” pursuant to the UAC statutory definition
since the parent or legal guardian, although present in the United States, is not available to
provide care and physical custody for the child.
Investigations by DHS and DOJ of some of these charges of deliberate juvenile misclassifications
have confirmed that some charges are correct, although they have yet to be shown to result from
any malicious intent. In some cases, DHS has deliberately separated juveniles from their parents
because of shortages of beds in family unity facilities. Regulations dictate that the facility must
meet a number of criteria in order to allow the housing of juveniles (e.g., juveniles may not be
detained in a facility with adult criminal offenders). In some cases where facilities were not
available to provide for proper family unity detainment, DHS did separate the family and place
the children in juvenile facilities as UAC. But despite DHS’ construction of new family unity
facilities in Texas, advocacy groups charge that these misclassifications continue to occur.

108 Based on CRS discussions with attorneys from both the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children and
the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) & Council Migration Service of Philadelphia.
109 U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of the Inspector General. Open Inspector General Recommendations
Concerning the Former Immigration and Naturalization Service from Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, a
Report by the Department of Justice Inspector General. Report no. OIG-04-18, March 2004.
110 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, A
Review of DHS’ Responsibilities for Juvenile Aliens, OIG-05-45, September 2005, pp. 19-20.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŜȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
In addition, some children that are designated as “unaccompanied” actually have parents or legal
guardians in the United States, but for various reasons the custodian does not come forward.
Regardless of whether a unaccompanied alien child is picked up by CBP or ICE, it is sometimes
the case that parents who are unlawfully present will not come forward out of fear of facing
removal.111 Other times there is confusion with the family over where they are to appear or find
their child, since DHS often transfers juveniles from the original detention or apprehension
locations. Linguistic barriers can also make communication especially difficult.
?ŽȱŽ?Ž›–’—Š?’˜—ȱ
Another issue that has concerned advocacy groups has been the age determination of UAC by
DHS. Critics charge that the DHS age determination methodologies are too reliant on forensic
techniques.112 Child advocacy groups argue that the forensic techniques such as bone and dental
analysis are not scientifically rigorous, and are prone to error.113 These critics have further
charged that the findings of the individuals conducting the bone analysis are skewed heavily
towards adult ages, and therefore reflect an investigatory bias. DHS officials disputed this
interpretation of its forensic procedure, stating that its age determination process was more
nuanced and the forensic determination was only part of this process.114 Congress has expressed
concern over DHS’ forensic techniques in the report language of several appropriations bills, and
in so doing has urged DHS to employ more holistic methodologies including psychological
evaluations.115
Ž™Š?›’Š?’˜—ȱ
There have been concerns expressed about the repatriation practices conducted by DHS of UAC.
What has concerned many advocacy groups are reports that some children are not safely
repatriated back to their homelands to the care of a parent, legal guardian, or sponsoring
agency.116 The standard procedure for DHS and ORR is to contact the juvenile’s appropriate
consulate in order to facilitate a safe repatriation. With nationals of Mexico and Canada
apprehended along the border, CBP officials may contact their respective Mexican or Canadian
border protection counterparts and transfer the juvenile to their custody for further processing.
Advocacy agencies have charged that many juveniles are caught within the United States and
released across the border without any sponsor to care for them nor any official notification of
foreign officials. They have also charged that DHS does not properly verify that a juvenile will be
safely repatriated.117 Congress has expressed concern in both committee and conference report

111 According to ORR, DHS does not apprehend the families in many such cases because of lack of resources. DHS
officials admitted that a shortage of resources sometimes prevents them from fulfilling all the agency’s obligations.
112 Jennifer Smythe, “Age Determination Authority of Unaccompanied Alien Children and the Demand for Legislative
Reform,” Interpreter Releases, vol. 81, no. 23 (June 7, 2004), p. 754-763.
113 According to critics, factors such as bad nutrition may result in forensic estimates that deviate significantly from
those of a healthy child.
114 Based on CRS discussion with John Pogash, Chief of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit in DHS ICE’s Office
of Detention & Removal, December 19, 2006.
115 H.Rept. 110-181.
116 American Immigration Lawyers Association, “Sign On Letter Advocating Reform for Children Seeking Asylum,”
July 1, 2004, at http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=10988.
117 Ibid.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŝȱ

—ŠŒŒ˜–™Š—’Ž?ȱ•’Ž—ȱ‘’•?›Ž—Ǳȱ˜•’Œ’ŽœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
language about the dearth of repatriation services, and has urged DHS to work with DOS and
ORR to develop policies and procedures for the safe repatriation of juveniles.118
DHS has contended that the responsibility for safe repatriation should lie at least in part with the
appropriate consulate for the alien juvenile.119 Both DHS and ORR noted that consular officials
can be particularly troublesome for the repatriation process by regularly changing their
documentation requests or raising objections to a juvenile transfer. Both of these actions serve as
drains on DHS resources. Despite such difficulties with resources and foreign consulates, DHS
maintains that it makes every effort to safely repatriate all UAC.120
Ž?’œ•Š?’˜—ȱ
In the 111th Congress, no legislation has been introduced relating to unaccompanied alien
children. However, one piece of legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress that had been
proposed in previous Congresses and is likely to be reintroduced in the current Congress.
In the Senate, Senator Diane Feinstein sponsored the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act
of 2007 (S. 844).121 This legislation would have provided for several statutory changes, including
the rights of UAC to consult with a consular officer prior to repatriation, criteria for treatment and
detention of UAC, and the preference order of child placement. The legislation additionally
would have granted ORR access to children in DHS’ custody to determine the child’s age.
Notably, the legislation also would have provided for the appointment of child advocates for
UAC, including counsel for all children in the custody of DHS that are not being repatriated to a
contiguous country. These advocates would largely serve on a pro bono basis. Senator Feinstein
introduced this same legislation as S.Amdt. 1146 to S. 1348 (which was the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act of 2007), and the amendment passed the Senate by a voice vote. The
same provisions were also included in Title VIII of the “A Place to Call Home Act” (H.R. 3409),
which was introduced as comprehensive legislation dealing with youth-related issues.

ž?‘˜›ȱ˜—?ŠŒ?ȱ —?˜›–Š?’˜—ȱ

Chad C. Haddal

Analyst in Immigration Policy
chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701

118 H.Rept. 110-181.
119 Based on CRS discussion with John Pogash, Chief of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit in DHS ICE’s Office
of Detention & Removal, December 19, 2006.
120 Ibid.
121 During the 109th Congress, Sens. Diane Feinstein and Sam Brownback co-sponsored the Unaccompanied Alien
Child Protection Act of 2005 (S. 119), a bill that was closely related to S. 844 in the 110th Congress. S. 119 was passed
in the Senate and subsequently referred to the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. In
the House, Rep. Zoe Lofgren sponsored the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005, which became H.R.
1172.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŞȱ