A 1-year-old child appeared without legal representation in an Arizona immigration court this week and was told to file an asylum application before the next hearing or risk being ordered deported.
A U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) attorney was present but did not intervene, according to a court filing. The situation has intensified an ongoing legal dispute between a network of nonprofits and the Trump administration over how unaccompanied migrant children are represented within the federal immigration system.
An Unrepresented 1-Year-Old Faces Immediate Deportation Threat
The incident came after a previous government contract with the Acacia Center for Justice ended on July 31. That agreement had distributed federal funds to nearly 100 legal providers representing more than 24,000 unaccompanied children.
The groups said the contract's expiration created confusion and left some minors appearing in court without lawyers. According to a declaration cited in the court filings, the USCRI attorney did not speak up when the child was told to file the asylum application.
The court filing criticised the attorney for not suggesting that it was 'facially absurd' to ask an unrepresented baby to take such action. The filing highlighted the difficulty of expecting an infant to comply with the asylum-filing requirement without representation.
Roxana Avila-Cimpeanu, the deputy director of the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, detailed the Arizona incident in a formal court declaration.
New Federal Contracts For Migrant Children's Legal Services
As part of the broader funding changes, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded USCRI a $20 million (£14.7 million) contract and Our Rescue, an anti-human-trafficking organisation, a $158 million (£115.8 million) contract.
The nonprofit groups said minors were still appearing unrepresented despite the two new contracts. The network of nonprofits asked a judge to look into whether HHS was complying with the law and a court order.
They said the order prevented the federal government from withdrawing services and funds for direct legal representation for unaccompanied minors. The groups claimed the department spent weeks purporting to enter multiple agreements to create a 'facade of compliance'.
A filing described the result as 'chaos' and said countless children faced immigration court proceedings entirely alone.
Government Disputes Claims In Trump Administration Lawsuit
The government gave a different account in court filings. Richard Debaney, an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) official, wrote last week that USCRI attorneys were covering hearings for 1,800 children in ORR care and that appearances had proceeded without complications.
The government noted that it had also released thousands more children to live with sponsors, who are often family members.
An ORR spokesperson told NOTUS that USCRI attorneys first needed to assess whether each child still had representation. The spokesperson said the assessment was ongoing because some legal service provider transitions appeared unclear or incomplete.
After confirming a child's representation status, USCRI would conduct a legal consultation, seek the child's agreement to representation and enter as attorney of record where appropriate.
California Case Highlights Unrepresented Migrant Child Row
The nonprofit groups presented other accounts to counter the official government narrative. In another instance on Aug. 6, an unaccompanied minor in a California court requested voluntary departure while a USCRI attorney was present.
According to a declaration from Cristel Stefany Martinez, the managing director of MNM Law Offices, the attorney did not say anything.
Julie Beyer, USCRI's senior director of humanitarian legal services and field offices, addressed the transition. In a letter to the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Beyer wrote that cooperation among providers was needed to avoid misunderstandings.
She also wrote that representation decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis based on the individual needs of the child and applicable programme requirements. USCRI and Our Rescue did not respond to requests for comment from NOTUS.
