Legal Aid Groups Sue Over Short-Notice Asylum Interviews for Unaccompanied Children, Asking a Court to Restore 21 Days' Notice

Legal aid groups want a Maryland federal court to stop short-notice asylum interviews for unaccompanied children. The case tests whether the 2008 law that sends these children to an asylum officer also limits how fast that officer can move.

Six nonprofit legal service providers that represent children who crossed the border without a parent sued the Trump administration on Oct. 15 in federal district court in Maryland, challenging what they describe as a deportation pipeline built on rushed asylum interviews, according to CNN. They want the court to restore earlier practice, including at least 21 days’ notice before a child’s asylum interview; CNN has previously reported notices arriving as little as 24 hours ahead. The plaintiffs together have received more than 600 interview notices since Aug. 1, many scheduled in quick succession, CNN reported.

The suit covers two groups of children: those living with relatives or other sponsors in the United States, and those held in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters, either after a recent border crossing or because the adult caring for them was detained by ICE. CNN did not name the organizations, and the complaint was not publicly available, so its contents here rest on that single report.

Why the asylum office, not the courtroom, is the pressure point

Most people in removal proceedings argue asylum before an immigration judge; unaccompanied children are the exception. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 gives a USCIS asylum officer “initial jurisdiction” over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied child, including children already in removal proceedings, and exempts those children from the one-year filing deadline and the safe-third-country bar. The interview is non-adversarial, with no government prosecutor in the room. If the officer does not grant asylum, the case returns to the judge.

That is why timing matters. The interview is usually a child’s best chance at protection, and preparing for it takes work: a declaration in the child’s own words, identity documents, country evidence. Three weeks with a lawyer is tight but workable. A day’s notice, or no lawyer at all, mostly is not. A missed or thinly prepared interview sends the case back to immigration court, where, according to CNN, children as young as 2 have appeared, often without attorneys.

Standards, not deadlines

The plaintiffs rely on the same 2008 law. Two provisions are likely to carry the most weight. One requires that asylum applications by unaccompanied children be “governed by regulations which take into account the specialized needs” of those children and address “both procedural and substantive aspects” of their cases. The other directs HHS to ensure, “to the greatest extent practicable,” that children who are or were in its custody have counsel. A notice period that leaves no time to find or prepare a lawyer is, on the plaintiffs’ reading, hard to reconcile with either.

The administration denies that cases are being fast-tracked and says officials are prioritizing timely completion, CNN reported. An HHS spokesperson told CNN last month that ORR supports children’s ability to take part in proceedings with counsel and that immigration judges manage their own juvenile dockets. That position has substance: backlogs also hurt children with strong claims, and the statute sets no number of days, which is where the case is likely to turn. “Specialized needs” and “greatest extent practicable” are standards, not deadlines, and courts usually give agencies room on scheduling unless a practice effectively shuts people out of a process the statute guarantees. The plaintiffs will need concrete proof of harm: children who lost a lawyer, missed an interview or were referred to court because of the pace.

Representation is the backdrop the court cannot avoid. The administration ended the long-standing contract that funded lawyers for these children over the summer, CNN reported, and the Associated Press has reported that the nonprofit network involved handled about 24,000 children’s cases. HHS has since created an in-house division to represent unaccompanied children, an arrangement covered here on Oct. 8.

The venue is also familiar ground. The District of Maryland oversees the 2024 settlement in J.O.P. v. DHS, which governs how USCIS treats asylum claims from people first classified as unaccompanied children. Any order in the new case will have to sit alongside it.

What comes next

Emergency relief: whether the plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, which would bring a ruling in weeks rather than months.
The government’s first filing: whether it disputes the 600-notice figure or defends the pace as lawful.
Written USCIS guidance: a published scheduling policy for children’s interviews would turn an informal practice into a reviewable one.
The HHS legal division: whether its lawyers start appearing at these interviews.

Until a court rules, the practical reality for sponsors is unchanged: a USCIS interview notice addressed to a child is a firm appointment, and a missed interview can move the case back to immigration court.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts