Ensuring Bond Hearings for Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors: Legal Standards and Congressional Intent
Case: Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2017)
Substance of the Case
This case revolved around the rights of unaccompanied immigrant minors in government custody to receive bond hearings, as established under a 1997 legal settlement called the Flores Agreement. Bond hearings allow these children to challenge their detention before an immigration judge. The issue arose because two laws enacted after the Flores Agreement—the Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008—shifted responsibility for unaccompanied minors’ care to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The federal government argued that these newer laws implicitly terminated the requirement for bond hearings under the Flores Agreement.
Court’s Analysis
The court addressed several key points:
- Statutory Interpretation:
The court determined that neither the HSA nor the TVPRA explicitly or implicitly repealed the bond-hearing provision of the Flores Agreement. The text of the laws was silent on bond hearings, and general statutory principles assume Congress does not eliminate rights through silence.
- Bureaucratic Changes:
The court noted that while ORR has broad authority over the care and placement of unaccompanied minors, this responsibility does not negate the role of immigration judges in conducting bond hearings. ORR’s focus is on care and placement, while bond hearings provide critical procedural protections for children.
- Congressional Intent:
The court found that the purpose of the HSA and TVPRA was to enhance protections for unaccompanied minors, not to strip them of existing rights. Eliminating bond hearings would undermine these protections and leave minors in detention without meaningful recourse to challenge their confinement.
- Practical Importance:
The court emphasized that bond hearings offer unaccompanied minors an opportunity to be represented by counsel, review evidence, and build a case for release. Without these hearings, children face prolonged detention under opaque processes, as evidenced by cases presented in the litigation.
Conclusion and Outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to enforce the Flores Agreement’s bond-hearing requirement for unaccompanied minors. The court concluded that bond hearings remain a vital procedural protection and were not eliminated by subsequent laws.
Let’s Get Started
Your legal challenges deserve personalized attention and innovative solutions. Contact Oware Justice Advocates PC today for a consultation and take the first step toward resolution and peace of mind.
355 South Teller Street, Suite 204,
Lakewood, CO 80226
(Visits to the office are strictly by appointment only)
303-514-6589
