GREENBELT, Md. — Six nonprofit legal services organizations filed a federal lawsuit Oct. 15 challenging Trump administration policies that allegedly accelerate asylum proceedings for unaccompanied immigrant children, leaving attorneys with inadequate time to prepare cases and jeopardizing procedural protections established under federal law.
The 43-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleges that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have established policies that make it more difficult for children seeking asylum to obtain meaningful legal assistance.
The lawsuit, The Door v. Edlow, was filed on behalf of The Door; Amica Center for Immigrant Rights; Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project; Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project; Immigrant Defenders Law Center; and Jewish Family and Community Services.
The organizations are represented by the National Center for Youth Law, National Immigration Law Center, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Trial Impact Project, according to the National Center for Youth Law’s case information.
The complaint alleges that federal immigration agencies have reduced the amount of advance notice provided before asylum interviews, curtailed opportunities to reschedule proceedings and imposed deadlines that plaintiffs say conflict with federal protections for unaccompanied children.
The groups say children in detention have been given as little as 24 hours to prepare for their asylum interviews, compared with previous procedures that provided more time to prepare testimony, gather supporting documents and consult legal representatives.
According to the complaint, the organizations have received more than 600 notices of asylum interviews since Aug. 1, at times forcing attorneys to represent multiple children in proceedings scheduled for the same day or at overlapping times.
The plaintiffs say the accelerated scheduling practices have severely limited attorneys’ ability to adequately prepare children who may have experienced persecution, sexual violence, trafficking or other forms of abuse before arriving in the United States.
Asylum proceedings often require applicants to provide detailed accounts of past persecution or threats of harm because their testimony, documentary evidence and information about conditions in their countries of origin frequently play important roles in determining their claims.
For unaccompanied children, preparing these claims can involve additional challenges related to age, language barriers, limited access to documents and difficulties discussing traumatic experiences.
The complaint alleges that the scheduling changes have made these responsibilities more difficult, particularly when attorneys receive notice of interviews on the eve of scheduled proceedings.
In September, the plaintiffs said USCIS stopped consistently providing at least 21 days’ advance notice of asylum interviews and instead began giving notice just days before proceedings, in some cases less than 24 hours beforehand.
The lawsuit also challenges an Aug. 21 policy requiring applicants to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” to reschedule an asylum interview, replacing the previous “good cause” standard.
According to the complaint, attorneys have encountered difficulties obtaining approval to reschedule interviews even when USCIS schedules multiple proceedings at conflicting times or locations.
The plaintiffs also challenge a policy restricting the submission of supplemental evidence to 14 calendar days after an asylum interview, arguing that it creates additional barriers when interview notices are issued after that deadline has passed.
Taken together, the organizations argue, these policies undermine children’s ability to fully present their asylum claims to federal immigration officials.
The lawsuit also challenges an EOIR directive instructing immigration judges to resolve cases involving detained unaccompanied children by Jan. 31, 2027, regardless of the specific circumstances of their cases.
The plaintiffs say the deadline places additional pressure on legal representatives to complete complicated asylum applications within a limited period, restricting opportunities to request continuances or gather supporting evidence.
According to the Trial Impact Project’s litigation background, the challenged practices also include requiring children to file asylum applications within weeks of arriving in the United States, abruptly changing interview locations and formats, and requiring children to appear in immigration court multiple times per month.
The accelerated procedures follow the expiration of federal funding for nonprofit organizations that provide legal representation to unaccompanied immigrant children.
According to the complaint, the Office of Refugee Resettlement allowed its contract with the Acacia Center for Justice, which administered federal funding for children’s legal representation, to expire July 31.
As a result, the organizations lost federal funding that supported their representation of unaccompanied children, although they have continued representing existing clients.
The plaintiffs argue that the combination of reduced funding and accelerated proceedings has severely curtailed their ability to provide effective legal assistance to children navigating the immigration system without parents or legal guardians.
The lawsuit has a direct California connection through the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a nonprofit legal services organization based in Los Angeles with offices in Santa Ana, Riverside and San Diego.
Founded in 2015, the organization provides legal representation to immigrants facing removal proceedings, including unaccompanied children, detained adults and families separated at the U.S. border.
The complaint states that the Immigrant Defenders Law Center currently represents approximately 1,900 unaccompanied children and has represented about 4,000 over the past 11 years.
Its Children’s Representation Project assists children with asylum proceedings, immigration court hearings, guardianship cases and applications for other forms of immigration relief.
The organization is among the plaintiffs alleging that federal agencies have implemented procedural changes that make it more difficult to provide legal services and protect the interests of children facing possible deportation.
The legal challenge centers in part on protections established by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which was designed to provide additional safeguards for unaccompanied immigrant children.
The law grants certain unaccompanied children special procedural protections during the asylum process, including the opportunity to have their applications considered initially by USCIS through a nonadversarial interview process.
The legislation also directs federal authorities to ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that unaccompanied children have access to legal representation, recognizing the challenges children face when navigating immigration proceedings on their own.
The plaintiffs contend that the administration’s policies erode these protections by subjecting children to accelerated proceedings without adequate time to prepare their cases or obtain effective legal assistance.
The complaint also alleges violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may review certain agency actions to determine whether they comply with statutory requirements and applicable administrative procedures.
The plaintiffs argue that the challenged policies constitute unlawful agency actions that violate protections Congress established for unaccompanied children.
The Fifth Amendment claim concerns whether the expedited procedures deny children a meaningful opportunity to present their asylum applications and respond to potential removal proceedings.
The organizations seek declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the challenged policies and restore the procedural safeguards they contend are required under federal law.
According to the federal court docket, the case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman under case number 8:26-cv-04326-DLB.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion Oct. 19 seeking a stay under the Administrative Procedure Act and a temporary restraining order to prevent implementation of the challenged practices while litigation proceeds.
On Oct. 22, the federal court issued an order establishing a briefing schedule for the emergency motion, according to the National Center for Youth Law’s litigation records.
The allegations remain subject to judicial review, and the court has not determined whether the challenged federal immigration policies violate the law.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
