noting that an IJ must advise an alien of “apparent eligibility” to apply for relief from removal (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)
How later courts described this case
- noting that an IJ must advise an alien of “apparent eligibility” to apply for relief from removal (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)
- "the private liberty interests involved in [removal] proceedings are indisputably substantial"
- “[M]ere threats do not compel a finding of past persecution.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OWENS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion and its narrow scope. It holds that the Due Process Clause does not mandate government-funded counsel for C.J.L.G., an accompanied minor. The opinion does not hold, or even discuss, whether the Due Process Clause mandates counsel for unaccompanied minors. That is a different question that could lead to a different answer. See, e.g., Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 , 31-32, 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (holding that whether the Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel is considered on a case-by-case basis); J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026 , 1039-41 (9th Cir. 2016) (McKeowh, J„ joined by M. Smith, J., specially concurring) (outlining unique challenges that unrepresented unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings confront).