# C.J.L.G., a Juvenile Male v. Jefferson Sessions

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 29, 2018 · 880 F.3d 1122

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9879955

## Case

- **Full name:** C.J.L.G., a Juvenile Male, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 29, 2018
- **Citations:** 880 F.3d 1122
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Owens
- **Judges:** Callahan, Owens, Faber
- **Nature of suit:** Agency
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9879955

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9879955. Public record. Not legal advice.