In McAllen, Texas, legal advocates took a significant step on Tuesday by filing a motion in federal court to halt a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policy that pressures unaccompanied immigrant children to voluntarily deport themselves before they can access legal protections. The policy, introduced last year, allows border agents to present the option of self-deportation to children apprehended after crossing the border illegally, bypassing the standard process that sends them to shelters operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, unaccompanied minors are supposed to be transferred to ORR facilities, where they gain access to attorneys, immigration judges, and the ability to speak with their parents before deciding on deportation or other relief options. However, according to testimony from CBP officials filed in the lawsuit, this new practice began in September 2025, offering the self-deportation choice directly at the border. If children refuse, advocates allege that agents threaten them with prolonged detention, the arrest and prosecution of their U.S.-based adult sponsors, and future ineligibility for visas.
The motion represents children from Guatemala, following a botched government attempt in August to deport dozens of them via an overnight flight without proper proceedings. Attorneys argue that the policy violates an existing federal injunction, which bars the deportation of Guatemalan unaccompanied minors unless they have appeared before an immigration court. In addition to seeking an immediate stop to the practice for Guatemalan children, the advocates are requesting that the judge expand the injunction to protect minors from other countries, excluding those from Mexico and Canada.
CBP did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the motion. However, in a declaration filed with the court on Tuesday, CBP official Michael Julien stated that agents only present the self-deportation option to certain unaccompanied children who cross illegally, and that it is offered orally rather than in writing.
Advocates detailed harrowing accounts from the children involved, painting a picture of coercion amid vulnerability. In one case, a girl who had injured her leg in a car crash recounted how an agent denied her medical treatment and pressured her to sign documents she didn't understand. “I thought I had to sign, but I didn't know why or what for,” she said in a written declaration submitted to the court. Other children reported that agents yelled at them, threatened them, and exploited language barriers to push them into signing away their rights.
Mishan Wroe, an attorney with the National Center for Youth Law, emphasized the gravity of these encounters. “It's plainly coercive to threaten children with prolonged detention while they are scared and not given the opportunity to speak to counsel or their family before they make a decision that has grave implications for their future," Wroe said in a statement on Tuesday. She argued that the minors are being denied the safeguards mandated by federal law, leaving them without the support they need to make informed choices.
The lawsuit highlights at least 13 cases in South Texas where children were subjected to this policy, though attorneys believe the number is far higher. Kate Talmor, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, noted that these 13 instances came to light only because logistical issues prevented their immediate deportation. “We believe that this is happening to many, many more children and that the 13 that are mentioned in our motion are just those that kind of slipped through the cracks," Talmor said. She explained that even after signing documents to return home under CBP custody, a flight wasn't arranged in time for these children, leading them to be sent to ORR shelters where attorneys could intervene.
This policy emerges against a backdrop of ongoing debates over immigration enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border, where unaccompanied minors have surged in recent years. In fiscal year 2023, CBP encountered over 150,000 unaccompanied children, many fleeing violence, poverty, or persecution in Central America. The ORR system, while strained, provides a structured pathway for these children to apply for asylum or other protections, but critics of the current administration's approach say shortcuts like self-deportation undermine due process.
The August incident with the Guatemalan children underscores the potential for errors in rushed deportations. Reports indicate that the government attempted to fly dozens of minors back overnight without ensuring they had consulted lawyers or family, prompting swift legal action. That event led to the initial injunction, and now advocates are leveraging it to challenge the broader self-deportation practice.
From the government's perspective, as outlined in Julien's declaration, the oral presentation of options is intended to streamline processing for children who wish to return home voluntarily, without mandating it for all cases. Yet, the attorneys counter that the threats attached to refusal create an environment of duress, particularly for children who may not grasp the long-term consequences due to age, trauma, or linguistic challenges.
Legal experts familiar with immigration law point to the TVPRA as a cornerstone protection, enacted in response to concerns over the treatment of vulnerable minors in the early 2000s. The law was designed to prevent exactly the kind of border-level decisions that this policy enables, ensuring children aren't coerced into forgoing their rights. Organizations like the National Center for Youth Law have long advocated for stronger enforcement of these provisions, citing instances where children end up in unsafe situations back home after hasty deportations.
The motion's filing in McAllen, a hub for border litigation in the Rio Grande Valley, reflects the region's role as ground zero for these disputes. South Texas courts have seen a flurry of cases challenging CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, often resulting in temporary halts to controversial policies. If granted, the advocates' request could disrupt operations at border facilities, forcing a return to the full ORR transfer protocol for affected children.
Beyond the immediate legal battle, the case raises questions about the balance between border security and humanitarian obligations. Proponents of stricter enforcement argue that voluntary returns reduce backlog and costs, while human rights groups warn of exploitation and rights violations. The 13 documented cases, though a small sample, illustrate how policy implementation can lead to individual tragedies, such as the injured girl's experience.
The federal government now has two weeks to file its opposition to the motion. After that, the judge will decide whether to intervene, potentially stopping the policy for Guatemalan children and extending protections to others. This timeline comes as winter weather and other national events, like ongoing investigations into unrelated cases, compete for public attention, but for these advocates, the urgency for the children remains paramount.
As the lawsuit progresses, it could set a precedent for how unaccompanied minors are handled at the border, influencing thousands of cases annually. With no immediate comment from CBP, the focus shifts to the courtroom, where the voices of these young immigrants—and the policies shaping their futures—will be heard.