Attorneys in McAllen are asking a federal judge to slam the brakes on what they say is a quiet, high-pressure campaign by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to nudge unaccompanied migrant children into “voluntarily” going back home before they ever reach a government shelter.
The motion, filed Tuesday, argues that the practice, introduced last fall, cuts against protections Congress built into federal law and leaves kids to make life-altering decisions without a lawyer or even a phone call to family. The plaintiffs say the policy is inherently coercive and could send vulnerable children straight back into danger.
According to AP, the motion states that the policy, introduced in September 2025, is sometimes delivered to children only orally, not in writing. A CBP official, Michael Julien, acknowledged that agents offer the option only to some unaccompanied minors. Lawyers say they have identified 13 cases in South Texas where children were urged to agree to be returned, and they suspect the real number is significantly higher. The filing says these offers are made before kids are transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they would typically gain access to attorneys and be able to contact family.
One declaration attached to the motion recounts the story of a girl who said a CBP agent “forcefully convinced” her to sign paperwork after she injured her leg and was denied medical care. Mishan Wroe of the National Center for Youth Law told AP, “It’s plainly coercive to threaten children with prolonged detention while they are scared” if they refuse to agree to return. Kate Talmor of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection said attorneys only discovered the 13 South Texas cases because planned removal flights fell through and the children ultimately landed in shelters instead.
Federal push to encourage “self-deportation”
The McAllen filing lands in the middle of a broader federal effort to promote so-called voluntary departures, including the rebranded CBP Home app and government-backed payments for people who sign up to return. Reporting and leaked memos have revealed that the administration has considered or offered financial incentives to minors, including reports of a $2,500 stipend for some unaccompanied teenagers, a move critics say can warp any notion of a truly voluntary choice, as reported by The Guardian.
CBP’s own materials describe the CBP Home app as a tool for submitting an “Intent to Depart” and arranging travel help for those who choose to return, according to CBP.
Legal implications
The lawyers argue the practice collides directly with 8 U.S.C. § 1232, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. That law requires that unaccompanied children who are not from contiguous countries be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement and given procedural safeguards, including access to legal counsel.
Litigation trackers and court summaries from last summer show that judges have already blocked attempts to remove Guatemalan minors without those required procedures, according to Just Security. Plaintiffs say the new oral advisal is just another attempt to sidestep those protections. The underlying statutory requirements are laid out in the text of the law itself at LII.
If the court grants the requested relief, the order could shore up transfer and intake rules that are supposed to keep children in protective custody until someone walks them through their legal options.
What’s next
The federal government has two weeks to file its response, after which the judge will decide whether to broaden or reinforce the existing injunction, according to reporting by Boston 25 News. Advocates say they plan to keep a close eye on shelter releases and immigration court dockets. CBP did not immediately respond to requests for comment in the filings cited by local outlets.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they want a clear order barring CBP from presenting any voluntary-return options to children before they arrive in ORR custody.
