## Facts

- The INS used “voluntary departure” procedures for unaccompanied noncitizen minors in custody, whereby signing a voluntary-departure form resulted in waiver of a deportation hearing and prompt removal.
- Jose Antonio Perez-Fuñez (age 16) and other minors from El Salvador were taken into INS custody without a parent or lawful guardian present.
- Plaintiffs alleged INS officers commonly pressured minors to sign voluntary-departure forms they did not understand and that minors were not meaningfully advised of the right to a deportation hearing or potential relief (including asylum-related relief).
- Evidence indicated notices and forms were often provided in English or in complex Spanish not understandable to many children with limited education.
- Minors testified they were told they had “no rights,” that refusal would lead to prolonged detention, or that signing was effectively required.
- The district court consolidated related actions, certified a nationwide class of unaccompanied persons under 18 in INS custody for possible deportation, and proceeded to a merits decision on class-wide injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether INS practices for obtaining unaccompanied minors’ voluntary-departure elections violated Fifth Amendment due process by producing waivers that were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
2. If due process was violated, what procedural safeguards were constitutionally required before INS could accept an unaccompanied minor’s voluntary-departure waiver.
3. Whether due process required mandatory appointment of counsel for all unaccompanied minors before a voluntary-departure election could be accepted.

## Decision

- The court held that INS voluntary-departure procedures for unaccompanied minors violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because the agency did not ensure waivers of hearing rights were knowing and voluntary.
- The court granted declaratory relief and entered a permanent nationwide injunction requiring specific safeguards before INS could accept voluntary departure from an unaccompanied minor.
- The court declined to require categorical appointment of counsel for all unaccompanied minors, while requiring notice of the right to obtain counsel and improved access to adult assistance and legal services.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires that any waiver of the right to a deportation hearing be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; this requires more than a signature on a form, especially for minors in custodial settings.
- When the government deals with children in custody who lack parents or guardians, due process requires heightened protections tailored to youth, isolation, limited education, and language barriers.
- Deportation proceedings are civil, but the seriousness of removal requires reliable procedures to ensure understanding when rights are relinquished.
- The Constitution does not provide an automatic right to government-appointed counsel in civil immigration proceedings, but due process can require meaningful notice of the right to obtain counsel and a fair chance to seek help.
- Appropriate safeguards for unaccompanied minors may include clear oral and written notice in comprehensible language, information about hearing rights and possible relief, opportunity and time to consult with parents/relatives or responsible adults and legal services, and affirmative steps by officers to confirm comprehension.

## Conclusion

The court found that INS practices commonly induced unaccompanied minors to waive deportation-hearing rights without real understanding and ordered nationwide procedural protections to ensure that any voluntary-departure election by an unaccompanied minor is informed and voluntary, while stopping short of mandating appointed counsel in every case.


Perez-Fuñez v. District Dir., INS, 619 F. Supp. 656 (C.D. Cal. 1985)