No Second Chance

• Citation: Vol. 7 No. 2
• Publication year: 2025

No Second Chance

The Inappropriate Use of Juvenile Delinquencies in Immigration Law Adjudications

[Page 95]

Sarah Diaz, Jessica Heldman, Lisa Jacobs, and Sierra Garcia ^*

Abstract: Records generated by youth legal systems—or "juvenile justice systems"—are increasingly being used against young people in immigration proceedings. This practice undermines the core purpose of these youth-focused systems and can have devastating, life-altering consequences, including the denial of immigration benefits or deportation. Juvenile justice systems in the United States are founded on the recognition that children and adolescents are developmentally different from adults and require a distinct approach focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Rooted in the understanding that young people are still maturing, these systems are designed to support growth, foster second chances, and avoid permanent stigmatization. This article argues that the use of juvenile records in immigration proceedings functions to treat children as miniature adults and defies the underlying principles of state juvenile justice systems.

Introduction

Juvenile justice records are increasingly being used against young people in immigration proceedings. This practice undermines the core purpose of the juvenile justice system and can have devastating, life-altering consequences for youth, including the denial of immigration benefits or deportation. The juvenile justice system in the United States was founded on the recognition that children and adolescents are developmentally different from adults and require a distinct approach focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. ¹ Rooted in the understanding that young people are still maturing, the system is designed to support growth, foster second chances, and avoid permanent stigmatization. This article argues that the use of juvenile records in immigration proceedings functions to treat children as miniature adults and defies the underlying principles of state juvenile justice systems. The use of such records contradicts relevant case law and policy, including Supreme Court precedent, and ignores more than 25 years of social science on child and adolescent development, and, as a result, produces harmful and unjust outcomes.

To explain how records from the state juvenile justice system are currently being misused in federal immigration adjudications and even by some immigration law advocates, the second section of this article will set out the

[Page 96]

scope of the discussion and define key terms, including "youthful offender" and "juvenile delinquency," to clarify the distinct legal schemes and systems involved in this discussion. One of the challenges in conveying the legal and policy arguments against the use of juvenile records in immigration proceedings comes from a fundamental misunderstanding among many people (including judges, attorneys, clients, legislators, and agency personnel) about the difference between juvenile justice and youthful offender schemes. In this article, our priority is to be crystal clear about the fact that juvenile records are inappropriate to use in these circumstances because the juvenile system is wholly distinct from the adult system. The youthful offender scheme is actually a hybrid of the adult and juvenile system, which requires additional analysis. Our intent is to emphasize a bright line between juvenile and adult and leave arguments about youthful offenders for another piece to avoid confusion.

The third section will explain the fundamental differences between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal system. Scientific research has consistently shown that adolescence is a distinct period of development characterized by differences in brain structure and function, cognitive abilities, and psychosocial maturity compared to adulthood. ² This section will explain how the juvenile justice system is specifically designed to account for these differences, highlighting its civil, social service-oriented nature, the use of diversion, less adversarial processes, distinct accountability measures, and the critical principles of confidentiality and record sealing.

The fourth section will explore the legal precedent and guidance often cited by immigration adjudicators and demonstrate how this existing immigration law framework fundamentally misunderstands the difference between the juvenile court process and youthful offender convictions and fails to appropriately guide how juvenile justice encounters should be treated under immigration law. This section will also analyze both discretionary determinations and specific conduct-based grounds of inadmissibility under immigration law (i.e., drug trafficking and prostitution) and argue why it is inappropriate to apply these grounds to a child. Specifically, this section will demonstrate how applying these grounds based on juvenile conduct conflicts not only with juvenile law and science but also with other areas of immigration law that recognize the unique circumstances of children, such as protections for child trafficking victims.

The fifth section will detail how practitioners across the country are reporting that immigration authorities (specifically U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)) are using juvenile records against youth to deny immigration benefits or pursue removal. This section will present findings from case reviews and surveys, highlighting these concerning patterns, offering specific case examples from Illinois and California, among other states, to illustrate the real-life consequences for young people.

[Page 97]

The conclusion will pull together the above arguments to reinforce the position that allowing juvenile records in immigration proceedings for conduct-based inadmissibility or discretionary determinations defies established law, science, and policy concerning children and youth. The article will conclude with specific recommendations for reforming the approach of the immigration system toward juvenile adjudications to align with the foundational principles of juvenile justice and ensure fairer outcomes for youth.

Scope of Discussion: A Note on Terminology

This article sets out to address the concerning practice of treating state juvenile justice system records the same as adult records in federal immigration proceedings, a practice that conflicts with the fundamental principles of juvenile justice and the distinct developmental differences of youth. Due to the complexity and breadth of this issue, which intersects various areas of law, policy, and science related to children and youth, the discussion will be limited to analyzing the specific problems of utilizing these records for conduct-based admissibility and as a matter of discretion in immigration adjudications.

This article will refer to "juvenile records" as a catchall for any juvenile contact with law enforcement that takes place under the state juvenile system, including records of arrest and records of delinquency, etc. This article does not address the distinct and important schematic of "youthful offender" programs. When discussing young people and the legal system, it is important to understand the difference between a "youthful offender" and a "juvenile delinquent." These terms involve separate schemes with distinct immigration consequences. Matter of Devison has caused confusion around these terms, leading to their conflation in immigration practice. ³ Juvenile justice is categorically non-criminal and rehabilitative. Youthful offender adjudications, even if ultimately non-criminal in effect, do not carry the same categorical clarity because they arise in criminal court. Focusing solely on juvenile delinquency allows us to drive home the point that the system was intentionally designed to give youth a "second chance," and that misuse of those records directly subverts that design.

State laws creating youthful offender status vary widely and must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine if Devison applies. To avoid further confusion between these two distinct processes, this article uses the definition of "youthful offender" consistent with Merriam-Webster's definition, referring to a young person (sometimes older adolescents between 18 and 21 years old) who commits a crime but is granted special status for potentially more lenient punishment, sometimes still involving processes similar to adult court. ⁴ This term is distinguishable from "juvenile delinquency," which involves a system for children, typically under 18, that is designed to care for and guide youth without the stigma of the adult criminal system. Juvenile delinquency

[Page 98]

proceedings are fundamentally different from the adult criminal system; they are non-punitive, focused on rehabilitation and the well-being of the child or adolescent, and result in adjudications, not criminal convictions. To be clear, while "youthful offender" records may also be inappropriately used in the context of immigration adjudications, those discussions remain outside the scope of this article.

The Distinction: The Unique Nature and Purpose of the Juvenile Justice System

The juvenile justice system is fundamentally distinct from the adult criminal system, rooted in a different philosophy, and operates through unique processes designed specifically for young people. ⁵ Understanding these core distinctions is vital to appreciating why using juvenile records in other contexts, particularly immigration, is so problematic. The original concept behind the juvenile court, first established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois, ⁶ was to address the needs of the young people, rather than focusing solely on the deed. ⁷ This marked the beginning of a rehabilitative court specifically for youth. While there has always been a tension between social welfare goals and social control (i.e...