A 17-year-old senior in the San Francisco Unified School District stood before Judge Marlem Nava at the Concord immigration court at the end of July, trying to prove that he should not be deported from this country. He had already been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile Status by the federal agency that processes applications for legalization. That status, which provides a pathway to legalization for abandoned or neglected youth, allows them to apply for a green card.
The 17-year-old had suffered years of physical abuse at home and came to the United States alone, said Milli Atkinson, who oversees the Justice and Diversity Center at the San Francisco Bar Association.
He did not have a lawyer, but Brittany Rogers, an attorney who works under Atkinson with immigrant students, had helped the teenager file a motion to terminate the removal proceedings against him.
In the past, this kind of motion was more likely to be granted for children by Bay Area judges, local immigration attorneys said. But in recent months, judges have denied most of their motions to terminate removal proceedings for juveniles.
An analysis of juvenile court data from Concord, the court that inherited most cases from San Francisco earlier this year, shows the percentage of denials climbed sharply beginning in late 2025. Under a third of these motions were being denied for most of 2024. By June and July of this year, nearly 90 percent were denied.
This is a trend nationwide as well. And it is exactly what happened to the 17-year-old. The judge refused to terminate his case, meaning that the boy still has to show up in the Concord immigration court every few months to fight deportation, while he continues through the lengthy, complex process of applying for a green card. Each time he shows up to court, he is one step further along in his removal proceedings, and one step closer to deportation. If for any reason he doesn’t show up at court, he could be immediately ordered removed by the judge, which could mean arrest and deportation.
Meanwhile, his application for a green card is moving at glacial speed. With the 3-5 year backlog in approvals of green cards for minors with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and a backlog in California of over 300,000 pending immigration court cases, the 17-year-old is in a difficult race against removal.
Rogers has also been assisting a third grader from Guatemala who attends public school in San Francisco. The student is 8 years old and has been navigating the immigration court system alone. The girl is required to keep showing up in immigration court periodically to fight removal, while simultaneously trying to pursue the same special juvenile status en route to a green card.
The student is too young to understand much of what is going on, said Atkinson, and the situation is frightening for her mother. Because the mother does not have permanent legal status, she risks arrest if she goes to court with her daughter. Volunteers have had to step in to help with the logistics of getting the girl to her appearances.
“The 8 year old is forced to miss school and come back [to court] in person, even though she cannot come with her parent,” said Atkinson.
Attorneys say making children show up frequently means the chances they will not show are higher—especially when children are handling their cases alone.
“We are seeing a slow pulling back of protections for children. To expect the child to behave like an adult is unreasonable, unfair and unjust,” said Atkinson.
“That understanding of a child’s limitations is not really present any longer,” said Stephanie Arzaga, the associate legal director at San Francisco’s Legal Services for Children, which represents immigrant youth. In recent weeks, all of Arzaga’s attempts to terminate removal cases for her clients have been denied.
Why this is happening now
The main reason judges seem to be refusing to terminate these juvenile cases, say attorneys, is because of a Texas district court ruling in June.
The government has interpreted that ruling to mean judges do not have the independent decision-making power to pause or terminate removal proceedings for children, according to attorneys who spoke with Mission Local. Attorneys question this interpretation, but children like the high-school senior are already reaping its consequences.
Based on the language from Judge Nava, who handles juvenile cases in Concord’s immigration court, it seems clear she’s been advised that she cannot terminate juvenile cases any longer, Atkinson said. “It is a sad commentary on the judiciary.”
In Concord, there are around 353 children in the juvenile court system who are affected by this change. Among them, there are hundreds of Bay Area children who will continue to have to fight deportation while their green card applications creep through the bureaucracy. “It’s not the youth’s fault that it takes a while, it is the government’s fault,” said Arzaga.
