Jane Doe v. Office of Refugee Resettlement

Case: 18-40146 Document: 00514368570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-40146 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 1, 2018 JANE DOE, Lyle W. Cayce Petitioner - Appellee Clerk v. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, Respondent - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This case asks whether the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) is discharging its federal obligation to the benefit of an unaccompanied alien minor in refusing her access to Texas’s judicial bypass regime for the purpose of an abortion—the sole basis of which hinges on Jane Doe’s wishes. I. Based on the limited record before us, this case’s path to our court appears as follows. In late January 2018, Jane Doe, a pregnant minor, expressed an interest in obtaining an abortion to a “person interviewing her about her needs.” That person referred Jane Doe to a nonprofit organization that assists minors in Case: 18-40146 Document: 00514368570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2018 No. 18-40146 Texas who are facing unplanned pregnancies and need help with legal issues, including access to judicial bypass. That nonprofit referred the matter to Myles Garza and Rochelle Garza of Garza & Garza Law, PLLC. The Garzas met with Jane Doe, who expressed her wish to obtain an abortion. In accordance with that wish, the Garzas filed papers with the state court to initiate judicial bypass proceedings, and the state court set a hearing for February 8. ORR did not produce Jane Doe for the hearing. Thereafter, emails show that ORR advised the Garzas that Jane Doe no longer wanted to proceed with an abortion. Additionally, ORR provided the Garzas with hand-written notes, penned by Jane Doe, indicating that she “changed [her] decision to have an abortion” and that she no longer needed the Garzas’ help because she did “not want to have an abortion.” Emails also show the Garzas attempted to meet with Jane Doe, and ORR denied them access. On February 8, the state court issued an order confirming Ms. Garza’s appointment as Jane Doe’s guardian ad litem and Mr. Garza’s appointment as her attorney ad litem. The state court order provides that “any custodian of the child shall grant Attorney Ad Litem and Guardian Ad Litem immediate access to the child and to any information relating the child and shall fully cooperate with Attorney Ad Litem and Guardian Ad Litem.” The state court order also requires “the custodian of any relevant records relating to the child, including records regarding social services, law enforcement records, school records, records of a probate or court proceeding, and records of a trust or account for which the child is a beneficiary, . . . [to] provide immediate access to the records to Attorney Ad Litem and Guardian Ad Litem without requiring a further order of release.” ORR filed its notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, which ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals