A little-noticed case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California is testing the boundaries of immigration enforcement, raising the possibility that parents could be deported for minor lapses in parental judgment, even if no harm came to their children. The case centers on Sotero Mendoza-Rivera, an undocumented farmworker detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in August, and the Trump administration’s argument that a 2010 misdemeanor conviction for leaving his toddlers briefly unattended constitutes grounds for immediate removal from the United States.
In 2010, Mendoza-Rivera and his girlfriend, Angelica Ortega-Vasquez, left their 2-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter at home for approximately half an hour while they drove to a Walmart in McMinnville, Oregon, to purchase pajamas, motor oil, and brake fluid, according to a police report. Upon their return, they discovered their son had wandered outside the apartment complex, where a bystander found him with a baby bottle and alerted authorities.
Mendoza-Rivera and Ortega-Vasquez pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor citation, paid a fine, and completed probation. The responding officer noted in his report that the children were healthy and well-cared for, the apartment was clean and stocked with food, and a neighbor confirmed the mother typically remained at home with the children. While deportation proceedings were initiated under the Obama administration, Mendoza-Rivera was not detained. The case languished in the legal system for years before being revived by the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies.
The Justice Department now argues that Mendoza-Rivera’s actions in 2010 disqualify him from “cancellation of removal,” a form of legal relief available to immigrants who have lived in the U.S. For at least 10 years, demonstrate “decent moral character,” and would face extreme hardship if deported, particularly if they have U.S. Citizen children. Mendoza-Rivera and Ortega-Vasquez’s children are U.S. Citizens.
A DOJ lawyer asserted before the 9th Circuit panel in January that the severity of the offense is irrelevant, arguing that any parental decision involving a “substantial” deviation from a “normal” standard of care warrants deportation. This position has sparked concern among child welfare officials and advocates, who fear it could weaponize the child welfare system and lead to the deportation of countless immigrant parents for minor infractions. “Imagine what a weapon it would be in ICE’s hands if child welfare is added to all the other areas where a conviction for the most minor offense means deportation,” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
The case hinges on the interpretation of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which mandates the deportation of non-citizens convicted of certain offenses, including crimes of “child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” While the law’s original intent, according to its co-author Bob Dole, was to target violent crimes against children, advocates argue that the definition of “neglect” has expanded over the decades to encompass a range of non-harmful behaviors.
The Trump administration is relying on this broadened definition, potentially opening the door to deportations based on allegations of neglect stemming from poverty, cultural differences, or simply differing parenting styles. Undocumented parents may be more likely to face such accusations due to limited interactions with schools and healthcare providers, and the demands of working long hours, according to legal aid attorneys.
While there is currently no evidence that ICE is actively seeking out these types of cases, the potential for abuse remains. Data on child welfare cases, collected through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), could be exploited by immigration authorities, according to some experts. Jerry Milner, who oversaw the U.S. Child welfare system as head of the federal Children’s Bureau from 2017 to 2021, stated he was unaware of any such data usage during his tenure, but acknowledged “things are different now.” He expressed “strong concerns if any of the data are used for purposes other than what they were intended for.”
The Justice Department defended its position, accusing the Biden administration of allowing Mendoza-Rivera’s case to languish and asserting its commitment to removing “criminal illegal aliens” who have committed offenses endangering children.
The central question before the 9th Circuit is whether the minor parental lapses alleged in these cases – conduct that may not rise to the level of criminal intent or actual harm – constitute the type of “crime” Congress intended to make deportable. Judge Jed Rakoff, a visiting member of the 9th Circuit panel, questioned whether Congress envisioned deporting individuals for actions that are merely a deviation from a “reasonable person’s” standard of parenting.
The outcome of Mendoza-Rivera’s case, along with several similar cases being considered by the court, could have far-reaching consequences for immigrant families across the country. The case could be heard by the full 9th Circuit and potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court. As Mendoza-Rivera remains detained in Tacoma, Washington, his family in Oregon faces an uncertain future, awaiting a decision that could tear their family apart.
