CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

Practice Advisory | September 2022

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

I. Overview

of California Law

A. What is Confidentiality and What Does it Cover?

Confidentiality refers to limitations on access to and use of information and documents that are

protected by law or policy. In the context of juvenile records from dependency and youth justice

proceedings, California law states the intent of the legislature that “juvenile court records, in

general, should be confidential.”

This declaration reflects a long history of protecting juvenile

proceedings and records from disclosure to facilitate the rehabilitation of youth and avoid

stigmatization.

In particular, California law makes “juvenile case files” confidential. The juvenile

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center is a national, nonprofit resource center that provides legal trainings,

educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights. The mission of the ILRC is to work with and

educate immigrants, community organizations, and the legal sector to continue to build a democratic society that

values diversity and the rights of all people. For the latest version of this practice advisory, please visit

www.ilrc.org

. For questions regarding the content of this advisory, please contact Rachel Prandini at

rprandini@ilrc.org. Thanks to Kristen Jackson, Senior Staff Attorney at Public Counsel, for her insightful input and

contributions to this advisory.

While this advisory focuses on how to handle confidential juvenile records while representing clients at USCIS,

California’s confidentiality protections apply equally before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The term “youth justice” proceedings will be used in this advisory to refer to delinquency/juvenile justice

proceedings in California.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(b)(1). Despite this general policy, some limited exceptions to confidentiality have

been carved out. See, e.g., Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 827.2(a) (requiring notice to the county sheriff if the juvenile

court finds that a youth has committed any felony); 827.2 (c) (allowing for disclosure of records of an adjudication

for an offense under Welfare & Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) if the youth is 14 or older); 827.5

(allowing for disclosure of the name of a youth age 14 or older upon request following arrest for a serious felony);

828 (allowing for disclosure of juvenile police records to other law enforcement agencies under certain

circumstances).

See, e.g., T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 767, 775-778; see also J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223

Cal. App.4th 1329, 1337 (“There is a strong public policy of confidentiality of juvenile records.”). Many other states

take similar approaches to their youth justice systems. For example, in Illinois, the Juvenile Court Act emphasizes

CONFIDENTIALITY OF

JUVENILE RECORDS

IN CALIFORNIA

Guidance for Immigration Practitioners

Rachel Prandini

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

2 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

case file is defined to cover “a petition filed in a juvenile court proceeding, reports of the probation

officer, and all other documents filed in that case or made available to the probation officer in

making the probation officer’s report, or to the judge, referee, or other hearing officer, and

thereafter retained by the probation officer, judge, referee, or other hearing officer.”

The courts

have interpreted the protections of California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 827

to apply broadly not only to the documents contained in juvenile records, but also to the

information contained in those documents.

California case law has further clarified that Section 827 includes reports and written statements

by probation officers and social workers even if these reports or statements were not filed directly

with the juvenile court (e.g. if the matter was handled informally) or are produced before juvenile

proceedings have commenced (e.g. reports of suspected child abuse),

as well as police reports

that never lead to prosecution.

B. Background on California’s Confidentiality Laws and How They

Were Applied Unequally Depending on Immigration Status

In California, juvenile confidentiality laws have long been in existence that protect juvenile

information and files arising out of dependency and youth justice proceedings from being

disclosed without the juvenile court’s permission. This is by design, as the stigma and adverse

consequences resulting from the “criminal” label can undermine the rehabilitative purposes and

objectives of the juvenile court.

Under California’s rubric, only certain individuals and

that “[u]nless expressly allowed by law, a juvenile adjudication shall not operate to impose upon the individual any

of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by or resulting from conviction.” 705 ILCS 405/1-8(A).

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(e).

See, e.g., T.N.G., 4 Cal. 3d at 780 (“section 827 reposes in the juvenile court control of juvenile records and

requires the permission of the court before any information about juveniles is disclosed to third parties by any law

enforcement official”) (emphasis added); see also Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(4) (“A juvenile case file, any

portion thereof, and information relating to the content of the juvenile case file, may not be disseminated by the

receiving agencies….”) (emphasis added); People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287 (finding that a foster

parent’s testimony in a criminal proceeding about a child in her care did not amount to the inspection of a juvenile

case file or information relating to the contents of that file because the foster parent did not have access to the

case file, there was no indication that her testimony would be based on information related to that file, and her

proposed testimony was based on her personal observations).

In re Elijah S., (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 1532, 1551-1552.

T.N.G., 4 Cal. 3d at 780 (noting that in a case that did not result in the children being made wards of the juvenile

court, “[t]he police department of initial contact may clearly retain the information that it obtains from the youths'

detention, but it must receive the permission of the juvenile court pursuant to section 827 in order to release that

information to any third party, including state agencies.”)

Id. at 778. For additional information and arguments on the purpose of youth justice systems nationally as well

as USCIS’s misuse of juvenile records, see Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, The Center for the

Human Rights of Children, Academic Research and Position Brief: The Inappropriate Use of Juvenile Records in

Immigration Discretion (2022),

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

agencies—such as court personnel, the district attorney, the young person/subject of the petition

and their parents or guardians, and the attorneys for the parties—are given automatic access to

juvenile information and files.

Everyone else must petition the juvenile court to request access

to the juvenile court file under WIC Section 827(a)(1)(Q). This petitioning procedure is stringent

and requires filing a petition, providing notice to the young person and their family (among others),

and finally allowing the juvenile court to determine whether the need for disclosure “outweighs

the policy considerations favoring confidentiality.”

While California law never exempted federal immigration officials from having to follow the

petitioning process, prior to 2016 many counties argued that there was no explicit statement in

the law that releasing information to federal officials was subject to this process. With that

rationale, many probation departments reported suspected undocumented youth to Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), leading to the initiation of deportation proceedings for such

youth, and in the process, violations of California’s confidentiality laws. Although advocates had

been working with probation departments to curtail this harmful and unlawful practice for years,

these types of violations continued in many counties. Given the need for clarity in California law

on this issue, the legislature passed AB 899, which added Section 831 to the WIC and took

effect on January 1, 2016. Section 831 does three main things:

1. Clarifies that juvenile court records and information are confidential regardless of a youth’s

immigration status;

2. Makes clear that federal officials do not have automatic access to juvenile court records

and must petition the juvenile court in order to be permitted access; and

3. States that a child’s name and immigration status are protected by California’s

confidentiality laws and cannot be disclosed without court permission.

With this clarity in the law, it is beyond dispute that probation departments and other county

agencies such as child welfare departments

cannot share information about suspected

https://www.luc.edu/law/academics/centersinstitutesandprograms/centerforthehumanrightsofchildren/resourcesan

dpublications/.

See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(1).

Cal. R. Ct. 5.552(e)(5).

See, e.g., UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, Why Orange County Probation Should Stop

Choosing Deportation Over Rehabilitation for Immigrant Youth (2013),

http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-

learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf.

Note that unlike probation departments, child welfare agencies typically share juvenile information with federal

immigration officials in order to assist noncitizen youth in their care (for example, by filing an application for

special immigrant juvenile status for a child).

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

4 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

undocumented youth in their care with ICE, unless ICE first files a petition with the juvenile court

for access to that information.

WIC Section 831 also codified case law that had found that juvenile information includes not

only the “juvenile case file” as defined in Section 827(e), but also information related to the

youth—including name, date or place of birth, and immigration status—that is obtained or

created independent of, or in connection with, juvenile court proceedings about the juvenile and

maintained by any government agency, including, but not limited to, a court, probation

department, child welfare agency, or law enforcement agency.

This makes absolutely clear

that it is unlawful to share even a youth’s name and suspected immigration status or place of

birth with immigration officials, absent a court order.

C. Who Gets Automatic Access to Juvenile Records, and What Can

They Do with the Confidential Information and/or Documents

They Access?

Pursuant to Section 827(a)(1) of the WIC, the following individuals are permitted to inspect a

juvenile case file:

1. Court personnel;*

2. The district attorney, a city attorney, or city prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal

or juvenile cases under state law;*

3. The minor who is the subject of the proceeding;*

4. The minor’s parent or guardian;*

5. The attorneys for the parties, judges, referees, other hearing officers, probation officers,

and law enforcement officers who are actively participating in criminal or juvenile

proceedings involving the minor;*

6. The county counsel, city attorney, or any other attorney representing the petitioning

agency in a dependency action;*

7. The superintendent or designee of the school district where the minor is enrolled or

attending school;

It is also possible that the probation department could file a petition with the juvenile court requesting

permission to share information with ICE.

See T.N.G., 4 Cal. 3d at 781; Wescott v. County of Yuba (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 103, 108.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

8. Members of the child protective agencies as defined in Section 11165.9 of the Penal

Code;*

9. The State Department of Social Services, under certain circumstances;*

10. Authorized staff who are employed by, or authorized staff of entities who are licensed

by, the State Department of Social Services, under certain circumstances;*

11. Members of children's multidisciplinary teams, persons, or agencies providing treatment

or supervision of the minor;

12. A judge, commissioner, or other hearing officer assigned to a family law case with

issues concerning custody or visitation, or both, and certain other people actively

participating in the family law case;

13. A court-appointed investigator who is actively participating in certain types of family law

proceedings, or a guardianship case involving a minor;

14. A local child support agency for the purpose of establishing paternity and establishing

and enforcing child support orders;

15. Juvenile justice commissions as established under Section 225;

16. The Department of Justice as the repository for sex offender registration and notification

in California;*

17. A probation officer preparing a report for a young person in the Division of Juvenile

Justice who has petitioned for an honorable discharge; and

18. Any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile

court upon filing a petition.

The individuals and agencies listed above with an *asterisk* are also permitted to receive copies

of the case file.

Federal immigration officials are not listed among the individuals and agencies that are

entitled to automatic access to juvenile court records. Notably, neither are immigration

attorneys.

While the above-listed individuals and agencies are permitted automatic access to inspect, and

in some cases obtain copies of juvenile case files, Section 827 does not authorize these

individuals or agencies to further disseminate juvenile records or information. In fact, Section

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(5).

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

6 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

827(a)(4) contains a clear mandate restricting dissemination, stating that: “[a] juvenile case file,

any portion thereof, and information relating to the content of the juvenile case file, may not be

disseminated by the receiving agencies to a person or agency, other than a person or agency

authorized to receive documents pursuant to this section.” In other words, even those individuals

who have automatic access to juvenile case files are prohibited from disseminating the

information or documents to other persons or agencies absent a juvenile court order through the

petitioning process described below. The only exception is if the recipients themselves are also

automatically entitled to access (and in the case of documents, copies). Section 827(a)(4) further

provides that a “juvenile case file, any portion thereof, and information relating to the content of

the juvenile case file, may not be made as an attachment to any other documents without the

prior approval of the presiding judge of the juvenile court,” unless in connection with a criminal

investigation or a youth justice or dependency proceeding.

Even individuals who have automatic access to juvenile case files are prohibited from

disseminating the records or information contained in those records absent a juvenile

court order.

D. What is the Process for All Other Individuals and Agencies to

Get Access to Juvenile Records?

Because of the confidential nature of juvenile proceedings, the juvenile court has exclusive

authority to determine when and to what extent juvenile records may be disclosed.

Accordingly,

individuals who are not entitled to automatic access must file a petition pursuant to Section

827(a)(1)(Q). California Rule of Court 5.552 delineates the process to petition the juvenile court

for records and information. Rule 5.552 requires that any person or agency seeking to inspect

or obtain juvenile records must file a JV-570 Petition for Disclosure of Juvenile Court Records.

The JV-570 should identify with some specificity the records being sought (for example,

“disposition documents”). It is also important to describe in detail the reasons the records are

being sought, assuming the petitioner wants the court to grant the JV-570 petition (for example,

“I am the child’s immigration attorney, and I am seeking access to these records to assess his

potential eligibility for a form of immigration legal status called U nonimmigrant status.”). The

Court of Appeals held in a 2003 case that the superior court had properly denied a petition in

Cimarusti v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 799, 803-804; T.N.G. 4 Cal.3d at 780 (“section 827 reposes

in the juvenile court control of juvenile records and requires the permission of the court before any information

about juveniles is disclosed to third parties by any law enforcement official”). The Court of Appeals has made

clear that “the juvenile court has exclusive authority to determine the extent to which confidential juvenile records

may be released and controls ‘the time, place and manner of inspection.’” In re Gina S. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th

1074, 1081-1082 (citing Lorenza P. v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 607, 611); see also T.N.G., 4

Cal.3d at 778; In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 220, 233 (“The juvenile court has both ‘the sensitivity and

expertise’ to make this determination.”).

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

which a grand jury sought access to certain juvenile court records under Section 827 relating to

a dependency action.

The Court held that the grand jury had failed to provide adequate

information to allow the court to determine that the interests of the grand jury in obtaining the

information outweighed the interests behind the confidentiality protections governing juvenile

records. The Court noted that “strong public policy…underlies the confidentiality accorded to

juvenile proceedings.

” See additional information about the petitioning process in Section II(e)

below, and Appendix A for a sample JV-570 petition.

II. California’s Confidentiality Laws in Practice

A. Advocating for Clients whose Confidential Juvenile Court

Information is Shared with DHS Despite California’s

Confidentiality Laws

When representing immigrant youth who are involved with the youth justice system, advocates

should be aware of the potential for probation officials to alert ICE to suspected undocumented

youth in their care.

Although this is unlikely (and illegal) under current California laws, it is

important to be in communication with the client’s public defender and ensure that ICE has not

been notified of the youth’s detention in juvenile hall. If you find that ICE has been in

communication with local youth justice officials—for example, if the public defender discovers

that ICE has issued detainer request for your client

—work with the public defender to assist

them in filing a request for a nondissemination order against the probation department (or

whatever agency you find has shared your client’s information with ICE). If ICE has not yet met

with your client, remind your client not to share any information with ICE, and request to have

you or their public defender present.

It is also possible that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may attempt to use

improperly obtained confidential information against your client in removal proceedings or in their

People v. Superior Court (Tulare) (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 488.

Id. at 493.

Although outside of the scope of this advisory, advocates should also be aware that in cases involving the child

welfare system, California law precludes information sharing with ICE pursuant to the federal Parental Interests

Directive, unless juvenile court permission is obtained. For more information about ICE’s Parental Interests

Directive, see ILRC, The ICE Parental Interests Directive: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Advocate with ICE to

Ensure Fair Treatment of Detained or Deported Parents (Sept. 2022),

https://www.ilrc.org/the-ice-parental-

interests-directive; ICE, 11064.3: Parental Interest of Noncitizen Parents and Legal Guardians of Minor Children

or Incapacitated Adults (2022), https://www.ice.gov/detain/parental-interest.

It is also possible that probation could alert ICE to immigrant youth in their care who have engaged in

deportable conduct.

An ICE detainer request is a request from immigration authorities to local law enforcement to 1) hold someone

for 48 hours after the person is eligible for release from criminal custody in order for ICE to arrest them and take

custody and/or to 2) notify ICE when the person will be released, so that ICE can apprehend them upon release.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

8 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

case at U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS). Some examples of how DHS may try

to use confidential information or documents against your client include:

• An ICE attorney trying to use against your client evidence of alienage or deportability

obtained from documents or information in the juvenile court file or otherwise traced to

violations of California’s confidentiality laws;

• An ICE attorney trying to submit to the immigration court juvenile court minute orders or

probation reports as negative evidence bearing on statutory bars or discretion without

juvenile court approval; or

• A USCIS officer relying upon these documents in an A file to deny a client a benefit like

special immigrant juvenile status-based adjustment of status or asylum.

If DHS attempts any of these actions and you can demonstrate that they obtained the juvenile

court records or information without having gone through the juvenile court petitioning process,

argue against the admission of this evidence. File a motion to suppress if necessary.

Argue

that the violation of state law results in a Fifth Amendment due process violation, because

proceedings are fundamentally unfair when ICE uses evidence that was obtained unlawfully in

disregard of state laws designed to protect children, and because this use of juvenile information

constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to informational privacy.

A complete discussion

of the grounds and strategies for suppressing illegally obtained evidence is outside of the scope

of this advisory. For further information, please see “Strategies for Suppressing Evidence and

Terminating Removal Proceedings for Child Clients” by Helen Lawrence, Kristen Jackson, Rex

Chen, and Kathleen Glynn (March 2015) (sample motions to suppress included).

See, e.g., B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827 (9th Cir. 2022) (remanding for the agency to reopen proceedings and

to afford DHS the opportunity to rebut B.R.’s evidence that DHS’s evidence of alienage was tainted by the alleged

violation of B.R.’s privacy rights under California’s confidentiality laws).

In the case of a USCIS officer relying upon unlawfully obtained documents, it may not be possible to file a

formal motion to suppress. Options in this situation include filing a motion to suppress with the immigration judge

that asks for an order requiring that no one at DHS rely on the documents, or filing a letter brief with USCIS

warning them that they have the documents in violation of California law and thus should not use them in the

adjudication of the application/s. If USCIS denies the application, it may also be possible to file an appeal with the

Administrative Appeals Office (if available), arguing that USCIS should not have relied upon information and/or

records released in violation of California law.

See A.C. v. Cortez, 34 F.4th 783, 787 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding that federal constitutional law recognizes a right to

informational privacy that may be infringed upon a showing of proper governmental interest and applying a

balancing test to determine when the government’s interest outweighs the individual’s privacy interest).

Available at http://www.immigrationadvocates.org/nonprofit/library/item.556972-

Practice_Advisory_Strategies_for_Suppressing_Evidence_and_Terminating_Remov.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

PRACTICE TIP: Prior to Section 831 being added to the Welfare & Institutions Code, it

was not uncommon for DHS to receive documents, such as probation reports, directly

from the probation department in the county where the young person was arrested. These

records would often be retained in the A file and later used against the person when they

were seeking a discretionary form of immigration relief. This practice has largely ended,

but be on the lookout for older juvenile records in A files and vigorously object to the use

of this evidence in immigration court or by USCIS.

B. Submitting Applications to USCIS that Request Information and

Records from Juvenile Court Proceedings

Despite California’s robust confidentiality laws, the disclosure of an arrest as a minor in

immigration applications is typically unavoidable.

This is because most immigration

applications ask detailed questions about interactions with law enforcement and require

background checks. Nonetheless, detailed information

about the arrest and any resulting

adjudication, as well as documentation from the juvenile court proceedings, cannot be shared

with USCIS without juvenile court permission. Unfortunately, even when informed about

California’s confidentiality laws, USCIS officers often insist on seeing records from a juvenile

case, arguing that these are necessary to make discretionary determinations in immigration

For example, the I-485 application form to adjust status asks: “Have you ever in or outside the United States

been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance,

excluding traffic violations?” If your client has ever been arrested, even as a minor and even if the case was

dismissed, they must answer yes to this question—even if under state law they are permitted to treat the arrest as

not having occurred and to answer “no” to such a question on state forms.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(4) bars the dissemination not only of the juvenile case file, but also

“information relating to the content of the case file.” This prohibition, however, has not been interpreted as a

complete bar to talking about juvenile court proceedings, and in particular to sharing information in one’s personal

knowledge, such as an individual’s opinions and thoughts about the proceedings. Nonetheless, youth who were

the subject of juvenile court proceedings should be careful about how much information they disclose, as courts

have found that Section 827 bars disclosure of information originating from the court documents. See, e.g. People

v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 1287, 1314 (holding that Section 827 did not apply to the testimony of a

foster parent about her own perceptions of the foster child because it was not “information relating to the contents

of” a juvenile case file, in that it was based on her personal observations acquired from her one-on-one interaction

with the child when she served as her foster parent, and that there was no evidence that the foster mother had

access to the child’s dependency case file or that her testimony would be based on any information related to that

file); In re Tiffany G. (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 443, 451 (finding that the juvenile court’s nondissemination order was

not an invalid prior restraint or violation of the First Amendment because it in no way prohibited the non-party

stepfather from expressing his views and opinions about the dependency proceedings. The nondissemination

order did however appropriately prevent the step-father from circulating confidential documents from the juvenile

case file that contained not his thoughts and expressions but those of the children and child welfare professionals

involved in the proceedings.); In re Gina S. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1074, 1088 (holding that the lower court’s

denial of the petition requesting permission to disseminate information from the juvenile case file was too

restrictive in that it limited the mother’s ability to discuss an alleged violation of her privacy rights that was detailed

in the juvenile court records.).

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

10 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

applications, or to rule out potential conduct-based inadmissibility grounds or other bars to relief.

In some cases, not providing juvenile records has led USCIS to issue denials of immigration

benefits. This means many practitioners find themselves facing the competing interests of

honoring California’s confidentiality laws and policies and pushing back on the government’s

expectation of viewing juvenile records, while successfully pursuing immigration relief for clients.

Ideally, practitioners would never have to submit juvenile records. Submitting juvenile records is

not only at odds with California law and policy, but also can harm an individual’s case by

providing negative information to the government that can be used against the individual in that

case as well as any future case. Nevertheless, practitioners should analyze the facts of each

case to determine whether there are instances where it would benefit the client to seek

permission to disclose records. Both approaches below may be reasonable depending on the

facts of your case:

1. If you do not intend to submit juvenile records. Do not request juvenile court

permission in advance to disclose any documents or information from the juvenile

case file. Instead, assist clients in briefly responding to any questions on immigration

applications pertaining to their juvenile history (see sample language in

Appendix B), and provide a short legal argument in the cover letter for why

additional information and documentation is not being provided.

If you take this

approach, be prepared for some push back. If you receive a Request for Evidence

(RFE), Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), or denial, you will need to assess at that

point whether it makes sense to go through the JV-570 petitioning process to get

permission to disclose the disposition documents from your client’s juvenile case(s)

in response to the RFE or NOID, or following a denial (such as in a motion to reopen,

or a re-filing). See discussion of responding to RFEs, NOIDs, and denials in Section

II(c).

2. If you do intend to submit juvenile records. Request juvenile court permission in

advance to disclose disposition documents from the juvenile case(s). Do this by filing

a narrowly tailored JV-570 request pursuant to WIC section 827(a)(1)(Q), only

asking for the specific documents you need, as soon as possible in the case, as it

can take juvenile courts months to rule on these requests.

See Section II(e) for

In addition to making the relevant arguments under California law, you may also wish to advance the

arguments outlined in this position brief: Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, The Center for the Human

Rights of Children, Academic Research and Position Brief: The Inappropriate Use of Juvenile Records in

Immigration Discretion (2022),

https://www.luc.edu/law/academics/centersinstitutesandprograms/centerforthehumanrightsofchildren/resourcesan

dpublications/.

The actual length of time varies significantly by county, so reach out to local practitioners to get a current

estimate.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

information about filing a JV-570 request and Appendix A for a sample JV-570

request. Once you receive permission to disclose your client’s juvenile disposition

documents, include them in their application for immigration relief along with a cover

sheet noting they cannot be further disseminated absent juvenile court permission,

but be careful not to share additional information or records from the juvenile case

file beyond what you have received permission to disclose.

PRACTICE TIP: In practice, clients with juvenile records sometimes have a copy of their

own records on hand, or could quickly obtain a copy from the juvenile court since they

are entitled to automatic access. Oftentimes, this is how immigration attorneys first see a

client’s juvenile records. While the strict letter of the law does not allow for this kind of

dissemination, even by the youth who is the subject of the records,

advocates report

that in some cases this provides a quick way to review a client’s record and screen for

any immigration consequences of the juvenile record.

Despite this practical reality,

further sharing of the “juvenile case file, any portion thereof, and information relating to

the content of the juvenile case file,”

in any application for immigration relief without

juvenile court permission will constitute a violation of state law.

PRACTICE TIP: Advocates should warn clients that going into great detail about the facts

underlying their youth justice proceedings in writing or in interviews or other testimony,

and/or referencing information contained in the juvenile court records themselves may

violate California law, and as a strategic matter, could also harm their immigration case.

See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(4); see also In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 220, 234 (stating “[i]t

is the juvenile court, not the recipient, that has the authority to decide to whom juvenile court records may be

released”).

Note that juvenile adjudications are not treated as convictions for immigration purposes, and accordingly do not

trigger the conviction-based grounds of removability. See Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000), (citing

Matter of C. M., 5 I&N Dec. 27 (BIA 1953)), Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I&N Dec. 135 (BIA 1981) (noting that

the Board of Immigration Appeals has consistently held “that juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal

proceedings, that acts of juvenile delinquency are not crimes, and that findings of juvenile delinquency are not

convictions for immigration purposes.”). Nonetheless, a juvenile adjudication can still create problems for

immigrant youth because certain grounds of inadmissibility and deportability do not require a conviction but can

be triggered by “bad acts” alone, and under current policy and practice, USCIS and immigration courts consider

juvenile records when making discretionary determinations. For further information on the immigration

consequences of a juvenile record, see ILRC, What Are the Immigration Consequences of Delinquency? (Mar.

27, 2020), https://www.ilrc.org/what-are-immigration-consequences-delinquency

. For a quick reference sheet on

the immigration consequences of a juvenile record, see ILRC, Reference Sheet on the Immigration

Consequences of Delinquency (May 2022), https://www.ilrc.org/reference-s

heet-immigration-consequences-

delinquency.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(4).

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

12 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

C. Responding to USCIS Issuing an RFE or NOID Seeking Juvenile

Records, or a Denial Based on Not Supplying Juvenile Records

Advocates report that in some cases in which they have not included juvenile records in the

initial application for an immigration benefit, they have received an RFE or NOID asking for the

juvenile court records, and in a smaller number of cases, a detailed declaration about the incident

if the records are not available. If you decide to comply with this request, you must obtain juvenile

court permission. If you know in advance that you will likely comply with an RFE or NOID

requesting juvenile records (which you may decide to do, for example, in a case where the client

was arrested for a serious sounding offense, but was actually adjudicated for a much lesser

offense), you may want to file the petition requesting permission to disseminate the records even

in advance of receiving an RFE or NOID.

As you and your client consider what approach to take, keep in mind several policy

reasons that support not sharing juvenile records: doing so may jeopardize future cases

where an advocate might want to keep information from being disclosed; it can set

expectations within USCIS or other relevant agencies that these records should be

provided on a regular basis; and it undermines the important work advocates are doing

to ensure that DHS does not obtain confidential juvenile court information without going

through proper state court channels. It may also work against the advocacy being done

with DHS to treat young people differently than adults and stop requesting juvenile

records to begin with.

If you and your client do decide to request juvenile court permission to share records with USCIS,

be sure that you tailor your request to the limited records that you would like permission to share

with USCIS. For example, in the JV-570 petition, you could make the following request: “I am

the young person’s immigration attorney and am requesting the final disposition documents from

his juvenile court records in order to assess his eligibility for immigration relief options. I am also

requesting permission to disclose the final disposition documents to U.S. Citizenship &

Immigration Services if required in connection with his application for Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals.” See Appendix A for a sample JV-570 petition.

If you determine with your client not to request permission to disclose your client’s juvenile

records, or if your petition to the juvenile court is denied, some advocates have had success in

responding to an RFE by reiterating the legal arguments for why juvenile records cannot be

lawfully shared. If the RFE requests a declaration in the alternative, your response should also

address the fact that Section 827 protects not only juvenile records but also “information related

to the content of the case file.”

Make sure to document the information you are providing and

See note 29, supra for legal arguments regarding the confidentiality of juvenile information.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

the efforts you have made to obtain evidence in the case. If, despite submitting these arguments

to USCIS, you receive a denial, be prepared to litigate the case on appeal, including to the

federal courts if necessary.

D. Advising Clients about Disclosing Information Regarding

Juvenile Arrests and Adjudications in Interviews

As noted above, Section 827 of the Welfare & Institutions Code not only provides that juvenile

records may not be disseminated without juvenile court permission, but also protects information

relating to the content of the case file. This places some restrictions on what information can be

shared with third parties, including immigration officials, without juvenile court permission. In

general, a young person who is or was the subject of dependency or youth justice proceedings

can talk about the facts surrounding those proceedings that they have personal knowledge of,

and the source of which are not the juvenile court records themselves. However, advocates

should warn clients that going into great detail about the facts, and including information

contained in the juvenile court records may violate WIC Section 827(a)(4). Further, advocates

should counsel clients not to answer questions about their juvenile record, but rather to reference

the confidentiality of those records under state law.

Sample approach for how to counsel a client in preparation for a USCIS interview where you

anticipate that the officer may ask questions about the client’s confidential juvenile record:

Bryan was arrested for residential burglary in San Bernardino when he was 15 years old.

His case was handled in juvenile court, and he has since completed the terms of his

probation. He has filed for adjustment of status based on special immigrant juvenile status.

In his I-485, you included the following information in response to the question regarding

arrests: “I was arrested as a minor for taking an iPhone from my neighbor’s house. My

case was handled in juvenile court and is now closed. My records are confidential under

California law.” Now, you are preparing Bryan for his interview with USCIS. He asks you

how he should respond if the officer asks him what happened in his juvenile court

proceedings. How can you counsel him to be open with the USCIS officer, while at the

same time following state law?

One way to help Bryan prepare for his interview would be to inform him that there are

laws in California that limit the individuals and agencies that can access his juvenile court

record, and that immigration authorities are not given permission under the law to know

about his juvenile court record, unless the juvenile court has specifically granted them

access. Because the laws govern both the actual physical records and the information

contained in them, Bryan should not talk openly about information in the records.

Accordingly, you could advise him to respond to USCIS questioning with something like

the following: “My attorney has advised me that I can’t talk about what happened in

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

14 GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

juvenile court because it’s protected by state law. I can tell you why I think I got arrested,

which is that I took an iPhone from my neighbor’s house, but I can’t talk much more about

juvenile court, other than to say that my case is now closed.”

E. How to Request Juvenile Records and Share Them Lawfully

when Necessary

In cases in which advocates and their clients decide to provide some juvenile information or

documents to USCIS, they will have to obtain permission from the juvenile court. To do so, follow

the JV-570 petitioning process described in California Rule of Court 5.552. The general process

necessary to petition the court includes:

• Completing the JV-570 and JV-571;

• Serving those documents along with a blank copy of the JV-572 on the individuals and

agencies listed in Rule 5.552(c)(1) at least 10 days before the petition is submitted to the

court; and

• Filing the JV-569 proof of service with the court, along with a JV-573 and JV-574 for use

by the court in ruling on the request.

With respect to the documents that you request permission to disseminate, be sure to limit your

request only to those documents that you would actually like to share with USCIS. For example,

it is generally not advisable to request permission to disseminate probation reports or police

records, as those can often contain superfluous and inaccurate information, and can work

against ongoing advocacy to encourage USCIS not to request and rely on them.

In general,

requests should be limited to the final disposition documents from juvenile court.

For example, in the JV-570 petition, you could make the following request: “I am the young

person’s immigration attorney and am requesting the final disposition documents from his

juvenile court records in order to assess his eligibility for immigration relief options. I am also

requesting permission to disclose the final disposition documents to U.S. Citizenship &

Immigration Services if required in connection with his application for Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals.” See Appendix A for a sample JV-570 petition. If you end up submitting

juvenile court documents to USCIS, it is also advisable to include a confidentiality cover sheet

with the filing to USCIS noting that the documents are confidential and dissemination to any

Note, however, that you may wish to request access to review these records so that you can fully understand

the factual circumstances of your client’s juvenile history. It is possible to request access to a broader set of

records than you request permission to be able to disclose to USCIS, and certainly possible that the juvenile court

may agree that it is appropriate for the immigration attorney to review certain records that the court would not

grant permission to disseminate to third parties.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS IN CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE FOR IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS | SEPTEMBER 2022

other person or entity (including EOIR) is prohibited absent a court order. See Appendix C for

a sample cover sheet.

III. Conclusion

The confidentiality protections that exist for people who have been involved in the dependency

and/or youth justice systems in California are incredibly important to avoiding stigmatization and

supporting their long-term well-being. As immigration advocates, we have an important

opportunity to send a message to federal immigration authorities that youthful violations of the

law should be treated differently. It is all of our jobs to ensure that we—as well as DHS and the

county staff our clients interact with—respect these provisions that are designed to benefit young

people.

San Francisco

1458 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

t: 415.255.9499

f: 415.255.9792

[email protected]

www.ilrc.org

Washington D.C.

600 14

Street NW

Suite 502

Washington, DC 20005

t: 202.777.8999

f: 202.293.2849

Austin

6633 East Hwy 290

Suite 102

Austin, TX 78723

t: 512.879.1616

San Antonio

500 6

Street

Suite 204

San Antonio, TX 78215

t: 210.760.7368

About the Immigrant Legal Resource Center

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) works with immigrants, community organizations, legal professionals, law enforcement,

and policy makers to build a democratic society that values diversity and the rights of all people. Through community education

programs, legal training and technical assistance, and policy development and advocacy, the ILRC’s mission is to protect and defend

the fundamental rights of immigrant families and communities.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Sample approaches to immigration applications when a client has a delinquency

history, or the client’s application for relief implicates records from the

dependency court, and you have not received prior juvenile court permission to

disseminate information or records from the juvenile case file:

Application for SIJS-based Adjustment of Status: Nina is applying for adjustment of status based on

special immigrant juvenile status. She is currently 19 years old. When she was 16, she was arrested for

shoplifting a T-shirt from Kohls. She was declared a ward of the juvenile court, and adjudicated for

shoplifting under Penal Code Section 490.5. She completed the terms of probation and her case was

closed when she turned 18. In completing the I-485, Nina comes to the question that asks: “Have you

ever in or outside the United States been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for

breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?” How should Nina respond?

Under Section 827 of the Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC), Nina’s juvenile records and information

relating to the content of the file are confidential. However, there is also no known legal exception

allowing nondisclosure of an arrest, even as a juvenile.

Accordingly, she will need to disclose the arrest

but be cautious in how she describes any other information. Assuming that Nina has not received

juvenile court permission to disseminate her juvenile records, she could respond to the question in the

following way: “I was arrested as a minor for taking a T-shirt from Kohls. I completed probation for this.

My case was handled in juvenile court, and the records from the proceedings are confidential under

California law.”

Application for U Nonimmigrant Status: Daniel was removed from his parents’ home at age 13

following a child abuse report. After an investigation, the allegations of abuse were found to be true by

the dependency court. While his parents were receiving reunification services, Daniel was placed in

foster care. He struggled to adjust to his foster care placement and began acting out. When he was 14,

he was arrested for possession of a knife at school. His case was handled by the delinquency court,

which placed him on a program of supervision for 6 months under Section 654 of the WIC rather than

declaring him a ward of the juvenile court. He successfully completed informal probation and the

petition in juvenile court was subsequently dismissed.

You are representing Daniel in his application for U nonimmigrant status based on the child abuse he

suffered. You have successfully obtained a signed U visa certification from the Department of Children

and Family Services (“DCFS,” the county agency that investigates child abuse reports). However, you

now have multiple questions about how you can file Daniel’s application with USCIS without running

afoul of the confidentiality provisions of the WIC that apply to both dependency and delinquency

proceedings:

The process of sealing juvenile records is distinct from state confidentiality protections. Generally, sealing allows an individual to have

their whole record erased and sealed, such that legally the case is considered never to have occurred under state law. For example,

California Welfare & Institutions Code § 781(a) provides that once juvenile records are sealed, “the proceedings in the case shall be

deemed never to have occurred, and the person may properly reply accordingly to any inquiry about the events, the records of which are

ordered sealed.” However, there is no known legal exception allowing nondisclosure of a juvenile adjudication for federal immigration

purposes even when the case has been sealed and state law provides that the juvenile adjudication does not exist. So even if an entire

case is sealed, it is recommended that the requestor disclose the incident because it may appear that the individual is engaging in fraud if

they fail to disclose the information.

1) Do you need court permission to disclose the information contained in the U visa certification,

which includes information relating to the content of the dependency file?

Given that your certification is from the Department of Children & Family Services,

hopefully

this agency would have followed the proper procedure to be able to release the information

contained in the U visa certification to you, and ultimately to USCIS.

As an advocate on the

receiving end of the completed U visa certification, you could either assume that there is no

order permitting disclosure and file a JV-570 petition requesting permission to share the

information included in the U visa certification with USCIS, or alternatively, assume that when

the county releases the completed U visa certification to you, it has gone through the correct

process to be able to disseminate the information, knowing that it would be shared with USCIS.

Note that if you are already filing a JV-570 to request permission to share documents and

reports from the dependency file, it may make sense to include a request to share the

information contained in the U visa certification in the JV-570 as a matter of course.

2) Do you need court permission to be able to include a declaration from your client detailing the

abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents?

Because Section 827 of the WIC applies not only to juvenile records, but also to “information

relating to the content of the case file,” a declaration describing the facts underlying the

proceedings could potentially violate the confidentiality provisions of the WIC. It is the ILRC’s

position that a declaration that is based on your client’s personal knowledge and limited simply

to the underlying facts of what happened will not violate Section 827, but that a declaration that

includes information that has been obtained from dependency court documents, and/or that

includes facts about the actual juvenile court proceedings, would violate the WIC. For example,

the child could describe the abuse that they suffered at the hands of their father, but should not

include things like, “I was made a court dependent and the government argued that my father

abused me under Welfare & Institutions Code Sections….” If you want to include more

information in the declaration, in particular obtained from or pertaining to the juvenile court

proceedings themselves, the ILRC strongly recommends that you file a petition in juvenile court

requesting permission to disclose this information to USCIS.

Note that if the factual circumstances were different, and you were seeking to obtain a U visa certification or police report from the police

or district attorney (“DA”) in a case where the victim or witness was a minor, but it either did not result in the initiation of dependency or

delinquency proceedings, or the information contained in the U visa certification and/or police record did not include information from the

juvenile court records, those records and information would likely not be governed by the confidentiality protections of the Welfare &

Institutions Code (WIC). This is because neither Section 831, nor Sections 827 and 828 of the WIC make every record in California that

involves a minor confidential. However, when you request a U visa certification or a police report from the police or DA in a case that

involves a minor victim or witness, that may be covered by other laws. For example the Penal Code and Government Code. Section

827.9(a) of the WIC (which applies only to LA county but is helpful in understanding this distinction) deals with juvenile police records and

states that “[t]his section does not govern the release of police records involving a minor who is the witness to or victim of a crime who is

protected by other laws including, but not limited to, Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, Section 11167 et seq. of the Penal Code, and

Section 6254 of the Government Code.” Instead, Section 827.9 applies when the minor was the person who allegedly committed the

offense, and sets out procedures for requesting the police record in that instance. The California Rule of Court that deals with

confidentiality of records in juvenile court proceedings is also instructive. In subdivision (f) regarding reports of law enforcement agencies,

it covers “information gathered and retained by a law enforcement agency regarding the taking of a child into custody.” Accordingly, this

provision applies when a child is arrested or taken into Child Protective Services custody, but would not govern when the minor is a victim

or witness in a criminal proceeding.

DCFS could do this by requesting permission from the juvenile court in a given case to share the specific information included in the U

visa certification. Alternatively, some county child welfare agencies that respond to a high volume of U visa certification requests have

indicated that they may seek a blanket order from the juvenile court to allow them to share the basic facts generally needed to complete U

visa certifications.

3) Do you need permission from the delinquency court to disclose information about your client’s

juvenile arrest, including that he has successfully completed informal probation and the petition

in juvenile court was subsequently dismissed?

The application for U nonimmigrant status asks: “Have you EVER [b]een arrested, cited or

detained by any law enforcement officer…for any reason?” As noted above, Daniel will need to

disclose the fact that he was arrested, even though he was a minor at the time. Whether he can

include additional information about the arrest and resulting proceedings in juvenile court

depends upon whether he has personal knowledge of this information, or whether that

information would need to come directly from the juvenile case file. If Daniel is able to tell you

generally what happened in his case, it is the ILRC’s position that sharing this basic information

in an attachment to the I-918 would not be a violation of the confidentiality provisions of

Section 827. However, this information should not be taken from the juvenile case file itself, nor

should it include details about the court proceedings, unless they come from Daniel’s personal

knowledge. For example, Daniel could include the following as an attachment to his I-918: “I was

arrested when I was 14 because I had a knife in my backpack at school. I completed my

probation. My case was handled in juvenile court. My records are confidential under California

law.”

PRACTICE TIP: Be careful not to disclose too much detailed information about a client’s juvenile history

in an immigration application without prior court permission. Submitting a declaration on behalf of the

applicant detailing the offense may be akin to submitting juvenile court records and would constitute a

violation of state confidentiality laws. In addition, it could hurt the case. When responding to questions

about juvenile arrests and/or adjudications on immigration applications, the key is to be brief, to only

include information in the client’s personal knowledge, and not to phrase descriptions in ways that may

be viewed as admissions.

Application for Naturalization: Felicia has been a lawful permanent resident since 2015. In 2019, when

she was 16 years old, she was arrested for theft after stealing a classmate’s phone. The petition was

sustained but Felicia has since successfully completed the terms of her probation. Felicia is now 19 and

would like to apply to naturalize, but is concerned about how her delinquency adjudication might affect

her chances of naturalizing, and how she should handle it on the N-400.

In order to naturalize, Felicia will need to show that she has had good moral character for the previous 5

years. Because her juvenile adjudication occurred only 3 years ago, it will be relevant to USCIS’s

determination of good moral character. Thankfully, Felicia is not definitively barred from establishing

good moral character since juvenile adjudications are not considered convictions for immigration

purposes,

and thus do not create a statutory bar. Nonetheless, because USCIS can also find that a

person does not have good moral character as a matter of discretion, the juvenile adjudication will be

relevant to the success of Felicia’s application, either broadly as evidence of bad behavior, or construed

as the commission of an unlawful act under 8 CFR § 316.10.

Furthermore, because the N-400 asks

Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000) (stating that the BIA has consistently held “that juvenile delinquency proceedings are

not criminal proceedings, that acts of juvenile delinquency are not crimes, and that findings of juvenile delinquency are not convictions for

immigration purposes.”).

For additional information on how unlawful acts affect good moral character, see 12 USCIS-Policy Manual F.5(L)(3). For further

information about naturalization, see Naturalization & U.S. Citizenship (ILRC 2022), http://www.ilrc.org/publications

various questions about prior arrests and probation, Felicia will have to disclose the existence of the

juvenile adjudication. In response to the question on the N-400 that asks whether the applicant has

“ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer (including any immigration…for

any reason,” Felicia could respond as follows: “I was arrested when I was 16 for taking a classmate’s

phone without permission. My case was handled in juvenile court and I completed probation. My records

are confidential under California law. I have had no further interaction with law enforcement since that

time.”

In completing the chart that follows in question 29 of the naturalization application, Felicia would need

to complete these questions based on her personal knowledge. For example:

Why were you

arrested, cited,

detained, or

charged?

Date arrested, cited,

detained, or charged.

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Where were you

arrested, cited,

detained, or charged?

(City

or Town, State,

Country)

Outcome or disposition of the

arrest, citation, detention o

charge

(no charges filed, charges

dismissed, jail, probation, etc.)

Taking a

classmate’s phone

Approx. 10/01/2019

Orange, California, USA

Handled confidentially in juvenile

court

If Felicia could not recall sufficient details to complete this table, or if she and her attorney thought it

best to provide further information from the court records, Felicia would need to petition the juvenile

court for permission to disseminate this information.

Sample language for use in a cover letter when the applicant is not including juvenile records because

they are protected under California law. In cases where the applicant has a juvenile history but is not

including juvenile records with the application to USCIS or EOIR due to their confidentiality under

California law, it is advisable to include a short explanation of this in the cover letter, for example:

“Please note that Mr. Doe has a brief juvenile delinquency history. He was arrested when he was 15

years old for taking a T-shirt from a store and his case was resolved in juvenile court. Pursuant to Welfare

& Institutions Code Sections 827 & 831, the records of those proceedings are confidential and cannot be

released to third parties without juvenile court permission.”

Note that Felicia would likely need to also answer yes to questions 24 and 27 on the naturalization application, which ask whether the

applicant has ever been charged with committing a crime or offense, and whether the applicant has ever “received a suspended sentence,

been placed on probation, or been paroled.”

Felicia would also want to include evidence of positive equities in her case to balance out this negative evidence, for example, letters of

support from teachers, coaches or guidance counselors, evidence that she is now enrolled in a community college and receiving good

grades, a letter from her employer stating how hardworking, dedicated, and even-tempered she is, and evidence that she has been

volunteering at her church for the past two years. In addition, if there were any extenuating circumstances surrounding the arrest,

information about those circumstances should be included as well. This could involve, for example, evidence that her parents had just

informed her the night before this incident that they were getting divorced, and the classmate’s phone that she took had been teasing her

about this, over which she was experiencing deep emotional stress.

APPENDIX C