Edited by Anthony Hembree, Mashal Natha, and Sudipta Rout
Abstract
This article explores the structural reasons why immigration law excludes the “best interest of the child” standard, despite its longstanding role in family law and other federal child-protection statutes. The analysis shows that Flores and the TVPRA provide only procedural safeguards that stop short of influencing removal decisions, a gap solidified by Matter of M-A-C-O-. This exclusion produces doctrinal inconsistencies, particularly when compared to SIJS, which relies on child welfare findings. The article concludes by proposing statutory amendments and administrative reforms to reconcile immigration adjudication with federal child-welfare commitments.
