Angelica Sanchez v. Miriam Lopez Sanchez
761 F.3d 495
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Three Mexican-born children seek reversal of a district court order returning them under the Hague Convention to their mother, Angelica Sanchez.
- During the appeal USCIS granted the children asylum, a development the court treats as potentially bearing on Hague defenses.
- District court found the children wrongfully retained and ordered their return, but stayed enforcement during appeal.
- The Government and ORR were not initially formal respondents; custody arrangements and who can effectuate a return were contested.
- The court later holds that the Government must be joined under Rule 19 and appoints a guardian ad litem for the children on remand.
- The panel vacates the return order and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of the asylum grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal by non-parties | Sanchez; children argue lack of proper party status deprives appeal | Children lack formal respondents but possess interests warranting representation | Children have de facto standing to appeal |
| Jurisdiction and proper defendants under ICARA/UC-CJEA | Sanchez can pursue relief against Segura as custodian; ORR not required | Government/ORR not necessary respondents; jurisdiction exists | Government must be joined under Rule 19 on remand; joinder expedites relief |
| Effect of asylum grant on Hague order | Asylum grant dictates cannot return; remand to consider asylum evidence | Asylum does not automatically override Hague relief; exceptions still control | Asylum is relevant to Article 13(b)/(20) analyses but does not defeat the district court’s order on remand |
| Guardian ad litem and intervention | Children should be allowed to intervene or be represented | Existing parties should represent children’s interests; intervention not required | On remand, appoint guardian ad litem; no direct intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 2010) (outlines return remedy under Hague Convention and custody rights analysis)
- England v. England, 234 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2000) (return remedy preserves home-state custody decisions; return does not decide custody)
- Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (burden-shifting framework under Hague/ICARA for Article 13(b))
- Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000) (considerations on intervention and guardian ad litem in Hague proceedings)