B.R.L.F. v. Zuniga
200 A.3d 770
| D.C. | 2019Background
- In Dec. 2015, 14-year-old B.E.L.S. entered the U.S. from Guatemala with human smugglers to join his father (appellant) in D.C.; father moved to D.C. in 2007.
- B.E.L.S. testified he left for better opportunities and because gang members had solicited him to sell drugs and threatened him on two occasions; mother arranged his departure via smugglers reportedly out of fear for his safety.
- By Jan. 2016 B.E.L.S. lived with his father in D.C.; mother retained theoretical visitation rights and speaks with B.E.L.S. weekly by phone.
- Appellant sought District of Columbia court findings necessary to permit a federal Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J): dependency/custody, reunification not viable due to abuse/neglect/abandonment, and that return to Guatemala is not in the child’s best interest.
- Trial court found the child met age/custody/best-interest requirements but denied SIJS findings because it concluded there was no credible evidence that reunification with the mother was not viable (i.e., rejected neglect/abandonment).
- The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed that the child met custody and best-interest prongs but reversed on the reunification prong, holding the mother’s sending the child with smugglers constituted abandonment (or, per concurrence, neglect) and that reunification would not be viable.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Respondent/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reunification with mother is “not viable” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(27)(J)(i) because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment | Mother’s arrangement for the child to travel with unknown human smugglers constitutes abandonment and neglect; reunification therefore not viable | Trial court: no credible evidence of abuse/neglect/abandonment; ongoing phone contact and retained visitation show parental relationship, so reunification viable | Reversed: court finds abandonment (and, alternatively, neglect) based on sending child with smugglers; reunification not viable |
| Appropriate standard of proof for SIJS factual findings in D.C. court | Preponderance of the evidence suffices given civil/family context and Congressional intent favoring SIJS applicants | Trial court applied credibility assessment but did not require heightened standard | Court: preponderance applies; courts must avoid imposing insurmountable evidentiary burdens consistent with Congressional purpose |
| Whether court may infer abandonment from parent’s conduct (sending child with smugglers) | Appellant: such conduct justifies inference of abandonment given the severe risks and practical severing of parental care | Trial court: continued phone contact and visitation rights showed ongoing parental relationship, so abandonment inference unwarranted | Court: on these facts a realistic appraisal supports finding abandonment; sending a child with smugglers can constitute abandonment/neglect |
| Whether a finding of best interest to remain in the U.S. is inconsistent with denying reunification viability | Appellant: best-interest finding (not to return) supports SIJS regardless of trial court’s view of reunification | Trial court: found best interest favored staying but still denied SIJS due to reunification viability finding | Court: affirms best-interest finding but holds reunification prong must also be found (reunification not viable) to permit SIJS petition |
Key Cases Cited
- J.U. v. J.C.P.C., 176 A.3d 136 (D.C. 2018) (defines “viability” of reunification and guides SIJS contextual analysis)
- Benitez v. Doe, 193 A.3d 134 (D.C. 2018) (counsels against imposing insurmountable evidentiary burdens on SIJS applicants)
- E.P.L. v. J.L.-A., 190 A.3d 1002 (D.C. 2018) (clarifies SIJS inquiry focuses on viability of reunification, not parental-rights termination)
- In re J.O., 176 A.3d 144 (D.C. 2018) (discusses standard and factfinding in SIJS-related proceedings)
- In re J.C.F., 73 A.3d 1007 (D.C. 2013) (recognizes deference to trial-court credibility findings in family matters)
- In re E.D.R., 772 A.2d 1156 (D.C. 2001) (discusses preponderance standard in civil/family proceedings)