De Guardado v. Guardado Menjivar
2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 112
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Blanca Calles De Guardado sought dissolution in Minnesota and requested sole legal and physical custody of her two Salvadoran-born children and SIJ findings to support their immigration petitions.
- At a default hearing (father absent), the district court awarded Blanca sole legal and physical custody and made findings about the father's abuse but declined to enter the specific SIJ dependency/custody finding Blanca requested.
- The court crossed out the proposed SIJ custody language and instead stated the children were dependent on their mother; it refused a motion to reconsider and questioned its jurisdiction to make SIJ findings.
- Blanca appealed, arguing (1) a district court may make SIJ findings in a dissolution proceeding and (2) the custody award qualifies as a placement “under the custody of ... an individual appointed by a state court” under the SIJ statute.
- The appellate court evaluated the statutory/regulatory SIJ framework, examined plain meanings of “placed,” “custody,” “individual,” and “appointed,” and considered USCIS guidance and the 2008 SIJ amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Calles) | Defendant's Argument (Guadardo / district court position) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district dissolution court is authorized to make SIJ findings | District court is a “juvenile court” for SIJ purposes and can make custody-related SIJ findings in dissolution matters | District court lacked appropriate forum/authority to make SIJ findings in dissolution proceedings | Yes. District courts qualify as "juvenile courts" and may make SIJ findings in dissolution custody cases |
| Whether award of sole legal & physical custody to a parent constitutes placement “under the custody of an individual appointed by a state court” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) | Sole custody award places children with an individual and is functionally an appointment by court authority, satisfying the statutory phrase | The custody award did not substantiate the SIJ custody/dependency finding; mere custody order insufficient | Yes. Plain meaning and USCIS guidance support that sole custody awarded by the court is a qualifying court-appointed custodial placement |
| Whether the district court’s wording that children were “dependent on their mother” sufficed for SIJ dependency/custody finding | The dependency wording plus custody award together should support SIJ findings | The court treated its custody award and wording as insufficient for the specific SIJ custody language | No. The court’s crossed-out SIJ finding and substitute language were insufficient; remand for proper SIJ findings required |
| Remedy on appeal | Request to reverse and order SIJ findings consistent with custody award | District court refusal to make SIJ finding and denial of reconsideration | Reversed and remanded for SIJ findings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Guaman, 879 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. App. 2016) (upholding a probate court’s authority to make SIJ findings in guardianship proceedings)
- Welfare of A.S., 882 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. App. 2016) (interpreting SIJ statutory requirements and limits on state-court findings)
- Chambard v. Chambard, 348 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. App. 1984) (district court custody authority in dissolution matters)
- In re Erick M., 820 N.W.2d 639 (Neb. 2012) (discussing the 2008 SIJ amendment expanding custodial placements)
- In re Maria P.E.A. v. Sergio A.G.G., 111 A.D.3d 619 (App. Div. 2013) (holding parental custody award supported SIJ dependency/custody finding)
- In re Marcelina M.-G. v. Israel S., 112 A.D.3d 100 (App. Div. 2013) (analyzing SIJ custody findings post-2008 amendment)