Department of Revenue v. Lopez
477 Mass. 268
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Two appeals from Massachusetts Probate & Family Court: Yosselin Guadalupe Penate (born 1997, El Salvador) and E.G. (born 2008, Guatemala), both undocumented minors seeking state-court "special findings" to support applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status.
- SIJ requires state-juvenile-court findings that the child is dependent on the court, reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse/neglect/abandonment, and return to the home country is not in the child’s best interest (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)).
- Yosselin: mother unable to protect/support her; father unknown/absent; lived in U.S. with uncle; Probate judge dismissed guardianship and declined special findings, commenting on motive and perceived lack of abandonment by mother.
- E.G.: father abandoned and provided negligible support; mother left for U.S. then children joined her; Probate judge declined special findings, apparently because E.G. is in mother’s custody.
- Appeals asked whether a state judge may refuse to make SIJ special findings based on the judge’s view of the child’s likely federal SIJ eligibility or the child’s motivation; Supreme Judicial Court transferred and reviewed both cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a state judge decline to make SIJ special findings based on perceived lack of federal eligibility or the child’s motive? | The judge must make the findings when motioned; child’s motive irrelevant. | Judges may refuse if they think the child won’t qualify federally or is motivated solely by immigration relief. | State judge must make the factual special findings when requested and must not refuse based on anticipated federal merits or motive. |
| Scope of state-court findings on "reunification not viable with one or both parents"—must findings address both parents? | Limit findings to the parent(s) named in the motion; no need to resolve the "one or both" ambiguity for all parents. | Some argue state courts should interpret "one or both" to require findings as to both parents. | Court directs findings be limited to the parent(s) identified in the motion; court will not resolve the statutory ambiguity. |
| Whether state court may refuse because child is in custody of other parent or court (e.g., E.G. lives with mother) | Child may still be dependent on court and eligible for findings regarding the noncustodial parent. | Presence in another parent’s custody negates need for special findings. | Custody by one parent does not preclude making findings re: the other parent; findings must be made as requested. |
| Whether judge must make findings even if evidence is thin | Judge’s role is fact-finding for federal review; must make findings even if ultimate SIJ decision is for USCIS. | Judge may decline if evidence insufficient. | Judge must make factual findings; assessment of sufficiency for SIJ is for federal authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Recinos v. Escobar, 473 Mass. 734 (2016) (Mass. SJC recognized state court role in SIJ findings and that immigration status is federal)
- H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196 (2015) (discusses limits of state-court role and avoids construing "one or both" language)
- Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) (when jurisdiction exists, duty to exercise it follows)
- Mondou v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford R.R., 223 U.S. 1 (1912) (jurisdictional duty principle cited in Howlett)
- Commonwealth v. Novo, 442 Mass. 262 (2004) (appellate court stands in judge’s position when judge relied only on documentary record)
- Berry v. Kyes, 304 Mass. 56 (1939) (same principle cited in Novo)