Eddie E. v. Super. Ct. CA4/3
223 Cal. App. 4th 622
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Petitioner Eddie E., born in Mexico (1995), came to the U.S. at age 5 and never returned; his mother abandoned him and died in 2010.
- In 2011 the Orange County juvenile court adjudicated Eddie a ward under Welfare & Institutions Code § 602 for delinquency offenses and committed him to probation custody, later releasing him to ICE.
- Eddie sought juvenile-court factual findings to enable an SIJ (Special Immigrant Juvenile) application under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); the prosecutor did not oppose the request.
- The juvenile court found Eddie was not a “declared dependent” under the statute’s first clause and made no alternative findings about whether he had been placed in state custody or an appointee’s custody, or whether reunification was not viable due to abuse/neglect/abandonment.
- Eddie petitioned for a writ of mandate; the People did not oppose; amici and the U.S. Department of Justice filed briefs at the court’s invitation.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court erred by failing to consider and make findings on the statute’s alternative basis (legal commitment/placement in custody) and directed the juvenile court to hold a hearing and make the necessary SIJ findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adjudication as a ward under WIC § 602 forecloses SIJ first-prong eligibility | Eddie: §602 ward status does not preclude SIJ; court must also consider whether he was legally committed or placed in state-appointed custody and make reunification/best-interest findings | Juvenile court: Eddie was not a “declared dependent” under the statute (i.e., not a §300 dependency), so SIJ findings not appropriate | Court: Statute’s first clause is disjunctive; §602 ward status does not foreclose SIJ. Court must consider alternative (legally committed/placed in custody) and make required reunification and best-interest findings |
Key Cases Cited
- B.F. v. Superior Court, 207 Cal.App.4th 621 (Cal. Ct. App.) (juvenile-court authority to make SIJ findings)
- In re Y.M., 207 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App.) (purpose of SIJ classification to protect abused/neglected/abandoned minors)
- Boy Scouts of Am. Nat’l Found. v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 428 (Cal. Ct. App.) (statutory use of “or” indicates disjunctive categories)
- Shirey v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com., 216 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpretation of federal statute by reference to plain language)