Eddie E. v. Superior Court of Orange County, 234 Cal. App. 4th 319

Background

Petitioner Eddie E., born in Mexico, brought to the U.S. at age 5 and lived here since; mother left when he was 8 and never supported or contacted the family; she died years later.
Eddie lived with his father, who had health and substance problems that disrupted family stability; Eddie had sporadic schooling.
Juvenile delinquency proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code § 602) led to wardship, probation, and juvenile-hall confinement; petitioner later graduated high school with a high GPA while detained.
Petitioner sought state-court findings under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) to pursue Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status; trial court found the first statutory prerequisite satisfied but denied findings on (1) reunification with “1 or both” parents not viable due to abandonment and (2) that returning to Mexico would be contrary to petitioner’s best interests.
Trial court relied on out-of-state authority holding “1 or both” requires showing reunification with both parents is not viable and also reasoned mother’s later death meant inability to reunify was due to death, not abandonment; trial court also speculated a “fresh start” in Mexico might benefit petitioner.
This writ petition challenges those denials; the Court of Appeal granted the petition, ordering the juvenile court to enter favorable SIJ findings as of December 12, 2013.

Issues

Issue	Eddie's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether "reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents is not viable" can be satisfied by abandonment of one parent	Showing one parent (mother) abandoned Eddie satisfies the statutory phrase "1 or both"	"1 or both" should be read to require infeasibility of reunification with both parents (i.e., both must be unfit)	Court adopts literal reading: "1 or both" is disjunctive; inability to reunify with one parent suffices
Whether mother’s subsequent death negates that abandonment was the cause of non-reunification	Abandonment prior to death caused non-reunification; death only made that abandonment permanent	The inability to reunify was "due to" death, not abandonment, so the abandonment finding is inappropriate	Court holds death after abandonment does not defeat the statutory "due to" abandonment; abandonment remains operative
Whether it was in petitioner’s best interest to be returned to Mexico	Evidence showed petitioner lived almost entire life in U.S., had family and supports here, and had no viable support in Mexico; returning to Mexico would not be in his best interest	Court reasoned (speculatively) that a "fresh start" in Mexico or use of a diploma could benefit petitioner; risks in Mexico were speculative	Court reverses: trial court’s best-interest finding was unsupported and speculative; record shows returning to Mexico would not be in petitioner’s best interest
Proper role of state courts vs. USCIS in SIJ process	State court should make findings on dependency/reunification/best interest; federal authorities (USCIS/DHS) determine bona fides and consent	Trial court relied on USCIS decisions and policy concerns about immigration misuse, attempting to police good faith	Court clarifies state courts must apply statutory text and factual findings; USCIS, not state court, assesses bona fides and grants consent — state courts may, however, record pertinent adverse facts for federal review

Key Cases Cited

Simmons v. Ghaderi, 44 Cal.4th 570 (statutory interpretation; avoid judicial construction when literal reading yields no absurdity)
Leslie H. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 340 (state-court role in SIJ findings for delinquent minors)
In re Y.M., 207 Cal.App.4th 892 (purpose of SIJ classification and state court preliminary role)
In re Interest of Erick M., 820 N.W.2d 639 (Neb. 2012) (interpreting "1 or both" to require showing both parents often unavailable — discussed and rejected)
H.S.P. v. J.K., 87 A.3d 255 (N.J. App. 2014) (similar interpretation to Erick M.; legislative-history approach — discussed and rejected)