Edy Canales v. Marvin Alejandro Torres Orellana
67 Va. App. 759
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Canales (mother) sought sole custody of her son M.C. and asked the JDR court to make Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) predicate findings (abuse/abandonment, reunification not viable, best interests not to return to Honduras) to support an SIJ application.
- Father lived in Honduras; served by publication and did not appear in the lower courts. JDR court awarded custody to Canales but declined to make the specific SIJ findings; Canales appealed to the circuit court.
- The circuit court on de novo review awarded sole custody to Canales under Virginia law (Code § 20-124.3) but refused to enter separate SIJ findings, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to make independent SIJ determinations and questioning the sufficiency/credibility of evidence of abandonment.
- Canales appealed, arguing Virginia juvenile and circuit courts have authority (and should) make SIJ findings as part of custody proceedings; appellee and amici argued state courts lack authority to issue SIJ-specific predicate orders independent of normal state-law proceedings.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory text, Virginia constitutional separation-of-powers principles, and USCIS guidance, and evaluated whether state courts must or may make SIJ findings outside ordinary state-law adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Canales) | Defendant's Argument (Orellana/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Virginia JDR/circuit courts have jurisdiction to enter SIJ-specific findings as an independent matter | Virginia courts may and should make SIJ findings; custody statutes overlap with SIJ factors so courts can and must enter predicate findings | No statutory authorization exists; courts cannot confer jurisdiction on themselves; SIJ is federal definition, not a grant of state jurisdiction | Held: No. Virginia Code does not authorize separate SIJ petitions; courts lack jurisdiction to make SIJ findings as independent causes of action |
| Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) requires or conveys jurisdiction to state juvenile courts to make SIJ findings | The federal SIJ statute contemplates state courts making these findings and thus implies authority | The federal statute is definitional and does not confer state-court jurisdiction or mandate state action; USCIS guidance supports leaving state courts to apply state law normally | Held: 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) does not alter Virginia courts’ jurisdiction or compel them to make SIJ-specific findings |
| Whether Virginia courts must tailor custody orders to include SIJ-formulated findings when custody factors overlap | Courts should make SIJ-formatted findings where relevant to help juveniles obtain federal relief | State courts must apply Virginia law and need not tailor orders for federal immigration benefits; federal officials decide sufficiency | Held: Virginia courts may make state-law findings that federal authorities may consider, but they are not required to craft orders to satisfy SIJ criteria |
| Whether the circuit court erred by crossing out SIJ language and refusing to find abandonment or non-viability of reunification | Canales: evidence established abandonment and non-viability; court should have made findings | Court: evidence was largely hearsay and insufficient; credibility determinations support refusal to find abandonment | Held: No error. Circuit court’s factual credibility determinations stand; unappealed SIJ order findings are binding on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Stamos, 285 Va. 68 (2013) (statutory grant of jurisdiction to Virginia courts is required; courts’ powers are prescribed by statute)
- Windsor Plaza Condo. Ass'n v. [sic], 289 Va. 34 (2014) (principle of statutory interpretation: apply plain meaning to determine legislative intent)
- Recinos v. Escobar, 473 Mass. 734 (2016) (Massachusetts court held juvenile court has jurisdiction to make SIJ findings)
- Herring v. Herring, 33 Va. App. 281 (2000) ("Seen and objected to" may preserve an issue when ruling is narrow enough to make the objection obvious)
- Parrish v. Fannie Mae, 292 Va. 44 (2016) (appellate jurisdiction of circuit court on de novo review is derivative of the lower court)
- Maine v. Adams, 277 Va. 230 (2009) (unchallenged factual findings in an unappealed order are binding on appeal)