H.S.P. v. J.K., 121 A.3d 849

Background

Two consolidated SIJ-related matters: H.S.P. (custody of M.S., Indian national) and K.G. (custody and SIJ predicate findings for two Salvadoran daughters). Both sought Family Part orders to support SIJ petitions to USCIS.
M.S.: came from India to live with uncle in U.S.; trial court and Appellate Division found no abandonment/neglect by mother under the standards applied and relied on Indian law; Appellate Division reversed as to father but refused best-interest finding because reunification with at least one parent was viable.
J.S.G. and K.S.G.: fled El Salvador after father’s murder and gang threats; trial court found father’s reunification not viable but found mother K.G. did not abuse/neglect and denied SIJ predicate relief relying on H.S.P. reasoning.
SIJ process: two-step scheme — state juvenile court issues predicate factual findings (abuse/neglect/abandonment and best interests under state law) and USCIS makes the ultimate immigration determination on an I-360.
New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification; amici included immigration and family-law groups urging application of New Jersey law and that “1 or both” parents language be given effect consistent with USCIS practice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Family Part must apply New Jersey law or foreign law to determine abuse/neglect/abandonment	H.S.P.: Family Part should apply New Jersey child-welfare law, not Indian law; Appellate Division erred by using foreign law	Appellate Division applied India’s law in H.S.P.; trial court in K.G. relied on Appellate Division reasoning	Family Part must apply New Jersey law when making predicate SIJ findings, not foreign law; H.S.P. reversed and remanded
Proper interpretation and application of the “1 or both” parents language in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(27)(J)	H.S.P./K.G.: “1 or both” means reunification need not be viable with one parent to qualify; state court should make separate findings for each parent	Appellate Division required that reunification with neither parent be viable (i.e., more restrictive)	Court declined to substitute its own statutory construction (left primary interpretation to federal government) but directed state courts to make separate findings for each parent so USCIS can apply the statute
Scope of Family Part’s role — may it adjudicate SIJ eligibility or immigration purpose	K.G./amici: Family Part’s role is limited to state-law child-welfare predicate findings; courts must not decide immigration eligibility or speculate about applicants’ motives	Some trial court language treated SIJ application as immigration determination and relied on perceived misuse concerns	Family Part’s role is limited and circumscribed: make state-law factual findings (abuse/neglect/abandonment; best interests), not decide or pre-screen SIJ immigration eligibility — that is USCIS’s function
Appellate review standard for factual findings in SIJ predicate orders	Petitioners: trial-court factual findings should be respected if supported by evidence; Appellate Division misapplied law and facts	Appellate Division deferred and interpreted statute in a way that affected factual sufficiency conclusions	Appellate deference to trial courts remains; but where legal error (e.g., applying foreign law or failing to make required findings) courts must reverse/remand for proper findings under New Jersey law

Key Cases Cited

King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (U.S. 2015) (statutory language must be enforced according to its plain meaning)
De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1976) (immigration regulation is an exclusively federal power)
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1889) (historic statement of sovereign control over admission/immigration)
Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez, 248 F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (state juvenile courts make predicate factual findings; USCIS makes immigration determination)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding)