In Re GUARDIANSHIP OF Jose Maria Chimborazo GUAMAN
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 36
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Nube Galarza petitioned to be limited guardian for Jose Maria Chimborazo Guaman (born 1996), asserting he suffered severe childhood abuse, witnessed his father’s murder, fled Ecuador after threats, and has limited cognitive functioning (IQ 60) and need for a caregiver.
- A licensed psychologist’s report and testimony supported that Jose has limited insight/judgment and “enduring need” for supervision.
- The probate court appointed appellant as limited guardian but did not include findings requested to support Jose’s prospective Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) application.
- Appellant moved for additional findings requesting SIJ-related factual findings; the probate court denied the motion, concluding it was not appropriate to make immigration-specific findings in a guardianship proceeding.
- Appellant appealed; the Court of Appeals considered whether probate courts may make SIJ findings and whether the probate court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the requested findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a probate court is authorized to make SIJ findings in a guardianship proceeding | Probate: probate court may and should make SIJ findings as part of guardianship orders to enable SIJ applications | Probate court below: SIJ findings are immigration-specific and not appropriate in guardianship orders | Held: Probate courts are authorized to make SIJ findings in guardianship proceedings (statutory and Minnesota probate authority supports this) |
| 2. Whether the probate court abused its discretion by declining to consider appellant’s request for SIJ findings when the record supported them | Probate: refusing to consider SIJ findings undermines the guardianship, thwarts Congressional intent, and impedes the guardian’s duties | Probate court: declined as improper to add immigration-related findings beyond guardianship requirements | Held: Court abused its discretion by declining to consider the SIJ request; remanded for the probate court to consider and, if supported, enter detailed SIJ findings (dependency/custody, reunification, best interests) |
| 3. Whether the case should be remanded to a different judge for bias | Appellant: judge demonstrated predisposition against SIJ involvement, warranting reassignment | Respondent: no extrajudicial bias shown; standard for disqualification not met | Held: No affirmative showing of extrajudicial bias; remand to a different judge denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Y.M., 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (state courts must consider SIJ requests and hold a hearing when record supports potential SIJ eligibility)
- In re J.J.X.C., 734 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (state courts have authority to make SIJ-related findings in youth proceedings)
- Simbaina v. Bunay, 109 A.3d 191 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (SIJ predicate findings are factual, non-immigration legal findings that allow an SIJ application)
- In re Hei Ting C., 969 N.Y.S.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) (Congress intended juvenile/state courts to make SIJ findings due to child-welfare expertise)
- In re Mohamed B., 921 N.Y.S.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (appellate court made SIJ findings where probate court failed to do so)
- Zander v. Zander, 720 N.W.2d 360 (Minn. App. 2006) (standard of review: denial of motion for amended/additional findings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Schmidt v. Hebeisen, 347 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1984) (probate court’s paramount concern is ward’s best interests)