IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF J.C. (SVP-678-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1743-14T5

J.C., a 38-year-old Mexican national, committed multiple sexual offenses against five female victims (ages 14–41) involving violence, weapons, and threats; convictions include first-degree aggravated sexual assault and attempted sexual assaults.
He served ~9 years, 8 months in prison; in 2013 the State petitioned for civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA).
J.C. refused to cooperate with updated interviews; the State presented two expert evaluations based on records: Dr. Goldwaser (psychiatrist) testified at hearing; Dr. Canataro (psychologist) submitted a written report. Both diagnosed paraphilic disorders and assessed high risk of sexual reoffending.
J.C. presented no expert or witness evidence and did not testify. Trial Judge Freedman found the experts’ opinions uncontradicted and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that J.C. suffers a mental abnormality (paraphilia) causing serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior and is highly likely to reoffend.
The court committed J.C. to the Special Treatment Unit (STU). He appealed, arguing (1) the trial court should have transferred him to federal immigration authorities to commence deportation, and (2) insufficient evidence supported SVPA commitment. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (J.C.)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the state court erred by refusing to transfer J.C. to federal immigration custody to allow deportation proceedings	J.C. urged the court to adjourn and transfer him to ICE because he committed deportable offenses and federal removal should proceed first	State argued courts lack authority to compel or preempt federal removal timing; immigration discretion belongs to executive branch and state commitment may proceed	Court held state lacked authority to force federal deportation; proceeding with SVPA hearing was proper and not barred by potential deportation
Whether evidence supported finding of a qualifying mental abnormality and high likelihood of sexual reoffense	J.C. contended the testimony did not establish a mental abnormality or present risk to reoffend	State relied on two uncontradicted expert opinions diagnosing paraphilic disorder(s), noting J.C.’s violent sexual history and high-risk assessments	Court upheld commitment: experts’ uncontradicted evaluations provided clear and convincing evidence of mental abnormality and high risk of reoffense; commitment affirmed

In re Civil Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002) (defines mental abnormality and standard for impaired control under SVPA)
In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (2014) (appellate review of SVPA commitments is narrow; deference to trial judges)
In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) (appellate restraint unless record shows clear mistake)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (credibility findings by factfinder receive deference)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal executive has broad discretion over immigration enforcement)
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (executive authority and discretion in immigration removal)
Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (limits on federal detention periods and interaction with state custody)