140 A.D.3d 951
N.Y. App. Div.2016Background
- Petitioner (cousin) sought guardianship over Arnoldo B. G.-C. (the child) to obtain Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).
- The petition sought findings that the child is unmarried, under 21, reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to parental abuse/neglect/abandonment or similar state-law basis, and that return to Guatemala would be contrary to the child’s best interests.
- The child moved for an order making the specific SIJS-related findings required by federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)).
- At a hearing, the Family Court denied the child’s motion for the requisite SIJS findings.
- On appeal, the Second Department reviewed the record de novo as to factual findings relevant to SIJS eligibility.
- The court found the child’s father deceased (so reunification with that parent was impossible) but held the record did not support a finding that return to Guatemala would be against the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Court should issue SIJS findings (custody, age, marital status, non-viability of reunification, and best-interest of return) | Child argued he met SIJS criteria: under 21, unmarried, placed under guardian, reunification not viable, and return to Guatemala not in best interests | Family Court (respondent) contested sufficiency of record to support findings, especially that return to Guatemala would be harmful | Denied: Court found father deceased (reunification with one parent not viable) but insufficient evidence that return to Guatemala would be contrary to child’s best interests; SIJS findings not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Maria P.E.A. v. Sergio A.G.G., 111 A.D.3d 619 (App. Div. 2d Dept) (explains SIJS statutory requirements and need for state-court findings)
- Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v. Joan W., 73 A.D.3d 793 (App. Div. 2d Dept) (addresses SIJS reunification and best-interest findings)
- Matter of Luis R. v. Maria Elena G., 120 A.D.3d 581 (App. Div. 2d Dept) (holds finding that reunification is not viable as to one parent can satisfy statutory requirement)
- Matter of Malkeet S., 137 A.D.3d 799 (App. Div. 2d Dept) (discusses evidentiary sufficiency for best-interest-of-return determination)