O.Y.P.C. v. J.C.P.
126 A.3d 349
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Petitioner O.Y.P.C. filed a Family Part application seeking custody of her brother, E.A.C.P., to obtain a predicate order necessary for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status; the brother had just turned 18 but was under 21.
- Brother was born in Guatemala; biological mother concealed parentage and left upbringing to petitioner when petitioner was a minor; father absent.
- Petitioner later came to the U.S. (without authorization), arranged for the brother to join her in the U.S., and he was enrolled in high school and financially dependent on her.
- Family Part denied the SIJ petition because the brother had turned 18, relying on the New Jersey Code of Juvenile Justice definition of "juvenile" and concluding the court lacked jurisdiction.
- Appellate panel applied New Jersey Supreme Court decision H.S.P. v. J.K., holding Family Part must make the specific factual findings required by federal SIJ regulations for applicants under 21, and remanded for the court to hear evidence and enter required SIJ findings within 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Part must hear SIJ petition for applicant aged 18–20 | Petitioner: court must consider SIJ petition because federal SIJ eligibility extends to under 21 | Trial court: lacked jurisdiction once juvenile turned 18 under state juvenile statute | Court: Family Part must make federal SIJ factual findings for applicants under 21 and cannot refuse solely because applicant is over 18; remand required |
| Whether Family Part must apply New Jersey law in making SIJ findings | Petitioner: state court should apply NJ law to abuse/neglect/reunification and best-interest findings | Implicit opposing view: state court relied on juvenile delinquency statute and foreign-law context | Court: Apply New Jersey law (not foreign law or juvenile-delinquency definitions) when making SIJ findings |
| Whether Family Part must decide custody/dependency to enter SIJ predicate findings | Petitioner: request for custody or dependency should be considered as part of SIJ predicate order | Trial court: declined because juvenile was over 18 | Court: Even if court concludes state law precludes declaring dependency or custody due to age, it must still make all other SIJ-required findings and state its legal conclusion |
| Whether state court should consider immigration motives or ultimate federal SIJ eligibility | Petitioner: state court's role is to make state-law factual findings, not decide federal immigration eligibility | Trial court/federal role: ultimate immigration decision for USCIS | Court: State courts must not evaluate federal immigration policy or USCIS eligibility; they must make state-law factual findings to aid federal decision-makers |
Key Cases Cited
- H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196, 121 A.3d 849 (N.J. 2015) (defines Family Part's limited but mandatory role to make SIJ factual findings under NJ law for applicants under 21)
- State ex rel. J.S., 202 N.J. 465, 998 A.2d 409 (N.J. 2010) (discusses Family Part authority to place persons 18–21 in resource family homes when enrolled in school/training)
- In re Dany G., 223 Md.App. 707, 117 A.3d 650 (Md. App. 2015) (framework for SIJ best-interest and related findings cited in H.S.P.)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. W.F., 434 N.J. Super. 288, 83 A.3d 892 (App. Div. 2014) (addresses custody statutes generally limiting custody remedies to juveniles under 18)