Recinos v. Escobar, 473 Mass. 734

Liliana Recinos, born December 5, 1994 in El Salvador, entered the U.S. at 17 and sought Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status based on alleged parental abuse/neglect.
She filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court seeking the predicate “special findings” required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) to apply for SIJ status; the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because she was over 18.
SIJ relief is a federal immigration classification permitting unmarried persons under 21 who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by a parent to seek lawful permanent residence after a state ‘‘juvenile court’’ makes three predicate findings.
Massachusetts law limits ordinary juvenile jurisdiction to under-18s, creating a gap between state court access and the federal SIJ eligibility age (under 21).
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding the Probate and Family Court may, under its broad equity powers (G. L. c. 215, § 6), exercise jurisdiction over persons 18–21 for the limited purpose of making SIJ predicate findings; the court also held Recinos is “dependent” for SIJ purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Probate & Family Court has jurisdiction to make SIJ findings for 18–21 year olds	Probate court may use equity powers to make the required SIJ findings so she can apply before turning 21	Court below: no jurisdiction because plaintiff was over 18	Yes; court may invoke G. L. c. 215, § 6 equity jurisdiction to make SIJ findings for 18–21 year olds (limited purpose)
Whether Recinos is "dependent" on a juvenile court under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)	"Dependent" is broader than a custody order; includes those who need the court's assistance to obtain SIJ relief	Dependency requires formal custody/commitment	Held she is "dependent" for SIJ purposes; dependency need not be a custody order and should be broadly construed
Whether state court findings may exceed child-welfare matters into immigration determinations	State court should be able to make factual child-welfare findings needed for federal application	State court cannot make immigration determinations	State courts may make only child-welfare findings; immigration adjudication remains federal (USCIS decides SIJ eligibility finally)
Whether declaratory relief under G. L. c. 231A is required to provide relief	Plaintiff suggested declaratory relief; alternative ground	Defendant opposed	Court did not decide necessity of c. 231A relief because equity jurisdiction sufficed

Eccleston v. Bankosky, 438 Mass. 428 (Mass. 2003) (recognized Probate & Family Court equity jurisdiction over postminority claims in certain support/dependency contexts)
H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196 (N.J. 2015) (describing SIJ as a hybrid state–federal process and cautioning courts to limit findings to child-welfare issues)
Matter of Marcelina M.-G., 112 A.D.3d 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) (discussing legislative amendments to SIJ statute and state-court findings as preliminary)
In re Y.M., 207 Cal. App. 4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (explaining immigration is a federal power and limiting state courts to child-welfare findings)
Matter of Hei Ting C., 109 A.D.3d 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) (supporting limits on state-court findings to welfare determinations)
Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Mental Retardation (No. 1), 424 Mass. 430 (Mass. 1997) (explaining broad and flexible equitable powers of courts)