Romero v. Perez
182 A.3d 263
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- R.P., born in Guatemala in 1998, joined his father Celso Romero in Baltimore in 2015; Romero sought Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings for R.P. to pursue lawful permanent residence.
- SIJ applicants in state court must obtain five factual findings (age/unmarried; court custody/placement; state juvenile jurisdiction; reunification with one/both parents not viable due to abuse/neglect/abandonment under state law; return to home country not in child’s best interest).
- The Baltimore City Circuit Court granted custody to Romero and made findings as to age, jurisdiction, and best interest, but declined to find neglect/abandonment/abuse by R.P.’s mother (the reunification factor).
- The trial court expressed uncertainty about the applicable burden of proof, discussed both preponderance and clear-and-convincing standards, and described the evidence on neglect as “50/50.”
- The Court of Special Appeals held that Maryland requires the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for SIJ petitions, but concluded the trial court effectively applied that standard (evidence was in equipoise and therefore insufficient), and affirmed the denial of the neglect finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Romero) | Defendant's Argument (Perez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden of proof for state-court SIJ factual findings | Trial court should apply preponderance of the evidence | Trial court need not adopt preponderance; no clear state standard (implicit: higher standard might apply) | Preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard in Maryland SIJ proceedings |
| Whether trial court applied clear-and-convincing instead of preponderance | Court erred by using clear-and-convincing, disadvantaging Romero | Court acted within discretion or standard uncertain (no response below) | Although the court expressed confusion, its “50/50” conclusion equates to failure under preponderance; no reversible error |
| Whether evidence established neglect/abandonment/abuse (reunification not viable) | Romero contended evidence showed mother’s neglect such that reunification was not viable | Perez (through nonparticipation) implicitly disputed neglect; trial court doubted Romero’s proof | Trial court’s factual finding that Romero failed to prove neglect was not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| Standard of appellate review for trial court’s factual findings | N/A (Romero sought reversal) | N/A | Trial court findings reviewed for clear error with deference to credibility assessments |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyers v. Montgomery Cnty. Police Dep’t, 96 Md. App. 668 (discussing default civil burdens of proof)
- Mathis v. Hargrove, 166 Md. App. 286 (defining preponderance as more likely than not)
- Muti v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys., 197 Md. App. 561 (describing preponderance as greater-than-fifty-percent)
- Kusi v. State, 438 Md. 362 (standard of review: clear error and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Simbaina v. Bunay, 221 Md. App. 440 (role of state courts in making preliminary SIJ findings for USCIS)
- In re Dany G., 223 Md. App. 707 (describing the five required SIJ findings and duty of circuit courts to make factual findings)
- Coleman v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Police Dep’t, 369 Md. 108 (noting clear-and-convincing is reserved for unusual coercive government actions)