Romero v. Perez, 205 A.3d 903

Petitioner (father) sought sole custody of his undocumented son, R.M.P., and requested state-court findings necessary for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status: that reunification with the mother was not viable due to neglect and that it was not in the child’s best interest to return to Guatemala.
At an uncontested default hearing, unrefuted testimony established that the mother forced the child, beginning at age 10, to perform dangerous daily labor (including unsupervised wood-gathering in snake‑infested mountains), ignored a wrist injury, and misappropriated support funds.
The circuit court granted custody and found return to Guatemala not in the child’s best interest, but declined to find reunification not viable due to neglect, expressing uncertainty whether the burden was clear and convincing or preponderance and indicating the evidence was equivocal.
The Court of Special Appeals held the proper burden is preponderance of the evidence but affirmed the circuit court’s rejection of neglect findings on the record.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari, held that the preponderance standard applies, adopted a broad, totality-of-the-circumstances standard for assessing viability of reunification under SIJ law, and directed the circuit court to enter an amended order including the requisite SIJ findings.

Issue	Romero's Argument	Perez's Argument	Held
Proper burden of proof for state SIJ findings	Preponderance of the evidence applies	(implicit) clear and convincing or unspecified	Preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard in Maryland SIJ proceedings
Legal standard for determining whether reunification is "not viable" due to abuse/neglect/abandonment	Apply a broad, practical standard considering totality of circumstances (history, harm, conditions)	Apply a narrower, technical inquiry into whether traditional elements of neglect/abandonment are met	Adopt broad totality-of-the-circumstances test; courts assess workability of forced reunification under state law definitions
Whether state courts should apply Maryland law or foreign law to determine neglect/abandonment	Maryland law governs application of statutory definitions even if conduct occurred abroad	(implicit) consider foreign conditions or stricter technical requirements	State law (Maryland) definitions apply to the facts regardless of where mistreatment occurred
Whether trial courts should act as gatekeepers for SIJ bona fides or impose heavy evidentiary burdens	Courts should be fact-finders, not gatekeepers; avoid insurmountable burdens given applicants’ limitations	(implicit) courts may require more exacting proof and credibility scrutiny	Trial courts must assess credibility but avoid imposing unrealistic evidentiary barriers; USCIS determines ultimate immigration bona fides

J.U. v. J.C.P.C., 176 A.3d 136 (D.C. 2018) (adopts broad viability standard; reunification inquiry focuses on practical workability given parent’s past conduct)
Benitez v. Doe, 193 A.3d 134 (D.C. 2018) (reaffirms broad interpretation of abandonment and warns against imposing insurmountable evidentiary burdens on SIJ applicants)
In re Dany G., 223 Md. App. 707 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (framework for SIJ predicate orders and emphasis on precise factual findings under state law)
Simbaina v. Bunay, 221 Md. App. 440 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (state juvenile courts must make independent factual findings when SIJ findings are requested)
Shurupoff v. Vockroth, 372 Md. 639 (Md. 2003) (preponderance is the general civil standard in Maryland)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard required in parental-rights termination contexts; distinguishes SIJ proceedings)
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (heightened proof required only when government seeks unusually coercive actions)