Simbaina v. Bunay
109 A.3d 191
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2015Background
- Maria Simbaina and Segundo Bunay divorced after separating; they share three children, including Nathaly (b. 2000), an Ecuadorian national who has lived with Simbaina in Maryland since 2010 and is undocumented.
- In custody/divorce proceedings the court awarded Simbaina sole custody of Nathaly; Simbaina asked the court to make Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) factual findings that reunification with Bunay is not viable due to abuse/neglect/abandonment and that return to Ecuador is not in Nathaly’s best interests.
- The circuit court declined to make SIJ findings at the custody/divorce hearing, stating immigration issues were not properly pled and suggesting a separate guardianship petition was required.
- Simbaina moved to alter/amend and for a new trial to obtain SIJ findings; the motions were denied and she appealed.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the circuit court erred: a Maryland circuit court exercising custody jurisdiction may, when the issue is properly before it, make the SIJ predicate factual findings without a separate guardianship filing.
- The case was reversed and remanded for the circuit court to hold a hearing and enter SIJ-related factual findings under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court must enter SIJ factual findings when the issue is properly before it in an ordinary custody/divorce proceeding | Simbaina: SIJ findings were requested in pleadings and at hearing; circuit court had custody jurisdiction and must make findings to enable SIJ petition | Bunay (below-court position): SIJ findings require a separate guardianship/pleading; immigration matters not raised properly | Court: Yes—circuit court may and should enter SIJ findings in custody proceedings when issue is presented; reversal and remand for findings |
| Whether federal SIJ directive imposes an unconstitutional nonjudicial duty or violates state separation of powers | Simbaina: Federal law authorizes state juvenile courts to make these child-welfare findings; state courts can perform them | Implicit defense: Ordering advisory findings for federal use might be nonjudicial or encroach on federal immigration regulation | Court: No constitutional barrier—federal statute validly delegates a role to state juvenile courts; Supremacy Clause controls and this is not an impermissible state regulation of immigration |
| Whether a circuit court qualifies as a "juvenile court" for SIJ purposes and may make findings without a separate guardianship proceeding | Simbaina: Maryland circuit courts have custody/guardianship jurisdiction and fit 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(a) definition | Court below: SIJ findings must be made in a guardianship setting | Court: Circuit court is a "juvenile court" under federal regs and may make SIJ findings in ordinary custody/adoption/probate settings |
| Whether SIJ findings require heightened pleadings or a separate motion | Simbaina: No heightened pleading required; Maryland rules require simple, direct pleadings and her complaint/requests put court on notice | Court below: Pleading deficiency—needed a guardianship petition | Court: No special federal pleading required; a clear request in custody pleadings and at hearing suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Yeboah v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 345 F.3d 216 (3d Cir.) (origins and purpose of SIJ protection)
- Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez, 248 F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal.) (state juvenile court must enter SIJ-predicate order)
- Leslie H. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729 (Cal. Ct. App.) (state juvenile courts appropriate forum for SIJ child-welfare determinations)
- Marcelina M.-G. v. Israel S., 112 A.D.3d 100 (N.Y. App. Div.) (family court custody orders can include SIJ findings)
- In re C.G.H., 75 A.3d 166 (D.C.) (adoption/family proceedings should include SIJ findings when presented)
- In re Erick M., 820 N.W.2d 639 (Neb.) (state court may hear SIJ issue even when raised by separate motion outside traditional custody pleading)
- Duffy v. Conaway, 295 Md. 242 (Md.) (state courts cannot be forced to perform nonjudicial functions — discussed and distinguished)