Opinion
2018–08393 Docket No. G–1188–17
05-01-2019
In the Matter of MAYKEL A.R.R. (Anonymous), Appellant, v. LENOR C.R.M. (Anonymous), et al., Respondents.
Adam Sanders, Cedarhurst, NY, attorney for the child, the appellant.
Adam Sanders, Cedarhurst, NY, attorney for the child, the appellant.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the subject child appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eileen C. Daly–Sapraicone, J.), dated May 14, 2018. The order, after a hearing, denied the child's motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable him to petition the United States Citizens and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On January 18, 2017, the child filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to have his cousin appointed his guardian. On October 27, 2017, the child moved for the issuance of an order declaring that he was dependent on the Family Court and making specific findings that he is unmarried and under 21 years of age, that reunification with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect, and that it would not be in his best interests to be returned to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and last habitual residence, so as to enable him to petition the United States Citizens and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J). In an order dated May 14, 2018, the Family Court denied the child's motion. The child appeals.
"Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110–457, 122 U.S. Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a ‘special immigrant’ is a resident alien who is, inter alia, under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court" ( Matter of Trudy–Ann W. v. Joan W., 73 A.D.3d 793, 795, 901 N.Y.S.2d 296 ). "Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for [SIJS], a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile's parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar parental conduct defined under State law, and that it would not be in the juvenile's best interest to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence" ( Matter of Marvin E.M. de P. [Milagro C.C.—Mario Enrique M. G.], 121 A.D.3d 892, 893, 994 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; see Matter of Maria P.E.A. v. Sergio A.G.G., 111 A.D.3d 619, 620, 975 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; Matter of Trudy–Ann W. v. Joan W., 73 A.D.3d at 795, 901 N.Y.S.2d 296 ).
The record does not support a determination that the child's reunification with one or both of his parents is not viable due to parental abandonment or neglect (see Matter of Ofelia del C.D.F. v. Felicia F.M., 167 A.D.3d 879, 880, 89 N.Y.S.3d 305 ; Matter of Oscar J.L.J. [Segundo R.L.T.], 151 A.D.3d 969, 970, 54 N.Y.S.3d 308 ; Matter of Malkeet S., 137 A.D.3d 799, 800, 26 N.Y.S.3d 330 ; Matter of Jeison P.-C. [Conception P.], 132 A.D.3d 876, 877, 19 N.Y.S.3d 66 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's denial of the child's motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS.
CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.