Eddie E. v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.

• Decision Date: 29 January 2014
• Docket Number: G048067
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: EDDIE E., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.

EDDIE E., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent;

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.

G048067

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Filed: October 16, 2013

Order: January 29, 2014

(Super. Ct. No. DL039927)

OPINION

Original proceeding; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nick A. Dourbetas, Judge. Petition granted.

Lina F. Somait; Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. and Martin Gauto for Petitioner.

No appearance by Respondent.

No appearance by Real Party in Interest.

Public Counsel Law Center, Martha Matthews; Legal Services for Children, Abigail Trillin; Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Angie Junck; University ofCalifornia, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, Sameer M. Ashar; Southwestern Law School Immigrant Law Clinic, Andrea Ramos; Youth Law Center and Alice Bussiere as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner, upon request of the Court of Appeal.

Office of Immigration Litigation DCS, Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, Melissa S. Liebman, Trial Attorney as Amicus Curiae, upon request of the Court of Appeal.

* * *

Eighteen-year-old Eddie E. petitions for unopposed writ relief after respondent court denied his request to make all necessary factual findings to enable him to apply for classification as a Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, title 8 United States Code section 1101(a)(27)(J), which provides "abused, neglected, and abandoned unaccompanied minors . . . a process that allows them to become permanent legal residents." (In re Y.M. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 892, 915 (Y.M.).) To be entitled to SIJ status, the minor must have, among other things, "been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or [be one] whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States . . . ." (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i).) Respondent court found petitioner did not qualify as a dependent because he had "been declared a ward of this court under [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 602" (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated) and did not make any of the other required findings for SIJ status. Petitioner contends this was error and seeks a writ of mandate ordering the respondent court to make the remaining findings of fact necessaryto determine eligibility for SIJ status. We agree and grant the petition for writ of mandate.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was born in Mexico in February 1995. He was brought to the United States by his mother when he was five years old, has never returned to Mexico. After abandoning him three years later, his mother died in September 2010.

In 2011, respondent court declared petitioner a ward of the court under section 602 after finding true allegations he had unlawfully taken a vehicle, resisted or obstructed a public officer, and was guilty of hit and run with property damage. It committed petitioner to the care of the probation department for placement in juvenile hall for eight days, with credit for eight days served, and thereafter to be released to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In 2012, petitioner's probation was transferred to San Bernardino County for several months after he was placed in a foster home in that county. He was transferred back to an Office of Refugee Resettlement shelter in Orange County later that year.

At a hearing in December 2012, petitioner's immigration attorney, Martin Gauto, made a special appearance to request respondent court make factual findings to allow petitioner to file a petition for SIJ status. After Gauto filed supporting memoranda of points and authorities, a hearing was held in January 2013 during which the district attorney declined to be heard. Respondent court found petitioner did not meet the first requirement for SIJ status, that he be an immigrant "who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual orentity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States." (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i).)

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate. We invited real party in interest the People of the State of California to respond informally; it responded by letter stating it was not opposed to the granting of the relief sought. We thereafter issued an order to real party in interest to show cause why a writ of mandate should not issue and invited amici curiae briefs from various entitles.

By letter, real party in interest reiterated it had no opposition to the petition while the California Attorney General's Office stated it took no position on the matter and declined to file an amicus brief. The United States Department of Justice filed an amicus brief stating it took "no position whether . . . petitioner satisfies the first criterion for a dependency order under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)." An amici curiae brief was filed in support of petitioner collectively by the Public Counsel Law Center, Legal Services for Children, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, University of California, Irvine School of Law, Southwestern Law School Immigration Law Clinic, and Youth Law Center.

DISCUSSION

"The Immigration Act of 1990 [the Act], codified at [title 8 United States Code] section 1101, sets forth a procedure for classification of certain aliens as special immigrants who have been declared dependent 'on a juvenile court.'" (B.F. v. Superior Court (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 621, 626 (B.F.).) "Congress created this classification to protect abused, neglected, and abandoned unaccompanied minors through a process that allows them to become permanent legal residents. . . . A minor who obtains SIJ status may become a naturalized United States citizen after five years." (Y.M., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 915.) "While the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction withrespect to immigration [citations], including the final determination whether an alien child will be granted permanent status as an SIJ [citations], state juvenile courts . . . [¶] are charged with making a preliminary determination of the child's dependency and his or her best interests, which is a prerequisite to an application to adjust status as a special immigrant juvenile." (In re Mario S. (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2012) 38 Misc.3d 444, 451 (Mario S.).)

The SIJ provisions has been amended twice since the Act's enactment. (Mario S., supra, 954 N.Y.S.2d at p. 848.) "'In 1997 . . . Congress amended [title 8 United States Code] § 1101(a)(27)(J) to require that a court, in its order, determine that the juvenile (1) is eligible for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and (2) has been declared a dependent of a juvenile court or committed or placed with a state agency' [citations]. 'Under the 2008 amendment, the eligibility requirements . . . hinge primarily on a reunification determination. The amendment expanded eligibility to include juvenile immigrants whom a court has committed to or placed in the custody of an individual or a state-appointed entity -- not just those whom a court has committed to or placed with a state agency or department. . . . Finally, Congress removed the requirement that a state juvenile court find that a juvenile is eligible for long-term foster care because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Instead, a court must find that reunification is not possible because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.'" (Id. at pp. 848-849.)

As it reads now, title 8 United States Code section 1101(a)(27) provides: "The term 'special immigrant' means—[¶] . . . [¶] (J) an immigrant who is present in the United States—[¶] (i) who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States, and whose reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basisfound under State law; [¶] (ii) for whom it has been determined in administrative or judicial proceedings that it would not be in the alien's best interest to be returned to the alien's or parent's previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence; and [¶] (iii) in whose case the...