People v. J.C. (In re J.C.)

• Decision Date: 06 February 2015
• Docket Number: C068667
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.C., Defendant and Appellant.

In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.C., Defendant and Appellant.

C068667

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)

February 6, 2015

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 68585)

Seventeen-year-old J.C. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court after he admitted driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher. Because J.C. is an undocumented immigrant,¹ he filed a motion in the juvenile court for an order regarding special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status eligibility under the federal Immigration andNationality Act, Title 8 United States Code section 1101(a)(27)(J) (hereafter section 1101(a)(27)(J)). Such eligibility would enable J.C. to petition the federal government for legal permanent residence.

The juvenile court denied the motion, concluding that it could not make the findings required by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The juvenile court said it could not find that J.C. was declared a dependent of the juvenile court, because J.C. was a ward of the juvenile delinquency court. In addition, the juvenile court said it could not find that J.C. was eligible for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect or abandonment which brought him in front of the court, because although J.C.'s father had abandoned him, J.C.'s mother had been caring for J.C. and was still available to care for him.

On appeal, J.C. contends the juvenile court failed to make the proper findings for SIJ status eligibility.

The juvenile court denied the motion in 2011. Subsequent authorities identify additional factors that should have been considered by the juvenile court. (Eddie E. v. Superior Court (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 622 (Eddie E.); Leslie H. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 340 (Leslie H.); Code Civ. Proc., § 155.) We will reverse the juvenile court's order denying J.C.'s motion regarding SIJ status eligibility, and remand the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

When J.C. drove over the center line of a street into the path of an oncoming police vehicle, the police swerved to avoid a collision and initiated a traffic stop. The police observed that J.C. had red and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and was unsteady on his feet. A breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.18. When J.C.'s mother came to pick him up from jail, she produced documentation that he was 17 years old. J.C. was transported to juvenile hall.

The district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). J.C. admitted driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher; other charges were dismissed.

The next day, J.C. filed a motion for an order regarding SIJ status eligibility. The motion said J.C. was born in Mexico and entered the United States unlawfully when he was 13 years old; he came to join his mother, who had been living in the United States and is also an undocumented immigrant. J.C. and his mother are from Oxtotitlan in the State of Guerrero, an area the motion characterizes as "violent and dangerous" because of drug trafficking and drug cartel warfare. J.C.'s father abandoned the family when J.C. was four years old; J.C.'s grandparents are his only relatives in Mexico. Prior to his arrest, J.C. had been working in the fields to help support his family.

The juvenile court characterized J.C.'s motion as one to "grant special immigration status" rather than to make immigration-related findings of fact. After a nonevidentiary hearing on the motion in which both sides presented oral argument, the juvenile court denied the motion. The court explained its ruling as follows:

"THE COURT: The Court is denying the motion for the following reasons: There are three findings the Court has to make, and the Court cannot make any of those findings.

"The first one is that the minor is declared a dependent of the Juvenile Court. In fact[,] this minor is not a dependent of the Juvenile Court. He is a ward of the juvenile delinquency court. I could find no case that said his status as a delinquent under a [Welfare and Institutions Code section] 602 wardship satisfied the dependency requirement for the first fact that the Court has to find, and that's probably because the status as a [Welfare and Institutions Code section] 602 does not provide the child for or make the child eligible for long-term foster care.

"With regard to No. 2, the Court has to find that the minor is eligible for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect or abandonment which brought him in front of thisCourt. The Court cannot make that finding. The minor has a mother that has been providing for him in this country. She provided him food, shelter and clothing, although she hasn't presented herself to the Court.² She has been visiting the minor in the Juvenile Hall, and when they made that amendment in 2008, they actually narrowed the amount of minors that could fall under the statute to allow reunification with one parent as being acceptable. The fact that his father may have abandoned him when he was four years old does not qualify because the mother is still available, and also that's not the act that brought him before the Court. So I cannot show -- or the defense has not shown that the minor is here due to abuse or neglect or abandonment. He's here because he's created [sic] a crime, and with that I don't even get to [the element which requires that it] be in the juvenile's best interests not to return to his country of origin. In fact[,] he has grandparents that live in that country. He has someone to provide [for] him there. So I cannot make any of the findings, and the motion for special immigrants [sic] status is denied."

J.C.'s lawyer tried to revisit the issue at the contested dispositional hearing 12 days later, saying that the juvenile court had been "misled either in its own research or by the District Attorney indicating that the code doesn't allow a delinquency judge to consider the matter." The following discussion ensued:

"THE COURT: No, that is not what I said. I have every right to consider the matter and I did, but I didn't deny it just for that.

"[MINOR'S COUNSEL]: Well, you had initially said that you could find no case that allows you to even do this.

"THE COURT: Maybe I misspoke. What I said was I saw no case that the basis for the Court was based on a delinquency matter.

"[MINOR'S COUNSEL]: Right. And you had -- so my impression of that was that the Court was under the impression that it was not able to consider the [SIJ status] because [J.C.] is a delinquent, instead of a dependent.

"THE COURT: No, that is not --

"[MINOR'S COUNSEL]: And the code doesn't say that.

"THE COURT: That is not what I said. And I didn't deny it on that. He doesn't -- I denied it because he didn't fit the criteria . . . ."

On that same day, the juvenile court issued the disposition order adjudging J.C. a ward of the court for commission of a misdemeanor, and committed J.C. to custody at juvenile hall for 102 days with 102 days of credit, releasing J.C. to his mother's custody under the supervision of the probation department with various terms and conditions of probation. The order included the following handwritten notation: "Court finds minor not fit criteria [sic] for Special Immigration Status."

DISCUSSION

J.C. contends the juvenile court failed to make the proper findings for SIJ status eligibility. He claims the juvenile court misunderstood the governing federal law and misinterpreted the applicable criteria for eligibility.

The SIJ statute (section 1101(a)(27)(J)) defines a qualifying juvenile as: "(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 [one] or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found 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 nationalityor country of last habitual residence; and [¶] (iii) in whose case the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the grant of special immigrant juvenile status . . . ."

Addressing the first subpart in subsection (i) of section 1101(a)(27)(J), the juvenile court said it could not find that J.C. was declared a dependent of the juvenile court, because J.C. was a ward of the juvenile delinquency court. But the first subpart of subsection (i) of section 1101(a)(27)(J) is phrased in the disjunctive. (Eddie E., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 627.) The subpart goes on to say: "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 . . . ." (Section 1101(a)(27)(J)(ii).) Because the subpart is phrased in the disjunctive, dependency under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 is not the only way in which a petitioner could satisfy that subpart. (Eddie E., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 628.) A court could find either that an immigrant has been (a) declared dependant on a juvenile court or (b) legally committed to, or placed under the custody of a state agency or department or an individual or entity appointed by a state or ...