Recinos v. Escobar

• Decision Date: 04 March 2016
• Docket Number: SJC–11986.
• Citation: 46 N.E.3d 60,473 Mass. 734
• Parties: Liliana Maribel Rivera RECINOS v. Maria Isabel Recinos ESCOBAR.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

473 Mass. 734

46 N.E.3d 60

Liliana Maribel Rivera RECINOS

v.Maria Isabel Recinos ESCOBAR.

SJC–11986.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Submitted Nov. 5, 2015.

Decided March 4, 2016.

Elizabeth Badger for the plaintiff.

Mary K. Ryan, Cynthia M. Guizzetti, & Mara O'Malley, Boston, for American Immigration Lawyers Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.

Opinion

SPINA, J.

In this case, we are asked to determine whether the Probate and Family Court Department has jurisdiction over youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one to make special findings that are necessary to apply for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(2012).Congress created the SIJ classification to permit immigrant children who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both of their parents to apply for lawful permanent residence while remaining in the United States.Seeid.;8 C.F.R. § 204.11(2009).“[C]hild” under the Federal statute is defined as an unmarried

person under the age of twenty-one.8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1).Before an immigrant child can apply for SIJ status, she must receive the following predicate findings from a “juvenile court”:¹(1)she is dependent on the juvenile court; (2) her reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment; and (3) it is not in her best interests to return to her country of origin.8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i).Once these special findings are made, an application and supporting documents may be submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency.²An application for SIJ status must be submitted before the immigrant's twenty-first birthday.8 C.F.R. § 204.11.

Liliana Recinos, the plaintiff, was a twenty year old,³ unmarried immigrant attempting to apply for SIJ status.She filed a complaint in equity in April, 2014, in the Middlesex County Division of the Probate and Family Court Department.The plaintiff requested equitable and declaratory relief in the form of a decree of special findings and rulings of law concerning the findings necessary to apply for SIJ status.She also filed various motions, including a motion for special findings.A pretrial conference was held in January, 2015, at which the plaintiff submitted a stipulation signed by both herself and her mother, the defendant.⁴In March, 2015, a judge in the Probate and Family Court dismissed the complaint, explaining that the plaintiff was over the age of eighteen and that, therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction over her.The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.At the plaintiff's request, the Appeals Court stayed the proceedings so that she could pursue an asylum application; however, in late September, 2015, her asylum application remained unadjudicated.The plaintiff informed the Appeals Court that she would like to pursue her appeal as expeditiously as possible because her twenty-first birthday would occur on December 5, 2015.We took this appeal on our own motion and expedited the proceedings to preserve the plaintiff's opportunity to apply for SIJ status.This court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2015.

The primary issue raised by the plaintiff on appeal is whether the Probate and Family Court has jurisdiction pursuant to its broad equity powers under G.L. c. 215, § 6, over immigrant youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one to entertain a request to make the necessary predicate special findings under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).On November 9, 2015, we issued the following order to the Middlesex County Division of the Probate and Family Court Department:

“The judgment of the Probate and Family Court dated March 13, 2015, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is reversed.The Probate and Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's case, and the plaintiff is dependent on the court for these purposes.The court shall conduct proceedings forthwith on the plaintiff's complaint and shall act on her requests for relief expeditiously, such that, if the requested findings are made, she will have time to apply to the Federal authorities for special immigrant juvenile status before her twenty-first birthday on December 5, 2015.This order will serve as the rescript of this court for purposes of Mass. R.A.P. 1(c), and shall issue to the trial court immediately.Opinion or opinions to follow.By the Court.”

This opinion states the reasons for that order.⁵

1.Facts.The plaintiff was born on December 5, 1994, in El Salvador.In her complaint and affidavit, the plaintiff chronicles a childhood riddled with instances of physical and emotional abuse by her father.She also described her mother's failure to protect her and her siblings from their father's abuse and the chronic gang violence in their neighborhood.She came to the United States in 2012, at the age of seventeen, to escape the threats from her father and the gang violence that overwhelmed her neighborhood.⁶At first, she settled in the area of Baltimore, Maryland, with her brother.While residing in Maryland, she was assigned a volunteer attorney.For unexplained reasons, the attorney did not take any action in helping the plaintiff obtain the findings she now seeks from the Probate and Family Court.At the end of 2012, the plaintiff relocated to Massachusetts and moved in with a family

friend with whom she still currently lives.While living in the United States, the plaintiff has had two children.Preliminarily, the plaintiff and her experiences seem to be of the type contemplated by the Federal statute.

2.Special immigrant juvenile status.In 1990, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include the SIJ classification to create a pathway to citizenship for immigrant children.

Pub.L. 101–649, § 153, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.(1990).When the SIJ classification was first included, the statute required a State court to issue an order finding that (1) the child was dependent on a juvenile court and was eligible for long-term foster care, and (2) it was not in the child's best interests to return to his or her country of origin.Id.Since then, the provision of the INA concerning SIJs has been amended several times.Matter of Marcelina M.-G. v. Israel S., 112 A.D.3d 100, 107–108, 973 N.Y.S.2d 714(2013)(Marcelina M.-G. )(explaining various amendments to INA concerning SIJ status).In 1997, Congress modified the definition of SIJ to include a child who was “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State” and added the requirement that eligibility for long-term foster care be “due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment.”Pub.L. 105–119, § 113,111 Stat. 2440(1997).In 2008, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) further amended the INA to expand eligibility for SIJ status to include immigrant children who were placed in the custody of an “individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court” and eliminated the requirement of long-term foster care eligibility.Pub.L. 110–457, § 235(d)(1),122 Stat. 5044(2008).The amendment added the requirement that the reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law.Id.In its present form, the Federal statute requires a juvenile court to issue an order finding that (1) the immigrant child is dependent on a juvenile court, or placed in the custody of a department or agency of the State, or placed in the custody of an individual or entity appointed by the State or court; (2) the immigrant child cannot be reunified with one or both of his or her parents due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or other similar basis under State law; and (3) it would not be in the child's best interests to return to his or her parents' previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence.8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)-(ii).

The Federal statute requires a juvenile court to make special findings before an immigrant youth can apply for SIJ status and

lawful permanent residence.Id.The State and Federal proceedings are distinct from each other.“The process for obtaining SIJ status is ‘a unique hybrid procedure that directs the collaboration of state and federal systems.’ ”H.S.P. v. J.K.,223 N.J. 196, 209, 121 A.3d 849(2015), quotingMatter of Marisol N.H.,115 A.D.3d 185, 188, 979 N.Y.S.2d 643(2014).Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.11, “[j]uvenile court” is defined as “a court located in the United States having jurisdiction under State law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles.”⁷When determining which court qualifies as a juvenile court under the Federal statute, it is the function of the State court and not the designation that is determinative.R.G. Settlage, E.A. Campbell, V.T. Thronson, Immigration Relief: Legal Assistance for Noncitizen Crime Victims 70 (2014)(Settlage).In Massachusetts, the Juvenile Court and the Probate and Family Court both have jurisdiction to make judicial determinations about the care and custody of juveniles despite only one court being designated as a juvenile court.SeeG.L. c. 119, § 1;G.L. c. 208, §§ 19, 28, 28A, 31, 31A.Therefore, in Massachusetts, an immigrant child may petition for special findings in either the Juvenile Court or the Probate and Family Court.Because of the distinct expertise State courts possess in the area of child welfare and abuse, Congress has entrusted them with the responsibility to perform a best interest analysis and to make factual determinations about child welfare for purposes of SIJ eligibility.SeeH.S.P., supra at 211, 121 A.3d 849;Matter of Hei Ting C.,109 A.D.3d 100, 104, 969 N.Y.S.2d 150(2013).Therefore, the special findings a juvenile court makes should be limited to child welfare determinations.Immigration...