Romero v. Perez, 2477, Sept. Term, 2016
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
| Citation | 182 A.3d 263,236 Md.App. 503 |
| Docket Number | No. 2477, Sept. Term, 2016,2477, Sept. Term, 2016 |
| Parties | Celso Monterroso ROMERO v. Josefa PEREZ |
| Decision Date | 04 April 2018 |
236 Md.App. 503
182 A.3d 263
Celso Monterroso ROMERO
v.
Josefa PEREZ
No. 2477, Sept. Term, 2016
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
April 4, 2018
Submitted by: Lara Wilkinson, Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Submitted by: Pro Se, for Appellee.
Panel: Eyler, Deborah S., Leahy, Friedman, JJ.
Friedman, J.
Appellant, Celso Romero, appeals a circuit court finding that his son, R.P., was not neglected, abused, or abandoned by his mother in Guatemala. Because the circuit court made the necessary factual findings to support its ruling, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
R.P. was born to Celso Romero and Josefa Perez in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, in 1998. Romero immigrated to the United States and has resided in Baltimore since 2004. R.P. was raised by Perez until he joined his father in the United States in 2015. R.P. then began the application process for Special Immigration Juvenile ("SIJ") status to seek lawful permanent residence in the United States.1
To begin the process of obtaining SIJ status, immigrants already residing in the United States must obtain five findings from a state court:
1) The juvenile is under the age of 21 and unmarried;
2) The juvenile is dependent on the court or has been placed under the custody of an agency or an individual appointed by the court;
3) The court has jurisdiction under state law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles;
4) Reunification with one or both of the juvenile's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment or a similar basis under state law; and
5) It is not in the "best interest" of the juvenile to be returned to his parents' previous country of nationality.
In re Dany G. , 223 Md. App. 707, 714–15, 117 A.3d 650 (2015) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 ). Circuit courts are required to take evidence and make individual factual findings on each of these factors when they are petitioned by an immigrant applying for SIJ status. Id. The circuit courts, sitting as juvenile courts, retain jurisdiction over these matters until the petitioner is 21 years old. Md. Code Family Law ("FL") § 1–201(a).
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City placed R.P. under the custody of Romero (Factor # 2) and made three of the other four findings required for SIJ status: that R.P. was under the age of 21 and unmarried (Factor # 1); that the circuit court had the authority to make determinations for juveniles (Factor # 3); and that it was not in R.P.'s best interests to return to Guatemala (Factor # 5). The court was not persuaded that R.P. had been the victim of neglect, abandonment, or abuse (Factor # 4) and therefore, it declined to rule in favor of Romero. In so ruling, the court (1) correctly noted that no decision of this Court or the Court of Appeals has identified the applicable burden of proof in SIJ cases; (2) considered applying either the "preponderance of the evidence" standard or the heightened "clear and convincing evidence" standard; and (3) determined that Romero had failed to persuade the court under either burden of proof that R.P. was a victim of neglect, abandonment, or abuse. We will first determine the proper burden of proof for SIJ findings, then determine whether it was applied here.
I. Burden of proof
Romero argues that the court erred by using the clear and convincing evidence standard, causing the court improperly to
find that Romero failed to prove neglect. We agree that it would have been error to apply the clear and convincing standard
and hold that Maryland law requires courts to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to SIJ petitions.
We begin by noting that we write on a blank slate; neither federal law nor existing Maryland law specifies a standard of proof for SIJ cases. Federal law simply requires a finding of neglect, abandonment, or abuse of the juvenile "under state law," 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") Policy Manual instructs state courts to "follow their state law on ... evidentiary standards," but does not specify a standard. USCIS Policy Manual Pt. J Ch. 3(a)(2) (2017), https://perma.cc/N855-YEQA. While Maryland requires that courts with jurisdiction over juveniles entertain SIJ petitions and make the five factual determinations required by SIJ petitions, FL § 1–201(b)(10), there is no statutorily designated standard of proof for these findings. Moreover, as the trial court noted, there are no reported appellate opinions selecting a burden of proof.
We are persuaded, however, that applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to SIJ petitions is consistent with Maryland law. The preponderance standard is "generally applicable in civil and administrative proceedings."2 Meyers v. Montgomery Cnty. Police Dep't , 96 Md. App. 668,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Perez, 27, Sept. Term, 2018
...in SIJ cases is not "clear and convincing evidence" but rather the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Romero v. Perez , 236 Md. App. 503, 509, 182 A.3d 263 (2018). [463 Md. 187Then, applying that standard to the record before it, the court concluded that, even under the lower s......
-
Romero v. Perez, 27
...in SIJ cases is not "clear and convincing evidence" but rather the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Romero v. Perez, 236 Md. App. 503, 509 (2018). Then, applying that standard to the record before it, the court concluded that, even under the lower standard, Petitioner had not......
-
In re B.M., 1521
...v. Sanchez, 235 Md. App. 639, 646 (2018). The findings are to be made by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Romero v. Perez, 236 Md. App. 503, 509 (2018), cert. granted, 460 Md. 2 (July 12, 2018). In Maryland, with respect to the second finding required by the court presented with an......
-
L.R. v. D.C., 2345
...individual factual findings on each of these factors when they are petitioned by an immigrant applying for SIJ status." Romero v. Perez, 236 Md. App. 503, 506 (2018), cert. granted, 460 Md. 2 (2018). Courts are obviously not required to find all of the facts in favor of the party seeking SI......