You are here: / / Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not M...
,

Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet Criteria for Statutory Path to Lawful Permanent Residency in US

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that two children born in Hong Kong, and living with their father in New York, did not meet the “dependency-on-the-family-court” requirement such that they could petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SJIS) pursuant to 8 USC1101 (which provides undocumented children with a gateway to lawful permanent residency in the US).  The court explained:

In New York, a child may request that the Family Court, recognized as a juvenile court (see 8 CFR 204.11[a]), issue an order making special findings and a declaration so that he or she may petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for SIJS … . Specifically, the findings of fact must establish that: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her home country (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]). With the declaration and special findings, the eligible child may then seek the consent of the Department of Homeland Security for SIJS (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]).  * * *

The requirement that a child be dependent upon the juvenile court or, alternatively, committed to the custody of an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court, ensures that the process is not employed inappropriately by children who have sufficient family support and stability to pursue permanent residency in the United States through other, albeit more protracted, procedures. In this case, there has been no need for intervention by the Family Court to ensure that the appellants were placed in a safe and appropriate custody, guardianship, or foster care situation, and the appellants have not been committed to the custody of any individual by any court….

While the appellants met all of the other requirements for SIJS, the Family Court correctly determined that the dependency requirement had not been satisfied. A child becomes dependent upon a juvenile court when the court accepts jurisdiction over the custody of that child, irrespective of whether the child has been placed in foster care or a guardianship situation… . The Family Court has only granted applications for SIJS special findings where dependency upon the court was established by way of guardianship, adoption, or custody.  Matter of Hei Ting C, 2013 NY Slip Op 05310, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO MOVE FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE BY A SPECIFIED DATE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, HOWEVER DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S PROPENSITY TO ABUSE STUDENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT RETENTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ALLEGELDY RESISTED ARREST AND INJURED PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER; THE OFFICER’S SUIT AGAINST THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER, UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Attorney for Child Could File Abuse Petition After Abuse Petition Withdrawn... Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action...