You are here: / / Juvenile Entitled to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status—Family...
,

Juvenile Entitled to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status—Family Court’s Ruling to the Contrary Reversed

The Second Department reversed Family Court and determined the subject child was eligible to petition for special immigrant juvenile status:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110-457, 122 US Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is an undocumented resident who is, inter alia, under 21 years of age, unmarried, and “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” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]). For the juvenile to qualify for SIJS status, it must be also determined that reunification with “1 or both” of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (id.), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interest to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]).

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes affidavits from Cristal and her mother, fully supports the conclusion that Cristal was abandoned by her father. Cristal never lived with her father; he visited her only once. He never provided any financial support, and failed to communicate with her. Thus, Cristal established that reunification with her father was not viable due to abandonment … . Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted Cristal’s motion. Matter of Cristal MRM, 2014 NY Slip Op 04496, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 WAS DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, THE ORDER WAS SELF-PRESERVED AND APPEALABLE; THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, DESPITE THE MOTION COURT’S REJECTION OF THE ORDER AS INCOMPLETE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION SIGNATURES WERE GATHERED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COVID-19-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THE SIGNATURES WERE WITNESSED AFTER THE DEADLINE; THE SIGNATURES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).
Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud Cause of Action Will Not Lie
LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).
TO, SUA SPONTE, DECIDE BRANCHES OF A MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES DEPRIVED PLAIINTIFF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER PREVIOUSLY FILED FRIVOLOUS VISTATION PETITIONS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED HER FROM FILING FUTURE PETITIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT (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

Denial of Mother’s Request to Relocate Reversed, Factors Described Petitioner Was Not Estopped from Denying Paternity—Family Court’s...