You are here: / / Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not...
,

Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not Constitute the Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment Required for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined the motion for a finding that reunification with one or both of petitioner’s parents was not viable (re: an application for special juvenile immigrant status) was properly denied. The relationship with the juvenile’s parents in Guatemala had never broken down due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. The fact that the juvenile’s parents could not afford to pay for the juvenile’s education did not constitute abuse, neglect or abandonment:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) … and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile immigrant to qualify for special juvenile immigrant status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]…).

Here, the record reflects that Jeison was living with both of his parents in Guatemala until March 2012, when, with their consent, he traveled to the United States to escape gang violence and pursue his studies. After his arrival in the United States, Jeison began to reside with the petitioner, who provided him with food, clothing, and shelter, and Jesion remained in frequent contact with his parents. The inability of Jeison’s parents, who live in poverty, to provide him with a college education, or with financial assistance, does not support a finding that his reunification with his parents was not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law … . Matter of Jeison P.-C. (Conception P.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07665, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO AN ARMED FELONY, HE WAS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH” ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED AFFORDING HIM YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (SECOND DEPT).
In an Employment Discrimination Case, Plaintiff Is a Member of a Protected Class By Virtue of His Wife’s Religion
DEFENDANTS RELIED ON A STATEMENT TRANSLATED FROM SPANISH ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF BUT FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSLATION WAS PROVIDED BY A COMPETENT, OBJECTIVE INTERPRETER WHOSE TRANSLATION WAS ACCURATE; THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF OF THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL GYM TEACHER WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE HE COMMITTED HIS SECOND OFFENSE BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED FOR HIS FIRST OFFENSE (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

Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial... Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced