You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petition for an order making specific findings which would lead to special immigrant resident status (SIJS) should have been granted:

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 to qualify for SIJS, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not possible due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law … , and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interest to be returned to his or her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … .

Based upon our independent factual review, the record establishes that the child’s father is deceased, and therefore, reunification of the child with the father is not possible … .

Further, the Family Court erred with respect to its recital of the best interest element. The law does not require a finding that “it is in [the child’s] best interest to remain in the United States,” but that “it would not be in the [child’s] best interest to be returned to [his or her] previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]). Here, the record reflects that it would not be in the child’s best interest to be returned to El Salvador, her previous country of nationality and last habitual residence. Matter of Carlos A.M. v Maria T.M., 2016 NY Slip Op 05374, 2nd Dept 7-6-16

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS)/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS)/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS)

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED ISSUE IS TANTAMOUNT TO MODIFYING A CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO AWARD SOLE CUSTODY TO THE DECISION-MAKING PARENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COURT’S INQUIRY ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION, A COMPLAINT, AND/OR A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD RARELY GO BEYOND WHETHER, ASSUMING THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS, A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN STATED (SECOND DEPT).
A TITLE HOLDER WHO DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE BUT DID SIGN THE MORTGAGE IS ENTITLED TO THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
INDICTMENT CHARGING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE THE POSSESSION WAS OUTSIDE DEFENDANT’S HOME OR BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).
Arbitrator Exceeded His/Her Powers by Awarding More than the Requested Amount in Damages—Award Properly Vacated
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS... INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING...