You are here: / / Child Qualified as “Special Immigrant;” Abandoned by One Parent...
,

Child Qualified as “Special Immigrant;” Abandoned by One Parent

In reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined the subject child, Brenda, qualified as a “special immigrant” who could apply for lawful permanent residency in the US because she had been abandoned by one (not both) of her parents:

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 a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, is unmarried, and has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for special immigrant juvenile 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, 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]; 8 CFR 204.11[c][6]…).

Brenda is under the age of 21 and unmarried. Inasmuch as the Family Court placed Brenda under her mother’s custody, Brenda has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)…). Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes a detailed affidavit from Brenda, fully supports Brenda’s contention that, because her father neglected and abandoned her, reunification with her father is not a viable option … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the fact that Brenda’s mother did not also neglect and abandon her does not preclude the issuance of the order requested … . Lastly, the record reflects that it would not be in Brenda’s best interests to be returned to El Salvador… .  Matter of Maria PEA v Sergio AGG, 2013 NY Slip Op 07168, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

For a similar case with the same result, see Matter of Karen C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07170, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

You might also like
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST NEED NOT BE PAID INTO THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2601 WHEN SUCH A PAYMENT IS MADE TO STOP THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY EXCEEDED THE CPLR 3101 (D) DISCLOSURE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Resort to Contempt for Failure to Make Payments Appropriate
FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, WHICH INCLUDED PEACE OFFICERS AS OPPOSED TO POLICE OFFICERS, THE WARRANT WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL; THE PARTICIPATION OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THE SEARCH WAS LIMITED AND DID NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AN INNOCENT PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSSING DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS AGAINST HER (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE FAMILY MEMBER RESIDES, AS WELL AS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURRED (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

Town Could Not Be Liable for Discretionary Judgment Made by EMT (Third Dept... Burden of Proof for Relocation with Child Not Met