Blanca Dora Calles De Guardado v. Menjivar, A16-1973.

901 N.W.2d 243

In re the Marriage of: Blanca Dora Calles DE GUARDADO, petitioner, Appellant,

v.Juan Carlos GUARDADO MENJIVAR, Respondent.

A16-1973.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed September 11, 2017

Andrew T. Tyler, Tyler Law Office, L.L.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant).

Juan Carlos Guardado Menjivar, Chalatenango, El Salvador (pro se respondent).

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Florey, Judge.

OPINION

FLOREY, Judge

In this marital-dissolution-related dispute, appellant-mother Blanca Dora Calles De Guardado argues that the district court (1) was permitted to make SIJ findings, which are state court findings that allow certain immigrant youths to seek permanent-resident status and (2) clearly erred by not making one such finding, that her children were placed under the custody of an individual appointed by a state court. Because we conclude that a district court is authorized to make SIJ findings in a dissolution proceeding and that the district court's award of sole legal and sole physical custody to appellant, for purposes of SIJ findings, is a placement under the custody of an individual appointed by a state court, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

Appellant Blanca Dora Calles De Guardado and respondent Juan Carlos Guardado Menjivar have two children, C.C., born in 2005, and B.C., born in 2008. The children were born in El Salvador. Soon after B.C.'s birth, the parties married in El Salvador, and at some point, the parties and the children came to Minnesota.

Respondent abused both appellant and the minor children, and in July 2016, appellant filed for divorce in Minnesota. In her dissolution petition, she requested sole legal and sole physical custody of the children. She also requested that the district court make specific findings to enable the children to seek SIJ status, a federally created path to permanent residency in the United States. See In re Guardianship of Guaman , 879 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn. App. 2016).

In October 2016, a default hearing was held in the dissolution proceedings. Respondent failed to appear. Appellant requested that the district court make the SIJ finding that the children are "dependent upon the juvenile court or have been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a [s]tate, or an individual or entity appointed by a [s]tate or juvenile court." The district court refused to make the SIJ dependency/custody finding, stating that the custody award to appellant did not substantiate the finding, and a dissolution proceeding was not the appropriate forum for such a finding.

Following the hearing, the district court entered a judgment and decree adjudicating respondent the father of the children and dissolving the parties' marriage. Appellant was granted sole legal and sole physical custody of the children. The district court made a number of findings concerning the abuse perpetrated by respondent. Further, the decree contained some of the SIJ findings proposed by appellant. However, the district court crossed out appellant's proposed SIJ dependency/custody finding. In its place, the court wrote that the children were dependent on "their mother who has been awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children."

Appellant subsequently requested permission to file a motion to reconsider, but the district court refused to permit the motion, noting that it "questioned the legal and precedential authority" supporting appellant's "expanded reading" of its "jurisdiction." This appeal followed.

ISSUES

I. Was the district court authorized to make SIJ findings as part of a dissolution proceeding?

II. Did the district court err by failing to make appellant's proposed SIJ dependency/custody finding?

ANALYSIS

"SIJ status provides a means for abused, neglected, and abandoned immigrant youth to obtain lawful permanent residency and a path to United States citizenship under federal law." Guaman , 879 N.W.2d at 671. SIJ status has both a state and federal component. First, a state "juvenile court" must determine: (1) that an immigrant youth¹ is "dependent on a juvenile court" or has been "committed to, or placed under the custody of," a state agency or department "or an individual or entity" appointed by a state court; (2) reunification with one or both parents is not possible because of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar reasons found under state law; and (3) it would not be in the youth's best interests to return to his or her country of origin.² 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) (2012) ; In re Welfare of A.S. , 882 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. App. 2016) ; see 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 (2009). Then, a petition supported by the aforementioned SIJ findings must be filed with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Welfare of A.S. , 882 N.W.2d at 636 ; see 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 ; USCIS Form I-360. The state court's findings "do not bestow any immigration status on SIJ applicants." Guaman , 879 N.W.2d at 671. Rather, USCIS, on behalf of the Secretary of Homeland Security, makes the final determination whether to grant SIJ status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii) ; USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 6, pt. J(4)(E)(1) (noting that Department of Homeland Security delegates authority to consent to grant of SIJ classification to USCIS).

I.

Appellant first argues that the district court had the authority to make SIJ findings. To determine if the district court had such authority, we must examine the SIJ statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J), as well as a related federal regulation covering SIJ status, 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. We review interpretation of the SIJ statute and federal regulation de novo. N. States Power Co. v. Aleckson , 831 N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn. 2013) (concerning interpretation of federal regulation); Welfare of A.S. , 882 N.W.2d at 637 (concerning interpretation of the SIJ statute).

"Congress charged state courts with making SIJ findings because it recognized that juvenile courts have particularized training and expertise in the area of child welfare and abuse, which places them in the best position to make determinations on the best interests of the child and potential for family reunification." Guaman , 879 N.W.2d at 671 (quotation omitted). A particular type of state court, a "juvenile court," is permitted to make SIJ findings. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) ; 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. The term "juvenile court" is defined under 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 as "a court located in the United States having jurisdiction under [s]tate law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles." See Welfare of A.S. , 882 N.W.2d at 637.

In this case, the district court qualifies as a "juvenile court" because it is authorized under state law to make "judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles." 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. In dissolution proceedings, district courts are permitted to make determinations regarding legal and physical custody of a minor child, a child's residence, parenting time, and support obligations. Minn. Stat. §§ 518.17, subd. 3, .175, subd. 1 (2016); Chambard v. Chambard , 348 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that district courts have broad discretion to determine custody of children in dissolution proceedings). This court has already determined that a probate court is authorized to make SIJ findings in a guardianship proceeding because of "the broad scope of [a] probate court's authority to act in the best interests of [a] ward." Guaman , 879 N.W.2d at 672. The same rationale applies to dissolution proceedings involving children. A Minnesota district court is authorized to make SIJ findings in a dissolution proceeding involving a custody determination. See USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 6, pt. J(3)(A)(1) (providing examples of state courts that may meet the definition of a "juvenile court," one of which is a state family court).

II.

Appellant next argues that the district court erred by failing to find that C.C. and B.C. were "placed under the custody of ... an individual ... appointed by a [s]tate or juvenile court." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). This presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Welfare of A.S. , 882 N.W.2d at 637. Appellant contends that the district court's award of sole legal and sole physical custody was sufficient for purposes of the SIJ dependency/custody finding. We agree.

In Welfare of A.S. , we defined the limited role that state courts play in the SIJ context, noting that state courts are "to determine if the record supports the specific findings that the SIJ statute charges them with making." Id. at 636. We also interpreted the SIJ statute, concluding that A.S.'s placement on probation did not qualify A.S. as having been " ‘committed to, or placed under the custody of,’ a state department or agency or an individual or entity ‘appointed by a [s]tate or juvenile court.’ " Id. at 639 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) ).³

In Guaman , although we did not engage in extensive interpretation of the SIJ statute, we did effectively state that the appointment of a guardian for a ward may qualify as a placement "under the custody of ... an individual ... appointed by a [s]tate or juvenile court." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) ; Guaman , 879 N.W.2d at 672. But we have not yet addressed whether an award of sole legal and sole physical custody to one parent is a qualifying custodial placement under the SIJ statute.

The SIJ statute does not define the operative terms "placed," "custody," "individual" and "appointed." See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27) (2012). As such, we look to the plain meanings of those words. Welfare of A.S. , 882 N.W.2d at 639. To determine the plain meaning of a word in a statute, courts often consider dictionary definitions. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , 875 N.W.2d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016).

The verb "place" has a number of definitions, including "[t]o put in a specified relation or order," as when placing words into alphabetical order, or "[t]o put...