In re A.S.

882 N.W.2d 633

In the Matter of the WELFARE OF A.S., Juvenile.

No. A15–1904.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

July 5, 2016.

Magdalena B. Metelska, Marcus A. Jarvis, Marcus–Jarvis Law Limited, Brooklyn Park, MN, for appellant A.S.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Michelle M. Zehnder Fischer, Nicollet County Attorney, Mark R. Thompson, Kezia Smith, Assistant County Attorneys, St. Peter, MN, for respondent State of Minnesota.

Considered and decided by WORKE, Presiding Judge; HALBROOKS, Judge; and SMITH, TRACY M., Judge.

OPINION

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge.

After pleading guilty to underage drinking and driving and being placed on probation with certain conditions for up to 12 months, appellant A.S. moved for findings as a prerequisite to applying for SIJ status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(2012). The district court found that its jurisdiction over A.S.'s juvenile traffic offense and the court's placement of A.S. on probation does not render A.S. “dependent on a juvenile court” or result in A.S. being “committed to, or placed under the custody of,” a state agency or department or an individual or entity for purposes of the federal statute. See id. (i). A.S. argues that the district court's decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of the SIJ statute. We affirm.

FACTS

A.S. was born on September 26, 1997, in Veracruz, Mexico. A.S.'s parents left for the United States when he was five years old, leaving A.S. in Mexico to live with his grandparents and, later, with his older sister. When A.S. was 12, he had to work to help support his family and to buy school supplies. His work included cutting down trees with a machete, which led to frequent injuries requiring medical attention. If A.S. refused to work, his grandparents would punish him. Additionally, A.S.'s work led to him missing school, and he eventually dropped out in the eleventh grade.

A.S.'s relationship with his parents was poor; they would call him from the United States, but he felt “abandoned.” A.S.'s parents returned to Mexico when A.S. was 16 years old, but their relationship did not improve. A.S. worked full time, and his parents would “beat [him] about twice per week to discipline [him] or when they were in a bad mood.” Eventually, A.S., unaccompanied and with his parents' knowledge, crossed the border into the United States and moved to Minnesota.

In April 2015, at 17 years of age, A.S. was cited for underage drinking and driving, consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of 21, and driving without a valid license. A.S. pleaded guilty to underage drinking and driving—a juvenile traffic offense—and the other charges were dismissed. The district court stayed adjudication and placed A.S. on probation for up to 12 months with the following conditions: (1) no violations of any laws or ordinances, (2) 40 hours of community service, (3) attend a MADD Victim Impact Panel, (4) obey home rules, (5) no use of drugs or alcohol, (6) regularly attend school and obey school rules, and (7) pay a $75 fee, waivable at the probation department's discretion.

A.S. moved for findings that would allow him to apply for SIJ status. The district court found that A.S. is “not dependent upon the [c]ourt, nor has the [c]ourt placed [A.S.] under the custody of an agency or department of the [s]tate.” See id. The district court concluded that “merely being placed on probation ... for a traffic offense” does not equate to being placed in the custody of an agency. The district court also found that reunification with A.S.'s parents “is not viable because [A.S.'s] relationship with his parents is very weak.” The district court did not find, as the SIJ statute requires, that reunification is not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment. See id. (ii).

A.S. appeals.

ISSUE

Is the requirement that a prospective SIJ-status petitioner “has been declared 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 [s]tate or juvenile court” satisfied when a district court has jurisdiction over a juvenile traffic offense and places the juvenile on probation with certain conditions for 12 months?

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.” In re Guardianship of Guaman, 879 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn.App.2016). Such immigrants may seek SIJ status to avoid “being deported along with abusive or neglectful parents, or deported to parents who had abandoned them once in the United States.” Yeboah v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 345 F.3d 216, 221 (3d Cir.2003). A petitioner must be under the age of 21 to apply. 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c) (2016).

A prerequisite to applying for SIJ status is a state court order finding that (1) the immigrant either has been “declared 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 [s]tate or juvenile court”; (2) the immigrant's reunification with one or both parents “is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under [s]tate law”; and (3) it would not be in the immigrant's best interests to return to his or her country of origin. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)–(ii) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 (2016).

A state court's findings “do not bestow any immigration status on SIJ applicants.” Guaman, 879 N.W.2d at 671. Rather, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services determines if an applicant qualifies for SIJ status. Id.; see Simbaina v. Bunay, 221 Md.App. 440, 109 A.3d 191, 198 (2015) (stating that “the ultimate decision regarding the child's immigration status rests with the federal government” (quotation omitted)). The role of the state courts is only to determine if the record supports the specific findings that the SIJ statute charges them with making. This court has observed that the federal statute

contemplates the entry of such findings when an immigrant has been declared dependent on a juvenile court (as in child-protection proceedings), has been placed in the custody of a state agency or department (as in juvenile-delinquency proceedings), or has been placed in the custody of an individual or entity “by a state or juvenile court” (as in guardianship proceedings).

Guaman, 879 N.W.2d at 672 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) ).

A.S. challenges the district court's finding that he does not meet the first SIJ-status criterion that he “has been declared dependent on a juvenile court” or has been “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.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). A.S. contends that he meets both alternatives by virtue of the district court having jurisdiction over his juvenile traffic offense and by being placed on probation for 12 months.

Generally, we review a district court's findings of fact for clear error. Rubey v. Vannett, 714 N.W.2d 417, 423 (Minn.2006). A.S. argues, however, that the district court's finding rests on an erroneous interpretation of the SIJ statute, thus raising an issue of statutory interpretation subject to de novo review. See Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn.2009). When the words of a statute are free from ambiguity, we will not look beyond the statute's plain language. Lietz v. N. States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865, 870 (Minn.2006). If a term is undefined, we may construe it “according to its common and approved usage.” City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs. P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752, 756 (Minn.2013) (quotation omitted).

A. Dependency on a Juvenile Court

A.S. contends that a district court's jurisdiction over a juvenile traffic offense makes the juvenile “dependent on a juvenile court.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). Under the SIJ statute, dependency on a juvenile court is established if the juvenile “[h]as been declared dependent upon a juvenile court ... in accordance with state law governing such declarations of dependency.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(3). A “juvenile court” is a court “having jurisdiction under [s]tate law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles.” Id. (a).

Minnesota law does not currently define “dependency” but formerly defined “dependent child” as a child:

(a) [w]ho is without a parent, guardian, or other custodian; or

(b) [w]ho is in need of special care and treatment required by a physical or mental condition and whose parent, guardian, or other custodian is unable to provide it; or

(c) [w]hose parent, guardian, or other custodian for good cause desires to be relieved of the child's care and custody; or

(d) [w]ho is without proper parental care because of the emotional, mental, or physical disability, or state of immaturity of the child's parent, guardian, or other custodian.

Minn.Stat. § 260.015, subd. 6 (1986). The “dependent child” definition has been encapsulated by the “[c]hild in need of protection or services” (CHIPS) standard. See Minn.Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2014) ; see also In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 731–32 n. 2 (Minn.App.2009) (noting that the CHIPS standard replaced the dependent-child standard).

Here, the disposition of A.S.'s juvenile traffic offense did not result in a CHIPS declaration. But while a CHIPS adjudication may establish dependency on a juvenile court, it is not necessarily the only means. A.S. argues that he is dependent on the juvenile court because the juvenile court “accepted jurisdiction over [his] delinquency proceeding” and, by its disposition of the case, provided A.S. “care and guidance” to help rehabilitate him consistent with Minnesota law governing delinquent children.

A.S.'s reliance on Minnesota's delinquency law to establish his dependency on the juvenile court is misplaced because this was not a delinquency proceeding. The...