Velasquez v. Miranda

321 A.3d 876

Licely Juarez VELASQUEZ, Appellant

v.Lizardo Marroquin MIRANDA, Appellee

No. 108 MAP 2023

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 25, 2024

Decided August 29, 2024

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court at No. 2688 EDA 2022, entered on June 20, 2023, Affirming the Order of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. CV-2021-002235 dated September 15, 2022 and entered on September 20, 2022, Atinuke B. Moss, Judge

Stefanie Lacy, Esq., for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project Inc.

Leah Ariel Mintz, Esq., Duane Morris, LLP, for Amici Curiae HIAS PA, Prof. Kara R. Finck, Prof. Deeya Haldar, and Prof. Sarah Katz.

Michelle Akritas Batt, Esq., Devin Elizabeth Grogan, Esq., Michael Sheridan Henry, Esq., Henry & Grogan, LLC, for Appellant.

Lizardo Marroquin Miranda, Pro Se.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

[1] We granted discretionary review to address a matter of first impression for this Court, involving the correct procedure and standards when our courts are asked to make certain requisite findings to support a Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification for minors seeking that status before federal immigration authorities. More specifically, we are asked to clarify the role of Pennsylvania courts in deciding whether these predicate judicial determinations may be made in the context of a child custody proceeding. We hold that (1) pursuant to federal SIJ law, a child who is the subject of custody proceedings that result in sole custody being awarded to the parent presently in the United States may seek SIJ determinations in that custody proceeding; (2) the Superior Court erred in holding SIJ determinations may be made only in dependency proceedings; and (3) the record demonstrates Children are entitled to predicate SIJ determinations. See Velasquez v. Miranda, 297 A.3d 837, 847 (Pa. Super. 2023). We therefore reverse and remand to the custody court for entry of orders consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

[2, 3] SIJ is an immigration classification that provides humanitarian protection for certain minors located in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) (SIJ definition); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(b) (SIJ eligibility); 6 USCIS Policy Manual (PM) J.2(A) (2024) (available at https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-j-chapter-2). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines SIJ status (SIJS), in relevant part, as applicable to a child "immigrant who is present in the United States," and:

(i) who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States, and whose reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law;

(ii) for whom it has been determined in administrative or judicial proceedings that it would not be in the alien’s best interest to be returned to the alien’s or parent’s previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence; and

(iii) in whose case the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the grant of special immigrant juvenile status[.]

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).¹ Generally, the SIJ classification allows immigrant chil- dren to seek lawful residency in the United States in order to remain where their needs are best met and avoid deportation with, or back to, a parent that maltreated them. A child’s SIJ classification never confers any immigration benefit to the parents. See id. at § 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii)(II) ("no natural parent" of a child with SIJS "shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this chapter").

[4] The road to SIJ classification requires stops in both a state and federal decision-making tribunal. United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), promulgates applicable regulations and policy, conducts interviews, screens for fraud and other concerns, adjudicates all SIJ applications, and determines whether to grant SIJ classification to a child. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. The USCIS application process is extensive and requires, inter alia, a state court order that includes specific conclusions of law, or predicate "judicial determinations." See id.

[5] The state court with "jurisdiction under State law to make judicial determinations about the dependency and/or custody and care of juveniles," described in the federal provisions as a "juvenile court," must issue an order that includes "dependency or custody," "parental reunification," and "best interest" determinations. Id. Specifically, the state court must determine whether (1) "reunification with 1 or both of the [child’]s parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under [s]tate law[,]" and (2) "it would not be in the [child’s] best interest to be returned to the [child’s] or parent’s previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence[.]" 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)-(ii). It is the resulting state court order containing these predicate judicial determinations that an applicant must present to USCIS when seeking SIJ classification.

A. The underlying custody action

Appellant Licely Juarez Velasquez (Mother) filed this action against Lizardo Marroquin Miranda (Father), seeking sole physical and legal custody of their minor daughters, S.M.J. (born July 2007) and E.M.J. (born April 23, 2010) (Children). Children have resided with Mother in Delaware County, Pennsylvania since the three left Guatemala together in late 2018. Mother based her request for sole custody, as well as the SIJ findings, on Father’s alleged abuse, abandonment, and neglect of Children. See Mother’s Complaint for Custody at ¶¶ 3, 18.

[6] Father, who resided in Guatemala at the time, signed and accepted service of the custody complaint and hearing notice, and provided a copy of his Guatemalan identification with a corresponding signature. See Trial Court Op., 9/20/22 at 2; id. at 2 n.1; N.T. Custody Hearing, 6/22/22 at 4. He did not contest or participate in the custody proceeding, or contact the court to accommodate his participation.²

After determining it had jurisdiction over the custody action,³ the court proceeded to hold a hearing on August 15, 2022. According to the court, "Mother testified to a history of abuse at the hands of Father" from 2007 to 2018, during the family’s time living together in Guatemala.⁴ Trial Court Op. at 3. She "testified that the abuse always happened in front of the children, including choking and hitting her." Id. Mother also "testified that Father worked, selling construction materials, yet [he] provided minimal support for the care of the children. On average, [weekly], Father would give Mother $5 to assist with the care of the minor children." Id. at 4; see N.T. 8/15/22 at 10-11. Mother further testified Father did not provide sufficient financial support for Children. See N.T. 8/15/22 at 11.

Describing one incident of abuse, Mother stated Father kicked and threw her while pregnant with S.M.J., "causing [Child] to be born with a dislocated hip." See Trial Court Op. at 3; N.T. 8/15/22 at 13-15. According to Mother, her doctors explained the "dislocation was due to a fall or [ ] hit she sustained" while pregnant and she knew Father had caused the injury. See Trial Court Op. at 3; N.T. 8/15/22 at 14-15. Mother did not report the inci- dent to police because she "was very afraid." N.T. 8/15/22 at 15.

Mother eventually overcame her fear and took Father to court in Guatemala. See Trial Court Op. at 3; N.T. 8/15/22 at 13, 15. She explained: "the charge for taking [Father] to court, [Father] strangled me like this, and he stepped on top of me, and he spat on me." N.T. 8/15/22 at 16. During that incident, Mother testified, Children were present and "shouting no, no, no." Id. A neighboring relative came to take Children out of the house and Mother heard Children cry and shout "no Papi, no." Id. at 16-17. The court "g[ave Father] a restriction of eight [ ] months whereas he could not harass [Mother], get near her, or insult her." Trial Court Op. at 3. However, Father violated the order "in part because the parties remained living [together]" and he "continued the abuse." Id. During this time, Mother reported Father to the police, but she stated they did nothing. See id. Mother further claimed "Father’s family berated [her] for taking Father to court, telling Mother that she should be ashamed of herself." Id.

Mother "testified that in December of 2013, she left Father and stayed at her mother’s home … [but] Father continued to harass [her] even though she was at her mother’s home and no longer residing in the marital home." Id. Finally, in June of 2018, when Mother returned home late after work, "Father became so enraged that he took a pot of hot water and threw it in [Mother’s] face … Father then began fighting and the children, witnessing this, began crying saying to [Father] ‘you are going to kill her[ ].’ Mother testified that she took the girls and left." Id. at 3-4; N.T., 8/15/22 at 12. Mother sought medical treatment, and the parties separated.

Mother testified that after their separation in June 2018, Father did not provide financial support for Children and visited them only once or twice as a pretext to harass her. See N.T. 8/15/22 at 17, 20. Later that year, "Mother left Guatemala to come to the United States because she wanted ‘tranquility, … a better life,’ and ‘she feared she would be harmed if she remained in Guatemala[.]’ " Trial Court Op. at 6. After they arrived here in December of 2018, "[C]hildren tried to contact Father … but [he] did not respond." Id. at...