IN RE: the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jashanpreet SINGH (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jashanpreet Singh asked the trial court to make the three findings necessary for him to seek classification as a Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which is the federal agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. SIJ status would allow Jashanpreet to become a lawful permanent resident. The court declined to make one of the findings, that is, that reunification with Jashanpreet's father is not viable due to abandonment. Finding the evidence establishes abandonment, we remand this case with instructions for the court to enter a finding of abandonment.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Jashanpreet was born in India in November 2007 to Satpal Singh (“Father”) and Sukhwinder Kaur (“Mother”). Jashanpreet has an older sister who lives in Greenwood, Indiana, with her husband, Lakhwinder Singh (“Brother-in-Law”), and their two children. On different days in May 2023, Jashanpreet and Mother left India for the United States. Father's father helped pay for their travels. Jashanpreet traveled to Canada and then to the Canada-United States border, where transportation to Brother-in-Law's Greenwood home was arranged. When Mother later arrived in the United States, she joined them at Brother-in-Law's Greenwood home.

[3] In August 2024, Brother-in-Law petitioned to be appointed guardian of Jashanpreet, then sixteen, in Johnson Superior Court. Jashanpreet alleged that Father had abandoned him and asked the trial court to make the three findings required for him to seek classification as an SIJ under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) before USCIS.

[4] A hearing was held in November. Brother-in-Law, Mother, and Jashanpreet appeared in person. No one opposed Brother-in-Law's guardianship or Jashanpreet's request for SIJ findings. Mother, who was still married to Father, testified that Father lived in India, where he was a tenant farmer. She indicated that she and Father hadn't lived together and claimed that Father only made enough money for “daily substance.” Tr. p. 11. Mother said Jashanpreet left India because Father wasn't financially or emotionally supporting him. In fact, Mother testified that Father hadn't supported her or Jashanpreet for “seven, eight years.” Id. Mother also said Father was “intoxicated” on a “daily basis” and that he would “rather use the money for drinking” than to send Jashanpreet to school. Id. at 11, 12. Mother said she had a case in immigration court and was filing an asylum application. In the event her application didn't get approved and she couldn't stay in the United States, Mother wanted Brother-in-Law to be appointed Jashanpreet's guardian because it was in his best interests to stay in the United States.

[5] Jashanpreet testified that Father didn't provide him with “any” support but that Father's father would “[s]ometimes” help. Id. at 14. He said he was enrolled in school when he left India but that Mother, not Father, paid for it. When asked why he left India, Jashanpreet responded:

My father would hit me or beat me, and he wanted me to leave school and help him with the farming and he wanted me to earn money, and he didn't want me to study more.

Id. Jashanpreet said that since leaving India, Father hadn't helped him “in any way.” Id. at 15.

[6] The trial court granted the guardianship but declined to find abandonment. The court explained that it was “unable to discern how a parent abandons a child when the child leaves the parent” and that there was no evidence that Jashanpreet “could not return to live with his father.” Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 10, 11. Because it did not find abandonment, the court did “not reach a best interest standard for return to the country of origin.” Id. at 11. However, the court said that “if abandonment were not a factor in the determination, a pure comparative analysis would seem to satisfy the standard. Jashanpreet Singh would have improved educational and economic opportunities in the United States.” Id.

[7] Jashanpreet now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Under federal law, a child may be eligible for lawful permanent residency in the United States if the child qualifies for classification as an SIJ. In re Guardianship of Sebastian, 238 N.E.3d 721, 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “Although the final decision regarding whether a child qualifies for SIJ status is made by the federal government, the process for obtaining SIJ status requires the collaboration of state and federal systems.” Id. (quotation omitted). This is a two-step process. Id.

[9] “For the first step, the state juvenile court—as the appropriate forum for child-welfare determinations about abuse, neglect, and abandonment and a child's best interests—is charged with making the factual inquiry relevant to SIJ status and entering an order regarding its findings.” Id. “The state court's role in the SIJ process is not to determine worthy candidates for citizenship, but simply to identify abused, neglected, or abandoned alien children under its jurisdiction who cannot reunify with a parent or be safely returned in their best interests to their home country.” Id. (quotation omitted). A state court must make three findings before a juvenile can seek SIJ status before USCIS:

(1) The juvenile has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or placed in the custody of a State agency or individual by a juvenile court located in the United States;

(2) “[R]eunification 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”; and

(3) It is not “in the alien's best interest to be returned to the alien's ․ previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence[.]”

Id. at 726-27 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i), (ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)).

[10] “After the state juvenile court issues a predicate order with the required findings, the second step for the child is to apply for SIJ status with the federal agency USCIS using Form I-360.” Id. at 727. “Relief is not guaranteed and denial of the application renders [the child] subject to deportation as an undocumented immigrant.” Id. (quotations omitted).

[11] Jashanpreet argues the trial court should have found that reunification with Father is not viable due to abandonment under Indiana law.¹ As we recently explained in Sebastian, Title 31 of the Indiana Code, which covers family and juvenile law, has a couple of definitions of “abandoned.” See id. Indiana Code section 31-21-2-2 defines “abandoned” as “left without provision for reasonable and necessary care or supervision.” Indiana Code section 31-19-9-8(b) provides, “If a parent has made only token efforts to support or to communicate with the child the court may declare the child abandoned by the parent.” Notably, the trial court “is not required to terminate parental rights to determine that parental reunification is not viable.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(ii).

[12] Jashanpreet claims the trial court “failed to consider testimony from [him] and [Mother], who stated they were compelled to leave [Father] because he ceased providing support in 2016, leaving them to fend for themselves.” Appellant's Br. p. 6. The court declined to find abandonment because it found that Jashanpreet left Father, and not vice versa. But this finding ignores the undisputed evidence that the reason Jashanpreet left Father was that Father hadn't supported him for seven or eight years, as he used the little money he earned for alcohol. In other words, Father left Jashanpreet without provision for reasonable and necessary care. This is sufficient to prove abandonment. Cf. In re Guardianship of S.S., 249 N.E.3d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (finding evidence supported trial court's finding of no abandonment because juvenile's parents told him to leave India for the United States based on safety concerns due to juvenile's political activities). We therefore remand this case with instructions for the trial court to enter the following findings: Father has abandoned Jashanpreet, reunification with Father is not viable due to the abandonment, and it is not in the best interests of Jashanpreet to be returned to India; rather, it is in his best interests to remain in the United States under the guardianship of Brother-in-Law.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Jashanpreet argues reunification with Father, not Mother, is not viable due to abandonment. This is all that is needed. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) requires that “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.” (Emphasis added). As we noted in Sebastian, “ ‘[T]he majority of states’ that have addressed this emphasized language have concluded that the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ ‘signals the reunification prong is met where the juvenile cannot reunify with one parent or with both parents.’ ” 238 N.E.3d at 727 n.1 (quoting Amaya v. Guerrero Rivera, 444 P.3d 450, 453 (Nev. 2019)).Jashanpreet also argues the trial court should have found that reunification with Father is not viable due to abuse or neglect. However, at the hearing, Jashanpreet requested a finding as to abandonment only. See Tr. p. 9; Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 11. We therefore do not address abuse or neglect.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.