Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ERISELDO C., A Person under the age of 21 years, etc. Rezart V., Petitioner–Appellant v. Dashmir C., et al., Respondents.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Aija M. Tingling, J.), entered on or about May 20, 2021, which denied petitioner and the subject child's motion for an order of special findings enabling the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted nunc pro tunc.
The evidence shows that the subject child was unmarried, under the age of 21, and dependent on a juvenile court at the time of the special findings order (see generally 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J]; 8 CFR 204.11; Matter of Carlos A.M. v. Maria T.M., 141 A.D.3d 526, 35 N.Y.S.3d 406 [2d Dept. 2016]).
Exercising our power to review the record and make our own factual determination (see Matter of Luis R. v. Maria Elena G., 120 A.D.3d 581, 581–583, 990 N.Y.S.2d 851 [2d Dept. 2014]), we find that the record further supports a finding that reunification with the child's parents is not viable within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(A)-(B) and Social Services Law § 384–b(5)(a). The hearing testimony established that the child's parents have not contributed to his financial support or maintained contact with him since he came to the United States (see Matter of Sara D. v. Lassina D., 206 A.D.3d 553, 553–554, 168 N.Y.S.3d 830 [1st Dept. 2022]; Matter of Khan v. Shahida Z., 184 A.D.3d 506, 506–507, 126 N.Y.S.3d 132 [1st Dept. 2020]).
We also find that it would not be in the child's best interests to return to Albania. In addition to his testimony regarding parental abandonment, the child testified that he had been the target of several assaults because of his family's political affiliation, and the parents were unable to protect him (see Matter of Juan R.E.M. [Juan R.E.], 154 A.D.3d 725, 727, 61 N.Y.S.3d 669 [2d Dept. 2017]). The child presented evidence that he is doing well in petitioner's care (see Khan v. Shahida Z., 184 A.D.3d at 507, 126 N.Y.S.3d 132).
The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on December 29, 2022, is hereby recalled and vacated (see M–2023–01941) decided simultaneously herewith.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 16988
Decided: June 13, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)