IN RE: NERY F.Z.V. (Anonymous) (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the subject child appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Christine P. Krahulik, J.), dated May 2, 2024.  The order denied the subject child's renewed motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable him to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In April 2022, the petitioner, the subject child's father, filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking to be appointed guardian of the child for the purpose of obtaining an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J).  The Family Court subsequently granted the petition and, after a hearing, declined to issue an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS. Thereafter, in an order dated May 2, 2024, the court denied the child's renewed motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making the requisite specific findings.  The child appeals.

“ ‘Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110–457, 122 U.S. Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who is, inter alia, under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court’ ” (Matter of Briceyda M.A.X. [Hugo R.A.O.], 190 A.D.3d 752, 753, 135 N.Y.S.3d 917, quoting Matter of Trudy–Ann W. v. Joan W., 73 A.D.3d 793, 795, 901 N.Y.S.2d 296;  see Matter of Isidro M.C. v. Teodolinda G.D.M., 163 A.D.3d 556, 557, 76 N.Y.S.3d 413).  “ ‘Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for special immigrant juvenile status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile's parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law, and that it would not be in the juvenile's best interest to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence’ ” (Matter of Briceyda M.A.X. [Hugo R.A.O.], 190 A.D.3d at 753, 135 N.Y.S.3d 917, quoting Matter of Maria P.E.A. v. Sergio A.G.G., 111 A.D.3d 619, 620, 975 N.Y.S.2d 85;  see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J];  8 CFR 204.11).

Here, the Family Court properly denied the child's renewed motion.  The child's submissions failed to show how the new facts offered in support of his renewed motion would change the Family Court's prior determination that the record does not support a finding that reunification with the child's mother in Guatemala was not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law (see CPLR 2221[e][2];  Matter of Leslie J.D. [Maria A.A.G.—Silvia D.], 167 A.D.3d 1004, 88 N.Y.S.3d 897;  Matter of Isidro M.C. v. Teodolinda G.D.M., 163 A.D.3d at 557, 76 N.Y.S.3d 413;  cf.  Matter of Victor R.C.O. [Canales], 172 A.D.3d 1071, 1072–1073, 101 N.Y.S.3d 196;  Matter of Nelson A.G.-L. [Maria Y.G.S.], 157 A.D.3d 789, 69 N.Y.S.3d 344).

BARROS, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.