Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-FM-61 B.R.L.F., APPELLANT, V. LILIAN MARLENY SARCENO ZUNIGA, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (DRB-3211-16) (Hon. Hiram E. Puig-Lugo, Trial Judge) (Submitted January 9, 2018 Decided January 2, 2019) * Jaime Winthuysen Aparisi was on the brief for appellant. Zachary Kohn entered his appearance for appellant. No brief was filed for appellee. Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, EASTERLY, Associate Judge, and FERREN, Senior Judge. Opinion for the court PER CURIAM. Concurring opinion by Associate Judge EASTERLY at page 17. _______________ * The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published by the court sua sponte after addition of the concurring opinion and opinion concurring in the judgment. 2 Opinion concurring in the judgment by Senior Judge FERREN at page 18. PER CURIAM: In December 2015, at age fourteen, B.E.L.S. entered the United States illegally from Guatemala in the company of human smugglers to join appellant, his father, who has resided in the United States since 2007. Appellant challenges the trial court’s December 22, 2016, order denying his unopposed motion for findings pursuant to District of Columbia law that would allow him to petition the United States for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”) for B.E.L.S. under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(27)(J) (2009 Supp. II).1 We agree with the trial _______________ 1 Section 1101 (a)(27)(J)(i)-(iii) provides in relevant part: [A special immigrant juvenile is] an immigrant who is present in the United States—(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[.] (emphasis added). 3 court’s findings that B.E.L.S. was eligible for SIJS, and that it would not be in B.E.L.S.’s “best interest to be returned” to Guatemala. 2 We discern reversible error, however, in the court’s finding that B.E.L.S.’s reunification with his mother in Guatemala would be “viable.” 3 Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for the trial court to enter judgment that B.E.L.S. qualifies ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals