4.12Special Findings on Issues of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status

This section contains a brief discussion on Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. For a detailed discussion, including information on laws and regulations, policies, and best practices, see the American Bar Association Children’s Immigration Law Academy (CILA) resources for state court judges, specifically SIJS Flyer for Judges, and the National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project (NIWAP), Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Bench Book. For information specific to unaccompanied immigrant children, see the Guide for State Courts in Cases Involving Unaccompanied Immigrant Children, and the Unaccompanied Immigrant Children and the State Courts Information Card.

“8 USC 1101(a)(27)(J) and 8 CFR 204.11 (2017) afford ‘undocumented children, under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court,^[1] the ability to petition for special immigrant^[2] juvenile [SIJ] status in order to obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States.’ . . . Predicate factual findings of the state juvenile court are used to petition for SIJ status in the federal system.” In re LFOC, 319 Mich App 476, 484-485 (2017), quoting In the Interest of Luis G, 17 Neb App 377, 385 (2009). See also In re DRRR Guardianship, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025).“‘If the application is granted, the juvenile may become a lawful permanent resident who, after five years, is eligible to become a United States citizen. Denial of SIJ status renders the applicant subject to deportation.’” In re LFOC, 319 Mich App at 485, quoting In re Estate of Nina L ex rel Howerton, 2015 Ill App 152223 (2015).

“It is therefore clear that a state juvenile court has authority to issue factual findings pertinent to a juvenile’s SIJ status . . . . ‘[The] juvenile court is charged with making the factual inquiry relevant to SIJ status when an unmarried, resident alien child is found to be dependent on the court[, and t]he SIJ statute[, 8 USC 1101(a)(27)(J),] affirms the institutional competence of state courts as the appropriate forum for child welfare determinations regarding abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and a child’s best interests.’” In re LFOC, 319 Mich App at 485, quoting In re JJXC, 318 Ga App 420, 425 (2012). Specifically, 8 USC 1101(a)(27)(J) “‘implements a two-step process in which a state court makes predicate factual findings—soundly within its traditional concern for child welfare—relative to a juvenile’s eligibility. The juvenile then presents the family court’s factual findings to [the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)], which engages in a much broader inquiry than state courts and makes the ultimate decision as to whether or not the juvenile’s application for SIJ status should be granted. Thus the findings made by the state court only relate to matters of child welfare, a subject traditionally left to the jurisdiction of the states. All immigration decisions remain in the hands of USCIS, the agency charged with administering the [federal immigration statute].” In re LFOC, 319 Mich App at 486-487 (finding the trial court, in a stepparent adoption proceeding involving an undocumented juvenile immigrant, “erred to the extent that it found that it lacked authority to make predicate factual findings pertaining to the issue of SIJ status[;]” noting the Family Division “qualifies as a juvenile court under the federal definition”), quoting HSP v JK, 223 NJ 196, 209 (2015) (last alteration in original).

See also In re Velasquez, 344 Mich App 118, 142 (2022), where the Court stated that in cases involving a minor’s SIJ status, a trial court not only has the authority to make predicate factual findings with regard to a minor’s welfare and best interests, but is required to do so.³ To make the predicate findings, a trial court may consider “‘the Child Custody Act factors, some combination of the Adoption Code and Child Custody Act factors, or a unique set of factors developed by the trial court.’” Id. at 145, quoting In re COH, 495 Mich 184, 203 (2014).

The predicate factual findings that the state court must make are “‘that the individual who seeks SIJ status is under the age of 21, unmarried, and (1) dependent on the juvenile court, (2) cannot viably be reunified with one or both of their parents because of neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law, and (3) the juvenile’s best interests would not be served by returning to their country of origin.’” DRRR, ___ Mich App at ___, quoting In re Velasquez, 344 Mich App at 128.

The trial court in DRRR “made several critical errors, resulting in DRRR being denied meaningful access to justice[.]” DRRR, ___ Mich App at ___. Despite granting the petition to appoint DRRR’s sister as DRRR’s full guardian six weeks before DRRR’s 18th birthday, the trial court did not rule on the companion motion for special determinations on the issue of SIJ classification status until after DRRR’s 18th birthday, when it denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction because DRRR was no longer a minor. Id. at ___. The trial court had adjourned the hearing date for DRRR’s motion regarding SIJ status because there was no SCAO-certified Spanish translator present, noting that no specific request for a translator had been made for that hearing date. Id. at ___. This violated MCR 1.111(B)(1) because the trial court had previously granted petitioner’s request and provided a Spanish language interpreter for the hearing on the guardianship motion. DRRR, ___ Mich App at ___. Under MCR 1.111(B)(1), the obligation to provide an interpreter is ongoing once the court agrees to appoint one; litigants need not request an interpreter prior to each proceeding. DRRR, ___ Mich App at ___. Additionally, the trial court refused to allow petitioner to use a “qualified foreign language interpreter” who was present at the time, which was permitted under MCR 1.111(F)(2). DRRR, ___ Mich App at ___. “The proposed interpreter was precisely the type of person referenced in MCR 1.111(F)(2), i.e., a person ‘capable of conveying the intent and content of the speaker’s words sufficiently to allow the court to conduct’ the hearing without prejudice to DRRR . . . .” DRRR, ___ Mich App at ___. In light of these errors, and the trial court’s failure to make the requisite predicate findings on petitioner’s motion regarding DRRR’s SIJ status, the Court vacated the trial court’s order denying the motion and remanded for entry of its order finding by a preponderance of the evidence on the complete record before it that DRRR met the requirements for SIJ status. Id. at ___.