COA: Trial court must make special immigrant juvenile findings

A man born in Honduras was granted his request for special immigrant juvenile status after the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded a trial court does have the authority and duty to make requisite findings in accordance with federal law.

In July 2018, the Marion Circuit Court entered an order establishing paternity of Kevin Yafet Mendoza Bonilla, granting his mother sole legal and physical custody and finding, among other things, that Kevin’s father had abandoned him at birth and contributed nothing to support Kevin for 18 years. It also found that Kevin’s return to Honduras would pose a risk of harm or injury and that it would not be in his best interests.

Kevin, by his mother as next friend, later filed a Motion for Clarification of Final Order asserting that to be eligible to apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Special Immigrant Status, a “juvenile or State court” must first make findings of fact, including that “[t]he child’s reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar basis found under State law within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).”

Additionally, he requested that the court clarify its final order to specify its authority to enter the order; that reunification with his father was not viable due to father’s abandonment; and to enter an order substantially similar to the court’s final order reflecting such a finding.

But the trial court denied entry of an amended final order, stating in part that it could not “make a finding based upon the application of federal law” and that “there is no comparable basis for a finding of abandonment within the Indiana state paternity statutory authority.”

Kevin argued on appeal that the special immigrant status process directs the collaboration of state and federal systems, and that the trial court has the authority to make all requisite SIJ findings and must consider the evidence and present findings for or against the juvenile.

Specifically, Kevin cited Matter of Guardianship of Luis, 114 N.E.3d 855, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) asserting it was consistent with decisions of appellate courts that similarly ruled that state juvenile courts must entertain a request for SIJ findings and issue a ruling accordingly.

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed, noting that although the trial court stated it could not make a finding based upon the application of federal law and that there was no comparable basis for a finding of abandonment within the Indiana state paternity statutory authority, it had previously found in its earlier order that Kevin’s father had abandoned him.

“Based upon the record, Indiana statutory law, and in light of Luis, we conclude that Kevin has established prima facie error and we remand for the trial court to consider the request for SIJ findings and articulate the relevant determinations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J),” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the court.

The case is In the Matter of the Paternity of Kevin Yafet Mendoza Bonilla, aka Kevin Yafeth Mendoza Bonilla, a Minor, By his Next Friend, Perla Maily Bonilla Acosta v. Marco Tulio Mendoza Maldonado, 18A-JP-2488.