MATTER OF M-A-C-

Non-Precedent Decision of the , Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: SEPT. 7, 2016

APPEAL OF NEW ARK, NEW JERSEY FIELD OFFICE DECISION

PETITION: FORM I-360, PETITION FOR AMERASIAN, WIDOW(ER), OR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT

The Petitioner seeks classification as a special immigrant juvenile (SIJ). See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) sections 101(a)(27)(J) and 204(a)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J) and 1154(a)(1)(G). SIJ classification protects foreign-born children in the United States who cannot reunify with one or both parents because of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law.

The Field Office Director, Newark, NJ, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for classification as detailed in her request for evidence (RFE), which listed the following evidentiary deficiencies: the Petitioner did not submit a juvenile court order with the requisite determinations that her reunification with one or both parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law, and that it would not be in her best interest to be returned to Ecuador; the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction when it issued the order after the Petitioner turned 18 years old; and the Petitioner sought the protection of the juvenile court primarily to seek an immigration benefit, and not primarily to obtain relief from abandonment by her parents.

The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. The Petitioner claims that the juvenile court order contains the requisite findings and is supported by the evidence, that the Petitioner was a minor when the court issued the order, and that the Director did not adequately review the evidence. ,

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Section 203(b)(4) of the Act allocates immigrant visas to qualified special immigrant juveniles as described in section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act. Section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act defines a special immigrant juvenile as:

an immigrant who is present in the United States-

(b)(6)

Matter of M-A-C-

(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, except that-

(I) no juvenile court has jurisdiction . to determine the custody status or placement of an alien in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services specifically consents to such jurisdiction; and

(II) no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act[.]

Subsection 101(a)(27)(J)(iii) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, through USCIS, to consent to the grant of SIJ classification. This consent determination is an acknowledgement that the request for SIJ classification is bona fide , which means that the juvenile court order and the best-interest determination were sought primarily to gain relief from parental abuse, neglect, abandonment or a similar basis under state law, and not solely or primarily to obtain an immigration benefit. 1

The burden of proof is on a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010).

II. ANALYSIS

The Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and was born on At the age of she entere9 the United States on May 12, 2006, near Texas, without inspection, admission, or parole.2

On 2006, the Superior Court of New Jersey,

1 H.R. Rep. No. I 05-405 at I 30 (1997); see also Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director for Domestic Operations, USCIS, HQ 70/8.5, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Provisions 3 (Mar. 24, 2009), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 2 Shortly after her entry, the Petitioner was apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The record reflects that the Petitioner told a CBP official that her parents and four siblings lived in New Jersey.

2

(b)(6)

Matter of M-A-C-

New Jersey (juvenile court), entered an order (juvenile court order), granting custody of the Petitioner to F-C-,3 an uncle. The juvenile court stated:

The plaintiff uncle is granted sole legal, physical and residential custody of [the Petitioner] (DOB

This is so ordered without prejudice to defendant parents whose whereabouts are unknown.

The juvenile court order is 'accompanied by a copy of a docket sheet, which indicated that F -C- was seeking custody of the Petitioner, and listed the last known address of the Petitioner's parents in New York. F-C-, on behalf of the Petitioner, filed the Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow( er), or Special Immigrant (SIJ petition), based on the juvenile court order.

The record before the Director im.<luded a letter from F-C- addressed "To Whom It May Concern" requesting custody of the Petitioner, and stating that the parents' whereabouts were unknown. Underneath F-C-'s signature on page two of the letter is a handwritten note marked "[c]ontinue . . . ," stating that the Petitioner' s mother, 0-, came to F-C-'s home with the Petitioner, stayed for several days, and then departed, leaving the Petitioner with F-C-. The letter indicates that the Petitioner' s mother did not provide a forwarding address and that the Petitioner's custodial status needed to be regularized so that she could attend school.

In her RFE, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit a juvenile court order which included the requisite determinations that the Petitioner' s reunification with one or both parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and that it was not in the Petitioner' s best interest to be returned to Ecuador. In response, the Petitioner resubmitted the same court order.

The Director concluded, in part, that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction when it issued the juvenile court order after the Petitioner turned years old. This finding of the Director is inaccurate and is withdrawn. On appeal, the Petitioner states that this error reflects that the Director did not adequately review the evidence. We have reviewed all the evidence in the record. A full review of the record, as supplemented on appeal, does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility.

I

When adjudicating an SIJ petition, USCIS examines the juvenile court order to determine if the order contains the requisite findings of dependency or custody; non-viability of family reunification due to parental abuse, neglect or abandonment; and the best-interest determination, as stated in section 101 (a)(27)(J)(i)-(ii) of the Act. The juvenile court order contains only the requisite custody finding. The juvenile court did not make any determination that the Petitioner's reunification with one or both parents was not yiable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law, and that it was not in the Petitioner's best interest to be returned to Ecuador.

3 Initials are used in this decision to protect the identity of the individuals.

3

Matter of M-A-C-

On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the juvenile court made the required determinations prior to awarding sole custody of the Petitioner to F-C-. The Petitioner contends that F-C-'s handwritten note to the juvenile court was incorporated as part of the juvenile court order on the reverse side of page one of the juvenile court order. The record contains a certified true copy of the juvenile court order. The reverse side of page one contains preprinted information about child custody payments, and does not incorporate language of the complaint or a handwritten statement from F-C-.

Even if the juvenile court had considered the handwritten statement of F-C-, however, the juvenile court order does not specify that the Petitioner's reunification with one or both parents is not viable, e.g., whether from abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law, does not state with which parent(s) her reunification is not viable, and does not conclude that it is not in the Petitioner's best interest to return to Ecuador. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the requirements of section 101 ( a)(27)(J) of the Act and is ineligible for SIJ classification.4

III. CONCLUSION

In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of M-A-C-, ID# 17854 (AAO Sept. 7, 20 16)

4 Because the juvenile court order does not contain the requisite findings, we do not reach the issue of whether the juvenile court order and the best-interest determination were sought primarily to gain relief from parental abuse, neglect, abandonment or a similar basis under state law, and not solely or primarily to obtain an immigration benefit.

4