SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2867-14T4

LUIS BELTRAN, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent.

__________________________________

Submitted October 3, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Carroll and Mawla.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections. 

Luis Beltran, Jr., appellant pro se. 

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam 

R. Gibbons, Deputy Attorney General, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Luis Beltran is serving a life sentence in New 

Jersey State Prison in Trenton. He appeals from a January 23, 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

October 26, 2017
2 A-2867-14T4

2015 final decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections 

(NJDOC) denying his request to have his girlfriend's minor children 

visit him in prison. We affirm.

Beltran asserts the NJDOC let his girlfriend's children 

accompany her on visits in the past, but suddenly changed its 

policy and ceased permitting the children to attend. Beltran 

filed an inmate grievance challenging the denial of the visits. 

The NJDOC denied the grievance because the children were unrelated 

to Beltran. 

On appeal, Beltran argues the NJDOC's decision was arbitrary 

and capricious. He also asserts the decision impinges on his 

constitutional right to visitation. Beltran argues the decision 

is inconsistent with N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3, which governs inmate 

visitation by relatives, close friends, clergy and "persons who 

may have a constructive influence on the inmate." 

We begin by reciting our standard of review. "In light of 

the executive function of administrative agencies, judicial 

capacity to review administrative actions is severely limited." 

George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994). 

The "final determination of an administrative agency . . . is 

entitled to substantial deference." In re Eastwick Coll. LPN-to 

RN Bridge Program, 225 N.J. 533, 541 (2016). 
3 A-2867-14T4

An appellate court will not reverse an 

agency's final decision unless the decision 

is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,"

the determination "violate[s] express or 

implied legislative policies," the agency's 

action offends the United States Constitution 

or the State Constitution, or "the findings 

on which [the decision] was based were not 

supported by substantial, credible evidence in 

the record."

[Ibid. (quoting Univ. Cottage Club of 

Princeton N.J. Corp. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. 

Prot., 191 N.J. 38, 48 (2007)).]

Beltran argues he has a constitutional right to have visits 

from his girlfriend's minor children. We have, however, previously 

stated visitation is a privilege and not a constitutional right. 

See Jackson v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 235 (App. Div. 

2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 630 (2001). Therefore, we reject 

Beltran's constitutional challenge to the NJDOC's determination.

We next address Beltran's argument that children unrelated 

to him may visit. N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3(a) vests the prison 

administrator with the authority to approve potential visitors. 

The regulation provides as follows:

(a) The correctional facility Administrator or 

designee may approve the following persons to 

visit an inmate:

1. Relatives (see N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2).

For the purposes of this subchapter, 

"relative" shall also include 

grandparents, cousins and aunts and 

uncles;
4 A-2867-14T4

2. Close friends;

3. Clergy; and

4. Persons who may have a constructive 

influence on the inmate.

N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2 defines a relative as a parent, legal guardian, 

partner in a civil union couple, spouse domestic partner, child 

or sibling. 

Beltran points to N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.8, the regulation 

entitled "Visits from children," which states: "(a) Children under 

the age of 18 shall not be permitted to visit unless accompanied 

by an adult family member of the child defined as a 'relative.' 

(see N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3)." Thus, Beltran argues as long as a 

child is accompanied by the child's adult family member, the child, 

related to the inmate or not, may visit the inmate. We disagree.

N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.8 clearly states that a child visiting an 

inmate may only do so if accompanying a relative as defined by 

N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3(a)(1). Beltran's girlfriend is not a 

relative, but instead a close friend. Her children do not qualify 

as Beltran's relatives. For these reasons, the NJDOC's decision 

to deny visitation by Beltran's girlfriend's children was neither 

arbitrary nor capricious. 

Affirmed.