Court Opinion

ID: 9877815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:24:03.71212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:27.441324
License: Public Domain

Balkin, J.R,
dissents, and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from, with the following memorandum: Under 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J), as amended, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who is, inter alia, under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court (see Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v Joan W., 73 AD3d 793, 795 [2010]). For juveniles to qualify for special immigrant juvenile status, courts must find that their reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to, among other things, parental abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and that it would not be in their best interests to be returned to their native country (see Matter of Marvin E.M. de P. [Milagro C.C.—Mario Enrique M.G.], 121 AD3d 892, 893 [2014]; Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v Joan W., 73 AD3d at 795; 8 USC § 1101 [a] [27] [J]; 8 CFR 204.11 [c] [6]).
Here, the Family Court, upon renewal and reargument, declined to find that the mother abandoned, neglected, or abused the child. The court’s finding rested, in large part, on its determination that the child was not credible. Although we have the power to conduct our own “independent factual review,” we generally accord deference to the Family Court’s credibility determinations and are reluctant to disturb them unless they are clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Porter v Moore, 149 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2017]; Matter of Andrew R. [Andrew R.], 146 AD3d 709, 710 [2017]; Matter of Brandon V., 133 AD3d 769, 769-770 [2015]). I find no basis on this record to reject the court’s credibility determinations, which the court explained in detail, both in its original determination of March 29, 2016, and in its order upon renewal and reargument dated August 22, 2016. Moreover, even aside from the court’s credibility determinations as to the child, I agree with the court’s well-founded conclusion that the mother has always been, and continues to be, a resource for her son.
Accordingly, I would affirm that part of the Family Court’s order as declined to find that reunification of the child with his mother is not viable on the basis of neglect, abandonment, or abuse (see Matter of Christian P.S.-A. [Humberto R.S.-B.—Laura S.A.-C.], 148 AD3d 1032, 1034 [2017]).