RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3938-18T2 L.A.P.H. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.A.R., (Deceased), Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF L.V.E.P. 1, a Minor. ___________________________________ Submitted November 14, 2019 – Decided August 12, 2020 Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FD-07-2382-17. 1 Initials are used in this appeal of an order denying a motion to amend a predicate order required to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to protect the privacy and safety of the appellant and minor child. Protection of the appellant and minor child is a compelling interest that outweighs the Judiciary's commitment to transparency. Grigaite & Abdelsayed LLC, attorneys for appellant (Shokry G. Abdelsayed, on the brief). PER CURIAM Qualifying for "special immigrant juvenile" (SIJ) status under the Immigration Act of 1990, as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No.110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (Trafficking Protection Act), provides "a form of immigration relief permitting alien children to obtain lawful permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship." H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196, 200 (2015). A child residing in New Jersey who seeks SIJ status must apply to a Superior Court judge for a predicate order finding the child meets the statutory requirements. Ibid. The child must then petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Immigration Services) and demonstrate statutory eligibility. In this case, plaintiff L.A.P.H., on behalf of her child, applied for and received from a Family Part judge a predicate order the child met the statutory criteria for SIJ status. Immigration Services deemed the Family Part judge's findings inadequate. The child filed a motion for an amendment to the first order, and a different Family Part judge denied the motion and entered the order from which this appeal is taken. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. A-3938-18T2 2 In 2017, plaintiff commenced this action in the Family Part seeking custody of her child and a predicate order under the Trafficking Protection Act and its implementing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c), that would enable her child, a non-citizen, to apply for SIJ status. A court deciding such applications must make the following findings: (1) The juvenile is under the age of 21 and is unmarried; (2) The juvenile is dependent on the court or has been placed under the custody of an agency or an individual appointed by the court; (3) The "juvenile court" has jurisdiction under state law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles; (4) That reunification with one or both of the juvenile's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals