*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** IN RE HENRRY P. B.-P.* (SC 19907) Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Robinson and Espinosa, Js.** Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§ 45a-608n [b]), ‘‘[a]t any time during the pendency of a petition . . . to appoint a guardian or coguardian . . . a party may file a petition requesting the Probate Court to make findings . . . to be used in connection with a petition [for] special immigrant juvenile status under [federal law].’’ H, a minor child, traveled from Honduras, where his life was threatened, to the United States in order to seek refuge with his mother, the peti- tioner, who lives in Connecticut. Five weeks before H’s eighteenth birth- day, the petitioner filed petitions seeking, inter alia, the appointment of a coguardian and juvenile status findings pursuant to § 45a-608n (b) so that H could obtain special immigrant status and avoid potential deportation. The Probate Court then scheduled a hearing on a date after H’s eighteenth birthday and ordered the Department of Children and Families to conduct a study related to the guardianship petition. Shortly before H’s birthday, the petitioner filed an emergency petition for find- ings under § 45a-608n (b), which the Probate Court denied. Thereafter, the petitioner and H appealed to the Superior Court from certain of the Probate Court’s rulings, including the denial of the emergency petition. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that H was no longer a minor, and the peti- tioner and H appealed to the Appellate Court. While that appeal was pending, the Probate Court issued a final decision denying the petitions seeking appointment of a coguardian and juvenile status findings pursu- ant to § 45a-608n (b) on the ground that H was no longer a minor. The petitioner and H then appealed from the Probate Court’s final decision to the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals