J-A24013-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 D.E. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : A.E. : : Appellant : No. 630 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered March 14, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Domestic Relations at No(s): CI-18-00759 BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2019 A.E. (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s March 14, 2018, order, entering a final one-year protection from abuse (“PFA”)1 order in favor of D.E. (“Wife”), which was an agreement without an admission of abuse. Husband now complains that he agreed to the PFA order under duress and he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of the agreement. Based on the following, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history are taken from the trial court’s May 2, 2018, opinion and our independent review of the certified record. Husband and Wife have been married since 1989, and both are in the process of applying with immigration services for permanent resident cards or Green ____________________________________________ 1 See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101–6122. J-A24013-18 Card status. Wife filed a pro se petition for a temporary PFA order, which was granted on January 30, 2018. A hearing was held on February 2, 2018. At that time, Wife attended without counsel and requested a continuance to obtain a lawyer, which was granted by the court. Both parties then appeared for a hearing on March 13, 2018,2 where they informed the court they had reached an agreement regarding the terms of the PFA order. The following day, the court entered a final one-year PFA order by agreement without an admission of abuse (“Agreement”) against Husband. This timely appeal followed.3 Initially, we note the following: [I]n a PFA action, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for an error of law or abuse of discretion. Lawrence v. Bordner, 2006 PA Super 246, 907 A.2d 1109, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2006). In Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 322, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (2000), our Supreme Court defined “abuse of discretion” in the following way: The term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion, with the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as ____________________________________________ 2 Counsel for both parties informed the court that a translator was not necessary at the hearing. N.T., 3/13/2018, at 2. 3 On April 13, 2018, the trial court ordered Husband to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Husband filed a concise statement on April 26, 2018. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on May 2, 2018. -2- J-A24013-18 opposed to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused when the course pursued represents not merely an ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals