Castillo, O. v. Guerra, M.

Opinion

J-A24024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

OSCAR AMILCAR CASTILLO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : MARIA CANDELARIA GUERRA : No. 1579 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 18, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): 2023-1210

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 26, 2025

Appellant, Oscar Amilcar Castillo (“Uncle”), appeals from the May 18,

2023 Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County that

denied his petition seeking the issuance of an order containing specific factual

findings regarding his nephew, now-19-year-old A.J.P.A. (“Nephew”),

necessary to petition the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)

for special immigration juvenile status (“SIJS”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1101(a)(27)(J) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.11.1 Upon remand from the Supreme

Court, we vacate and remand to the lower court for further proceedings. ____________________________________________

1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) (defining SIJS as applicable to child immigrant who is present in United States and (i) who has been declared dependent by juvenile court located in United States or whom such court has legally committed to, or placed under custody of, agency or department of State, or individual or entity appointed by State or juvenile court located in United States, and whose reunification with one or both of immigrant’s parents (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-A24024-23

In September 2022, then-17-year-old Nephew left his home country of

Honduras and hitchhiked to the U.S. Upon arrival, Nephew was taken into the

custody of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of

Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”). On November 12, 2022, ORR released

Nephew into Uncle’s custody.

On February 13, 2023, Uncle filed an emergency complaint for custody

of Nephew and a request for special relief in the form of factual findings as a

requisite predicate to Nephew’s federal SIJS petition. On April 5, 2023, the

trial court issued an Order adopting a written custody agreement between

Uncle and Mother, who lives in Honduras, which granted Uncle legal and

physical custody of Nephew. On April 7, 2023, Nephew turned 18 years old.

On April 13, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Uncle’s petitions and heard

testimony from Uncle, Nephew, and Mother. On May 18, 2023, the trial court

denied Uncle’s emergency request for custody as moot,2 denied Uncle’s

request for a SIJS predicate order, and issued findings of fact and conclusions

of law.

____________________________________________

is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or similar basis found under State law; (ii) for whom it has been determined in administrative or judicial proceedings that it would not be in immigrant’s best interest to be returned to his/her or parent’s previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence; and (iii) in whose case Secretary of Homeland Security consents to grant of SIJS). See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 (providing federal regulation governing special immigrant juvenile classification).

2 The trial court denied Uncle’s emergency custody request as moot because

Nephew had turned 18 years old, and the court had previously accepted a custody agreement concerning Nephew.

-2- J-A24024-23

Uncle timely appealed and this Court subsequently affirmed the trial

court’s decision. On December 6, 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

granted Appellant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal, vacated this Court’s

decision, and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of

the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Velasquez v. Miranda, 321 A.3d 876

(Pa. 2024).

In Velasquez, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “granted discretionary

review to address a matter of first impression for [the] Court, involving the

correct procedure and standards when our courts are asked to make certain

requisite findings to support a [SIJS] classification for minors seeking that

status before federal immigration authorities.” Id. at 882. The Supreme

Court further clarified “the role of Pennsylvania courts in deciding whether

these predicate judicial determinations may be made in the context of a child

custody proceeding.” Id. In doing so, our High Court held, inter alia, that a

custody court qualifies as a “juvenile court” for purposes of making SIJS

findings. Id. at 894 (stating “juvenile court” is “court located in the United

States that has jurisdiction under State law to make judicial determinations

about the dependency and/or custody and care of juveniles”) (citing 8 C.F.R.

§ 204.11(a)). The Supreme Court further held that “a child with . . . an order

from a Pennsylvania custody court may qualify for SIJS as long as that court

also makes the requisite predicate judicial determinations.” Id. at 898

(emphasis omitted) (reversing Superior Court’s decision which interpreted

-3- J-A24024-23

SIJS provisions as precluding someone who is awarded custody of a child in

custody proceeding to be someone “appointed by” state or juvenile court).

Here, the trial court made factual findings to support its denial of SIJS.

See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 5/12/23, at 4-8 (unpaginated).

Nonetheless, the court stated in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that Nephew was not

eligible for SIJS regardless because he had not been legally committed to the

custody of state agency or an individual or entity appointed by the state or

juvenile court. The court opined, “[s]ignificantly, [Nephew] has not been

adjudicated dependent or placed in the legal custody of a state agency, rather

[Nephew] resides with his Uncle.” Opinion, 8/3/23, at 10. To support this,

the trial court relied on this Court’s earlier decision in Velasquez, which was

reversed by the Supreme Court during the pendency of this appeal. The trial

court also concluded that it was “not sitting as a juvenile court as defined by

federal law” (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 7 (unpaginated)),

which is contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Velasquez, supra.

We recognize that the trial court made factual findings which might

serve as a basis for the denial of SIJS on their own accord, but in light of the

trial court’s reliance on authority that our Supreme Court has now reversed,

and in an abundance of caution, we remand this case so that the trial court

may reconsider its ruling with the benefit of our Supreme Court’s decision in

Velasquez. Thus, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

-4- J-A24024-23

Date: 3/26/2025

-5-