Perez v. Cissna (P)

As the district court concluded, a temporary ex parte emergency order for the plaintiff’s application for juvenile lawful permanent residency under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) was not a predicate state court custody order for purposes of the statute. Therefore, the plaintiff, who entered the U.S. unlawfully at age 16, was not entitled to the special-immigrant-juvenile process.

U.S. Citizen & Immigration Services didn’t impose an ultra vires requirement for permanent rather than temporary custody orders within the special-immigrant-juvenile application process. Its decision wasn’t a categorical rejection of temporary orders and focused more on the terms reflecting the order’s ex parte and emergency nature. The agency decisions don’t offend federalism principles. All that happened here is that the plaintiff sought a federal benefit in applying for special-immigrant-juvenile status, and the agency charged with determining whether he qualified reviewed the pertinent state court order.

Finally, the Full Faith and Credit Act is inapplicable under the facts presented in this case.

Affirmed 2-1. judge King wrote a dissenting opinion.

Perez v. Cissna (P), No. 18-1330, Jan. 29, 2019. 4th Cir. (Quattlebaum) from WDNC at Charlotte (Conrad).



Categories: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Opinions, Published

Tags:

%d bloggers like this: