
    In the Matter of Blanca C.S.C. Norma C., Appellant.
    [35 NYS3d 438]—
   Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Martha L. Luft, J.), dated August 21, 2015. The order, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable the subject child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In October 2014, the petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to be appointed guardian of her niece (hereinafter the child), for the purpose of obtaining an order declaring that the child is dependent on the Family Court and making specific findings that she is unmarried and under 21 years of age, that reunification with one or both of her parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law, and that it would not be in her best interests to be returned to Ecuador, her country of nationality, so as to enable her to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) pursuant to 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J). The petitioner moved for the issuance of an order making the requisite declaration and specific findings to enable the child to petition for SIJS. In an order dated August 21, 2015, made after a hearing, the Family Court denied the petitioner’s motion.

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthori-zation Act of 2008, Pub L 110-457, 122 US Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a special immigrant is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for SUS, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law (see 8 USC § 1101 [a] [27] [J] [i]; Matter of Maria P.E.A. v Sergio A.G.G., 111 AD3d 619, 620 [2013]; Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v Joan W., 73 AD3d 793, 795 [2010]), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101 [a] [27] [J] [ii]; 8 CFR 204.11 [c] [6]; Matter of Maria P.E.A. v Sergio A.G.G., 111 AD3d at 620; Matter of Trudy-Ann W. v Joan W., 73 AD3d at 795).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record does not support a determination that the child’s reunification with one or both of her parents is not viable due to parental neglect or abandonment (see Matter of Jeison P.-C. [Conception P], 132 AD3d 876 [2015]; Matter of Miguel A.G.G. [Milton N.G.G.], 127 AD3d 858, 859 [2015]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petitioner’s motion for the issuance of an order, inter alia, making specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS.

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.  