Professor Laila Hlass’s Article Cited in California State Appellate Court Decision

Article influences decision in case regarding guardianship of immigrant minor.

“States and Status: A Study of Geographical Disparities for Immigrant Youth,” an article by Clinical Associate Professor Laila Hlass recently published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, was referenced in an opinion in a case before California’s Fourth District Court of Appeals.

Hlass’s article addresses the issues surrounding Special Immigrant Juvenile status (SIJ). “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status was created to protect some of the most vulnerable among us—child migrants who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected,” Hlass says. “Unfortunately, as one of the architects of the law told me, the implementation of SIJ status has been a tragedy; the law is under-utilized, and many eligible youth are unable to access the state courts.”

SIJ status ultimately leads to legal permanent residence and citizenship for young migrants, and is the only kind of federal immigration protection that requires a state court to act before granting the benefit. In her paper, Hlass illustrates trends among SIJ applicants with data from the Department of Homeland Security to point out disparities among applications in different states.

The article proposes different types of reform that could improve the SIJ law. Hlass suggests adding a federal safeguard to prevent differences in various states’ laws from affecting SIJ status, and increasing the screening of potential SIJ-eligible children.

The case that cited Hlass’s article involved a 17 year old, William, who fled to California from El Salvador to escape his neglectful, widowed mother and the threat of a dangerous gang. William asked the state court to grant his uncle guardianship over him, and to make findings about his parents’ neglect and his best interests, which would allow him to request a SIJ visa. Hoping to receive a decision before William turned 18, when he would lose the ability to have a legal guardian, his lawyer filed for an emergency court hearing. When a lower court denied the early case, and then dismissed the case entirely because William had turned 18, he and his lawyers appealed.

At issue was whether or not the court had the power to extend guardianship past William’s 18th birthday to allow for a hearing on his status. If the court could have provided extended guardianship, the emergency hearing was wrongfully denied because an extended guardianship does not impair the SIJ status application. As stated in Hlass’s article and cited by the court, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 “freezes the child’s age at the time of filing for the purpose of determining eligibility.”

The dissent to the appellate court’s decision found that “there was potentially irreparable harm done to William, in part because the court could have had jurisdiction to continue the guardianship beyond his 18th birthday,” Hlass explains, “and, as my article shows, because the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status could be granted up to age 21, even if the guardianship had expired.”

Hlass’s research on Special Immigrant Juvenile Status is leading toward more clearly defined jurisdiction in granting SIJ eligibility, so that young immigrants like William can more easily obtain SIJ status.

“My research highlights some best practices of states in identifying and helping SIJ-eligible children access state courts and federal protection. Hopefully stakeholders and child advocates in states that have not yet attempted to implement this statute can learn from these examples.”