U.S. Non-Precedent Decision of the and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office Services

In Re: 10068724 Date: FEB. 25, 2021

Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision

Form 1-360, Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile

The Petitioner seeks classification as a special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) under sections 10l(a)(27)(J) and 204(a)(l)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J) and 1154(a)(l)(G). The Director of the New York, New York District Office (Director) revoked the Petitioner's Form I-360, Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ petition) after initial approval. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner submitted a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider which we dismissed, determining that the Petitioner did not demonstrate she was under 21 years of age upon SIJ petition filing, that she is unmarried, or that she warrants USCIS' consent.

The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider and the Petitioner submits a brief reasserting her eligibility for SIJ classification. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.

I. LAW

A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.

To establish eligibility for SIJ classification, petitioners must show that they are unmarried, under 21 years old, and have been subject to a state juvenile court order determining that they cannot reunify with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law. Section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1 l(c). Petitioners must have been declared dependent upon the juvenile court, or the juvenile court must have placed them in the custody of a state agency or an individual or entity appointed by the state or the juvenile court. Section 101 ( a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act. The record must also contain a judicial or administrative determination that it is not in the petitioners' best interest to return to their or their parents' country of nationality or last habitual residence. Id. at section 101(a)(27)(J)(ii).

SIJ classification may only be granted upon the consent of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), when the petitioner meets all other eligibility criteria. Section 101(a)(27)(J)(i)- (iii) of the Act. See also Matter of D-Y-S-C-, Adopted Decision 2019-02, at 2, 6-7 (AAO Oct. 11, 2019) (providing guidance on USCIS' consent authority as rooted in the legislative history of the SIJ classification and longstanding agency policy). A petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).

II. ANALYSIS

We incorporate by reference our previous decisions summarizing the lengthy factual and procedural history of this case. We previously determined that the Petitioner demonstrated that the New York Family Court fo~ !(Family Court) properly issued her guardianship order and declared her dependent on the court, pursuant to R.F.M v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). We also concluded that the Family Court's amended nunc pro tune order determined that the Petitioner is unable to reunify with her father due to neglect under New York state law and contained a reasonable factual basis for the best interest determination. We farther recognized that the Family Court found that the Petitioner is a national of Ivory Coast. Nonetheless, we determined that the Petitioner was ineligible for SIJ classification because she did not demonstrate that she was under 21 years of age upon SIJ petition filing, that she is unmarried, and that she warrants USCIS' consent. The Petitioner's current motion contests these findings.

A. The Petitioner Has Not Established Her Age or Marital Status at The Time of SIJ Petition Filing

An individual must apply for SIJ classification with USCIS while unmarried and under the age of 21, as federal mandates these filing requirements and related age-out protections. See section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.ll(c)(l)-(2) (stating that an SIJ petitioner must be under 21 years of age and unmarried); William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, section 235(d)(6), Pub. L. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044, 5080 (2008) (providing age-out protections for juveniles who are unmarried and under the age of 21 when their petitions are filed); Matter ofA-O-C-, Adopted Decision 2019-03, at 4 (AAO Oct. 11, 2019).

The Petitioner filed her SIJ petition in August 2013. The record contains two identities for the Petitioner: S-D-, a citizen of the Ivory Coast, born I I1993 and forced into a polygamous marriage with Y-; 1 and D-D-, a citizen of born inl 11983 and married to B-S-. 2 The Petitioner claims that her correct identity is Ivorian, establishing her age as 19 at the time of filing her SIJ petition, and she contends that her polygamous marriage to Y- is not recognized by New York state law or federal law. 3 However, the separate Malian identity for the Petitioner in the record

1 Below, the Petitioner submitted several documents in support of her Ivorian identity, including: birth extracts issued August 2010 and January 2015 certifying conformation to May 2010 registry details; Ivory Coast issued April 2016; certificate of Ivorian citizenship issued July 2011; from the Ivory Coast Ministry of Interior issued October 2012; and a school identification card issued in 2009. 2 The record contains the following documents related to the Malian identity: Form DS-156, Nonimmigrant Visa Application, submitted by the Petitioner to the U.S. embassy in Mali in May 2010; and the Petitioner's original Malian passport, containing biographic information consistent with the information in her nonimmigrant visa application, which the Petitioner used to depart Mali and enter the United States in January 2010. 3 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's motion, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the validity of her claimed polygamous marriage to Y- in the Ivory Coast. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of

2 indicates she was 29 years old and married at the time of the filing of her SIJ petition, making her ineligible for SIJ classification. As discussed in our prior decisions, the Petitioner has not established her age and marital status by a preponderance of the evidence.

On motion, the Petitioner makes several arguments asserting her claimed Ivorian identity, which we will address in turn. The Petitioner first argues that we improperly applied a heightened evidentiary standard by basing our analysis of the Petitioner's delayed Ivorian birth extract on Matter of Lugo­ Guadiana, 12 I&N Dec. 726 (BIA 1968), which limited the weight accorded a delayed record of birth within the context of safeguarding U.S. citizenship. The Petitioner claims that her case is distinguishable because she is merely establishing her identity as an Ivorian citizen. She farther notes that delayed evidence of birth may be the only type of documentation available to some applicants based on the circumstances of their birth, citing Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978).

Contrary to the Petitioner's claim, the Board has recognized that fraud concerns in delayed birth registration extend to matters beyond U.S. citizenship. Specifically, in assessing whether an applicant met their burden of proof to establish a family relationship, the Board affirmed its reluctance to accord delayed birth certificates the same weight given to documents issued at the time of birth due to the potential for fraud. Matter ofRehman, 27 I&N Dec. 124, 126 (BIA 2017) (citing Matter ofBueno, 21 I&N Dec. 1029 (BIA 1997)). The same evidentiary weight does not attach to a delayed birth certificate as would attach to one contemporaneous with the actual birth, and the delayed certificate must be evaluated in light of other evidence in the record the circumstances of the case. Id.; Matter ofSerna, 16 I&N Dec. 643.

On motion, the Petitioner cites studies by the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Bank Group indicating that some births in the Ivory Coast are not contemporaneously registered. She also maintains that she is not able to obtain additional information regarding the registration of her birth from her parents because her mother is deceased, and she fled her home to escape neglect and maltreatment by her father and other family members. The Petitioner contends that the delayed Ivorian birth extract, considered together with the other claimed evidence of Ivorian nationality, sufficiently establish her age and identity. She claims that to hold her circumstances against her in determining her age and identity is precisely the situation that the Board in Matter of Serna hoped to prevent.

Here, the Petitioner previously submitted two delayed Ivorian birth extracts indicating that her birth was registered in May 2010, over 16 years after her claimed date of birth in I I1993. 4 Approximately three years after registering her birth, the Petitioner submitted her SIJ petition. We acknowledge the Petitioner's prior statements describing her claimed circumstances of departure and the evidence submitted regarding the issuance of birth certificates in the Ivory Coast. However, her personal statements in the record do not provide insight into her life in the Ivory Coast prior to the

which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). We note that petitioners must establish their eligibility for a requested benefit both at the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 4 The Petitioner submitted a copy of a birth extract issued in August 2010, which certified conformation to May 2010 registry details. and an original birth extract issued in January 2015, also certifying conformation to May 2010 registry details.

3 claimed incidents causing her to flee. We farther note that the current Department of State (DOS) Reciprocity Table for the Ivory Coast does not discuss the availability or reliability of birth registrations in the country. https://travel.state.gov /content/travel/ en/us-visas/Visa-Reciprocity-and­ Civil-Documents-by-Country/CotedvIoire.html. Considering the record as a whole and the factors articulated by the Board in Rehman, 27 I&N Dec. at 127, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the reliability of her Ivorian birth extracts of her delayed birth registration.

The Petitioner also contends on motion that we should afford greater evidentiary weight to a previously submitted 2009 school identification card from the Ivory Coast because it was issued prior to the delayed birth extract. However, the Petitioner has not provided any details of her education in the Ivory Coast to corroborate the school identification card. Specifically, the card indicates that the Petitioner was attending the 5th grade at the age of 16, several years beyond the customary age in the United States education system. Because the Petitioner provides no additional evidence regarding her claimed education in the Ivory Coast, and because she has not established the reliability of the other documents from the Ivory Coast in the record, we afford the school identity card limited evidentiary weight.

As stated in our prior decision, the Petitioner's other governmental identity documents from the Ivory Coast, submitted in support of her claimed identity, were acquired based on the delayed birth extracts. Additionally, although the Petitioner's Ivory Coast passport would normally be recognized as strong evidence of her identity and nationality, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 244.9(a)(l), the record also contains the Petitioner's Malian passport, which she used to enter the United States. The Ivorian identity documents are therefore assigned less weight in accordance with the Board's decisions because they were acquired based on the delayed birth extracts.

In addition, we previously determined that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that she is unmarried because she claimed to have been married to B-S- on her nonimmigrant visa application. On motion, the Petitioner argues that USCIS should defer to the findings of the Family Court regarding her Ivorian identity to determine that the Petitioner was unmarried at the time of filing her SIJ petition with USCIS. As we previously determined, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner was married to B-S-, contradictions in the record concerning her contact with B-S-, and insufficient evidence relating to the authenticity of her divorce certificate, and she does not resolve these concerns on motion. The Petitioner has therefore not met her burden to establish that she was under the age of 21 at the time of filing her SIJ petition and unmarried, as federal immigration law requires. Section 10l(a)(27)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1 l(c)(l)-(2).

B. The Petitioner Has Not Established That She Merits USCIS' Consent

The Petitioner contends on current motion that because the AAO determined that the Family Court's SIJ orders were sufficient, we should defer to the Family Court and find that its determinations were sought in proceedings granting relief from parental maltreatment. The Petitioner also asserts that because we determined that the amended SIJ order contains a reasonable factual basis for the best interest determination and confirms the Petitioner is a national of the Ivory Coast, and we deferred to the Family Court's findings, that we err in not confirming her age, identity, or marital status.

4 SIJ classification may only be granted upon the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, through USCIS, where a petitioner meets all other eligibility criteria. Section 10l(a)(27)(J)(i)-(iii) of the Act. Additionally, we defer to the Family Court's findings inasmuch it is charged with making SU-related determinations for the Petitioner under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.ll(c)(3)-(6). Consistent with legislative history regarding the consent function, USCIS has a policy and past practice of exercising its consent authority by verifying whether SIJ petitions are bona fide, meaning that the juvenile court order was not sought primarily to obtain the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, rather than to obtain relief from parental maltreatment. Matter ofD-Y-S-C-, Adopted Decision 2019-02 at 6-7 (citing section 10l(a)(27)(J)(iii) of the Act; H.R. Rep. No. 105-405, at 130 (1997)).

The Petitioner has used two separate identities with differing biographic information in submissions to the U.S. government. One of these identities would establish the Petitioner as ineligible for SIJ classification based on her age and marital status. As the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated her actual date of birth and marital status, she has not met her burden of showing that the Family Court orders were primarily sought to obtain relief from parental maltreatment rather than an immigration benefit. USCIS' consent to a grant of SIJ classification is therefore not warranted.

III. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has not overcome our prior dismissals and established that she is eligible for SIJ classification. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that she was under 21 years of age upon her SIJ petition filing and unmarried, or that she warrants USCIS' consent.

ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.

5