Guardianship of Saul H.

Case Name: Guardianship of Saul H.

Type of Case: Guardianship -- special immigration findings

Court: California Supreme Court

Judge(s): Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Josh Groban, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Leondra Kruger, Justice Martin Jenkins, and Justice Patricia Guerrero

Appellant Lawyers: Horvitz & Levy LLP, David S. Ettinger, Christopher D. Hu, Jason R. Litt, Anna J. Goodman, Beth J. Jay; Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Marion Donovan-Kaloust; Disability Rights California, Munmeeth Soni

Appellee/Respondent Lawyers: Assigned as amici curiae Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Stefan C. Love, Jeffrey E. Raskin

In a guardianship case that eased the path for immigrant youth to seek legal status, attorneys from Horvitz & Levy LLP and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center successfully reversed a Court of Appeal decision denying a 16-year-old from El Salvador special immigrant juvenile status. Guardianship of Saul H., S271265 (Cal.).

The youth, identified as Saul H., traveled to the United States alone and undocumented to flee gang violence. He was placed with a relative in Southern California and applied for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status. For federal SIJ status to be granted, a state court must find that reunification with the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect or abandonment.

A Los Angeles judge and a state appeals court declined to make such findings, reasoning that his parents could not support him due to poverty, which did not qualify as abuse, neglect or abandonment. Attorneys for Saul successfully petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.

"I think the statutes that Congress enacted, that the California Legislature enacted, required relief for our client," said Horvitz & Levy Of Counsel David Ettinger. "We thought the California Supreme Court would see that, and the justices did."

Jason R. Litt

Ettinger, who came out of retirement to handle the appeal, called the case the "most satisfying victory" of his career due to its implications for immigration law.

In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal. The Court found that Saul would face a substantial risk of physical harm as a result of his parents' inability to adequately protect him, and that SIJ status need not require that "a child's parents are blameworthy."

The decision "admonishes California courts to focus on children's best interests, rather than on pointing the finger at parents," said Immigrant Defenders Law Center's Marion ("Mickey") Donovan-Kaloust, who also represented Saul. "It overturned erroneous decisions by both the commissioner and the Court of Appeal, and importantly reduces barriers for vulnerable children seeking protection from California courts."

The ruling allowed Saul to apply to the federal government for protected status, and opens up a path to U.S. citizenship. It also eases restrictions on immigrant youths who invoke state and federal laws to avoid deportation, and will likely benefit other young people seeking SIJ findings, said Kristen Jackson of Public Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the matter.

Christopher D. Hu

"Every young person seeking SIJS findings in California will benefit, in one way or another, from the opinion's deeply humane guidance. So, too, will children nationwide, when other states' courts rightly embrace it as persuasive authority," said Jackson, who has litigated SIJ status issues in state and federal court for nearly 20 years.

At the request of the California Supreme Court, Stefan Love and Jeffrey Raskin of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP represented the Court of Appeal opinion.

"When the Supreme Court decided to reverse, our side 'lost,' but the law won: The Court drew on arguments from both sides to reach a decision that strengthens the law's support for Saul and other immigrants," Love wrote in an email.

--Jennifer Chung Klam