Corrales v. Aguilera

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Yarely Elibeth Reyes Corrales, Appellant,
v.
Wilmer Alexis Martinez Aguilera, Respondent.
In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2022-001342
Appeal From Beaufort County
Deborah A. Malphrus, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-292
Submitted July 27, 2023 – Filed August 9, 2023
REMANDED
Khristina A Siletskaya, of Bluffton, for Appellant.
Wilmer Alexis Martinez Aguilera, of Miami, Florida, pro
se.
PER CURIAM: Yarely Elibeth Reyes Corrales (Mother) appeals a family court
order finding Wilmer Alexis Martinez Aguilera (Father) abandoned their minor
daughters (collectively, Children) and granting her custody. On appeal, Mother
argues the family court erred by failing to address her request for additional
findings regarding the possibility of reunification and whether it would be in
Children's best interest to be returned to their home country, as is required to allow
Children to apply for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status.
Initially, we note this issue was not preserved for appellate review. Based on the
record before us, it appears Mother never explicitly told the family court—via her
pleadings, during the hearing, or by filing a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion—why she
was seeking those additional findings (i.e., for the purpose of establishing SIJ
status for Children), and thus, the family court was under the impression this was
solely a custody case.1 Therefore, we hold the issue was not properly preserved for
appellate review. See Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 466, 719 S.E.2d
640, 642 (2011) (stating that in order to be preserved, "an issue must be
sufficiently clear to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it
can be reasonably understood by the judge"); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361
S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) (explaining that generally "[a] party must
file . . . a [Rule 59(e), SCRCP] motion when an issue or argument has been raised,
but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review."). However, "[t]he
duty to protect the rights of minors and incompetents has precedence over
procedural rules otherwise limiting the scope of review and matters affecting the
rights of minors can be considered by this court ex mero motu." S.C. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. v. Roe, 371 S.C. 450, 463, 639 S.E.2d 165, 172 (Ct. App. 2006). We
therefore proceed with a review of the merits despite the lack of preservation. See
id. ("An exception to the rule that an unpreserved issue will not be considered on
appeal exists where the interests of minors or incompetents are involved.").
We hold the family court was required to make the requested SIJ findings, and we
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) (2017) (defining an SIJ as "an immigrant who is present in the
United States . . . who has been . . . placed under the custody of . . . an individual
. . . appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States, and whose
reunification with [one] or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to
1
Mother's complaint was entitled, "Complaint for Custody Determination," and it
cited only to South Carolina statutes, not the relevant United States Code sections
or federal regulations. The body of the complaint did not state Mother intended to
pursue SIJ status for Children, and Mother did not inform the family court at the
hearing, even when it indicated its reluctance to make findings as to abandonment
and the potential for reunification "in a custody case." Further, when the family
court altered Mother's proposed order to eliminate the required SIJ findings,
Mother failed to file a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP.
abuse, neglect, [or] abandonment"); Joshua M. v. Barr, 439 F. Supp. 3d 632, 657
(E.D. Va. 2020) (explaining that SIJ applicants must complete a two-step process
before receiving SIJ status, the first step of which is to "apply to a state 'juvenile
court' for a predicate order"); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c) (2022) (setting forth the
findings required to be made in state juvenile court orders in SIJ proceedings); In
re J.J.X.C., 734 S.E.2d 120, 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (remanding for further
proceedings because "[a]lthough the court was authorized to conclude that the
petitioners failed to present evidence to support the SIJ factors or that their
evidence was not credible, the court had a duty to consider the SIJ factors and
make findings"). Because it is not possible to ascertain from the family court's
order whether the family court simply chose not to address the SIJ findings,
determined it was not authorized to make such findings, or refused to make the
findings for some other reason, we remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
REMANDED.2
WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and VERDIN, JJ., concur.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.