SIJ Consent and Conflicting Records: Why the AAO Dismissed Both Motions
A state court’s finding of parental abandonment can satisfy an important part of a Special Immigrant Juvenile petition while leaving USCIS’s consent inquiry unresolved. In In Re: 28282493, the Administrative Appeals Office examined whether new explanations overcame contradictions between the petitioner’s account to a California court and his visa, schooling, travel, and financial records. The issue was the reliability of the record supporting the request for classification, rather than a categorical prohibition on students or young people who return to their country of origin.
The October 30, 2023 decision dismissed combined motions to reopen and reconsider a previously dismissed appeal. This analysis concerns that four-page nonprecedent decision; it does not create a binding rule for other SIJ petitions or predict a particular applicant’s outcome.
The federal consent inquiry remained after the state order
The California court had entered findings concerning parental abandonment and return to China. USCIS nevertheless questioned whether the request warranted federal consent. As the decision explains at page 2, 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(b)(5) requires that “a primary reason” for seeking the court determinations be relief from parental maltreatment. An immigration-related objective is not, by itself, disqualifying: the regulation speaks of a primary reason, rather than an exclusive reason.
The AAO’s concern was that materially conflicting information undermined the bona fides of the request. The distinction matters. USCIS was assessing eligibility and consent under federal immigration law; the decision did not vacate the California guardianship order.
Three sets of records did not fit the abandonment account
According to the account submitted to the court, the petitioner arrived for a school vacation in April 2017, and the guardian enrolled him only after his parents said they could no longer care for him. The record instead showed a March F-1 visa application, arrival on April 9 for private school beginning that month, and tuition paid before arrival. The guardian’s descriptions of when schooling was planned also changed. See page 2.
The petitioner then spent approximately a month in China in June 2017. He said the trip was for SAT preparation, a relative of the guardian paid, and he did not see his family. The AAO focused on the failure to disclose that trip at the August court proceedings and in the later SIJ submission. Financial records raised a separate unresolved question: the father sent $5,000 for living expenses in October 2018 after the parents had been described as too financially distressed to provide care. The ultimate source of other deposits also remained unclear. See pages 2–3.
Why the new declaration did not cure the record
On motion, the petitioner attributed earlier documents to counsel, limited English, and his youth. He also argued that a declaration submitted in May could not describe a June trip. The AAO acknowledged those explanations but noted that the hearing occurred in August and the federal submission followed later. A declaration in the federal record bore an October 26 signature, leaving its relationship to the original court filing uncertain. See page 3.
New allegations of severe parental abuse did not supply an alternative foundation for the existing order. The AAO explained that those statements had not been presented in the SIJ court proceedings, where the reunification finding rested on abandonment. It did not adjudicate the new abuse allegations as false. See pages 3–4.
Reopening and reconsideration required different showings
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) states: “A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence.” New material still had to establish eligibility. Reconsideration, separately, required showing an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision. The AAO found neither showing sufficient and entered a separate dismissal order for each motion. See pages 1 and 4.
For a similar record, the useful inquiry is a dated comparison of court filings, declarations, visa records, school payments, travel, and identifiable funding sources. Objective documents and explanations must address the actual conflicts. A single trip or payment is not an automatic bar, but leaving material inconsistencies unresolved can defeat consent. Special circumstances, the complete record, applicable state law, and later legal developments require individual review.
Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 11/01/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
