Background
Osvaldo G., the paternal uncle of a minor, M.A.G., filed a petition for guardianship in the Family Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia. M.A.G., born in Mexico in 2008, came to the United States in 2024 after his father was murdered and his mother abandoned him. His mother died after he arrived in the United States. Uncle filed the guardianship petition on July 2, 2025, and requested specific judicial findings to enable M.A.G. to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which would allow M.A.G. to seek lawful permanent residency.
The Family Court held a hearing on September 25, 2025, and orally granted Uncle’s petition for guardianship. Counsel for Uncle orally requested that the court include the specific SIJS findings in the final order, but the court granted the guardianship without including those findings. On October 25, 2025, Uncle filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that the court amend the guardianship order to add the four specific findings required under Section 1101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court’s November 7, 2025 order denying Uncle’s motion for reconsideration. The appellate court held that under West Virginia Code § 51-2A-10(a), a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to “reargue facts upon which a court has already ruled.” Because Uncle had requested the specific SIJS findings in his original July 2, 2025 petition and again orally during the September 25, 2025 hearing, his October 25 motion for reconsideration was procedurally improper.
The court noted that the Family Court had already considered and ruled upon the underlying facts regarding M.A.G.’s guardianship, and the motion for reconsideration was simply an attempt to have a “second bite of the apple.” The appellate court concluded that the Family Court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Key Takeaways
- A motion for reconsideration under West Virginia Code § 51-2A-10(a) cannot be used to relitigate facts or arguments that were already presented to and ruled upon by the trial court.
- If a party wishes to request specific judicial findings in a family court order, those requests must be made at the proper time—in the original petition or at the hearing—and cannot be deferred to a later motion for reconsideration.
- The court held that the Family Court was not required to make findings regarding whether it would be in M.A.G.’s best interest to return to Mexico, as such findings are not mandated by West Virginia guardianship law.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the intersection—and potential mismatch—between state family law and federal immigration law. While Uncle sought guardianship findings tailored to federal SIJS requirements, the West Virginia Family Court was bound by state guardianship statutes and was not required to make findings beyond those necessary for the guardianship itself. The decision leaves open a question for practitioners: whether a child seeking SIJS protection must separately request the required federal findings at the guardianship hearing itself, or whether subsequent motions can be used to amend the order to include those findings.
For immigration practitioners and guardians of foreign-born minors, this case underscores the importance of coordinating with immigration counsel early in the guardianship process to ensure that all necessary federal findings are included in the initial order, as courts may be unwilling to reconsider and amend orders after the fact.