In re Christian G.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re Christian G.

IN RE CHRISTIAN G.
(AC 47902)
Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Moll, Js.

Syllabus

The petitioner appealed to the Superior Court from the orders of the Probate
Court denying his petitions for the voluntary appointment of a guardian
and for the designation of a minor child as having special immigrant
juvenile status. The trial court rendered judgment denying the petitions,
from which the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the petitioner
could not prevail on his claim that the trial court made clearly erroneous
findings of fact and misapplied the law, this court having concluded
that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and that its
decision was correct in law.
Considered August 22—officially released August 22, 2024*

Procedural History

Appeal from the decision of the Probate Court for
the district of Bridgeport denying the petitioner’s peti-
tions for the voluntary appointment of a guardian and
for the designation of a minor child as having special
immigrant juvenile status, brought to the Superior Court
in the judicial district of Bridgeport, Juvenile Matters,
and tried to the court, Skyers, J.; judgment denying the
petitions, from which the petitioner appealed to this
court. Affirmed.
Virginia M. Gillette and Trent A. LaLima submitted
a brief for the appellant (petitioner).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Christian G., appealed
to the Superior Court challenging the orders of the
Probate Court denying his petitions for the voluntary
appointment of a guardian and for the designation of a
minor child as having special immigrant juvenile status.
* August 22, 2024, the date that this decision was released as an order of
this court on a motion for summary disposition, is the operative date for
all substantive and procedural purposes.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
In re Christian G.

See General Statutes §§ 45a-608n and 45a-610. Follow-
ing a trial de novo, the Superior Court denied the peti-
tions, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment
of the Superior Court.
The petitioner filed his appeal to this court on August
12, 2024. He represented that his twenty-first birthday
is August 26, 2024, and that his ability to apply for a
petition to the United States Citizenship and Immigra-
tion Services for the designation of a minor child as
having special immigrant juvenile status under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101 (a) (27) (J) (2018) would be foreclosed after that
date. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 (b) (1) (2023).
This court granted the petitioner’s motion for an
expedited appeal, and he filed his brief and appendix
on August 19, 2024. We granted his request for summary
disposition without oral argument.
On appeal to this court, the petitioner claims that
the court made clearly erroneous findings of fact and
misapplied the law. After carefully reviewing the peti-
tioner’s brief and appendix, and the record, including
the trial court file and the transcripts of the trial pro-
ceedings, we conclude that the findings of the court
are not clearly erroneous and that its decision is correct
in law. See, e.g., Haydusky’s Appeal from Probate, 201
Conn. App. 746, 747, 242 A.3d 531 (2020), cert. denied,
336 Conn. 915, 245 A.3d 424 (2021).
The judgment is affirmed.