OPINION *
Kevin Daniel Sauceda Bejarno appeals from the District Courts denial of his petition to return his son, L.S., to Honduras under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 22514 U.N.T.S. 98, and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. § 9001, et seq. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
I. Discussion
Although Appellant established a prima facie case that Appellee, L.S.’s mother, had wrongfully removed L.S. from Honduras to the United States, the District Court denied the return request because a petition filed more than one year after removal “is subject to certain affirmative defenses, including Appellees demonstration [by a preponderance of the evidence] that ‘the child is now settled in its new environment.’ ” Monzon v. De La Roca, 910 F.3d 92, 96 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Hague Convention at art. 12). The District Court determined that Appellee met this burden, and we review its factual findings for clear error and any conclusions of law de novo. See Yang v. Tsui, 499 F.3d 259, 270 (3d Cir. 2007).
In a careful and thorough analysis of the ten factors we specified in Monzon,
1
the District Court determined that only two weighed against L.S. being well-settled in his New Jersey home and community: “the stability of [Appellees] employment or other means of support” and “the immigration status of the child and parent.” A16. As to those factors, the District Court reasoned that L.S. and Appellee are not citizens, so “their immigration status remains uncertain,” A21, while their asylum application is pending, and that without a work permit, Appellee has only “worked sporadically in a restaurant,” A19. Nonetheless, it concluded that these considerations were greatly outweighed by the remaining considerations, including L.S.’s “stable” family life with his stepfather and half-brother, with whom he has “grown very close,” A18; his involvement in school, extracurricular activities, and community activities, see A18–19; and his memories of and ties to America, formed from ages four to six.
Appellant does not challenge these findings, but instead argues the District Court erred in declining to hear additional testimony concerning L.S.’s and Appellees immigration status and in refusing to treat this factor as dispositive of whether L.S. is well-settled. We cannot agree. The District Court accurately found that Appellees and L.S.’s “immigration status remains uncertain,” which “weigh[ed] against finding that L.S. is settled in the United States.” A21. Based on those findings in Appellants favor, additional evidence on L.S.’s and Appellees immigration status would not change the outcome of the ten-factor analysis nor would it be independently dispositive. Immigration status “is neither dispositive nor subject to categorical rules, but instead is one relevant factor in a multifactor test.” Hernandez v. Garcia Pena, 820 F.3d 782, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). The District Courts ultimate evaluation of the totality of the circumstances is consistent with Article 12 of the Hague Convention and the implementing statute, see 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B), our precedent, see Monzon, 910 F.3d at 106 n.88, and the case law of other circuits that immigration status “cannot undermine all of the other considerations which uniformly support a finding that [the child] is ‘settled’ in the United States.” In re B. del C.S.B., 559 F.3d 999, 1010 (9th Cir. 2009); see Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41, 57 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that “no court has held [immigration status] to be singularly dispositive”), affd sub nom. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 134 S.Ct. 1224, 188 L.Ed.2d 200 (2014); Alcala v. Hernandez, 826 F.3d 161, 174 (4th Cir. 2016) (same).
In sum, we agree with the District Courts conclusion that Appellant met her burden of showing L.S. is well-settled in the United States.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
FOOTNOTES
1
. These factors are: “(1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the childs new residence; (3) whether the child attends school ․ consistently; (4) whether the child attends church regularly [or participates in other extracurricular and community activities]; (5) the stability of the parents employment or other means of support; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the area; (7) to what extent the child has maintained ties to [Honduras]; (8) the level of parental involvement in the childs life; (9) active measures to conceal the childs whereabouts ․ ; and, (10) the immigration status of the child and parent.” A16 & n.14; see Monzon, 910 F.3d at 105, 106 n.88.
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.