Court. Brief for Appel-lees at 4. The adoptive parents maintain that they entered the United States legally and that at the time of the adoption proceedings in 2005, they had pending a petition that would grant them permanent residence in the United States. Id. at 3-4. According to the adoptive parents, no final order has been issued regarding their immigration status to date. Id. at 4. ¶ 14 Upon our thorough review of the record, we determine that Y.N. has failed to show good cause to unseal S.B.’s adoption records by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Long, 745 A.2d at 675. The requisite cause under section 2905(a) is certainly more than speculative allegations of fraud and requests to open sealed records to conduct a fishing expedition. See In re E.K., 53 D. & C.4th at 389-90 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15 At the October 20, 2008 hearing on
holding that the denial of petitioners appeal to the bia would have put a reasonable person in the petitioners position on notice that something was wrong with his attorneys preparation for the removal hearing holding petitioners reliance on remmer misplaced as statement from restaurant cashier to juror expressing cashiers hope that the juror find the defendant not guilty did not refer to the factual evidence not developed at trial holding that attorneys admission to an element of the offense in the petitioners presence at a deportation hearing was binding on the petitioners holding that cause to unseal adoption records was shown by clear and convincing evidence where the adult petitioner sought the identity of his full brother who was previously placed for adoption by their natural parents based on the fact that petitioners only hope for a cure for his terminal cancer was a bone marrow transplant and petitioners brother provided the best hope for compatible marrow and thus petitioners best hope for life holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioners allegations were not implausible and a final determination of the merits of petitioners claim would be best served by greater development of the facts many of which the government disputes