Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 Case No.: 3:26-cv-03071-LEK-VET Y.A.A., 5 Petitioner, 6 MINUTE ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT AN 7 v. AGE RE-DETERMINATION AND 8 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR 9 Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 Center; GREGORY J.

ARCHAMBEAULT, San Diego Field 11 Office Director, ICE Enforcement and 12 Removal Operations; TODD M. LYONS, Senior Official Performing the Duties of 13 the Director, U.S. Immigration and 14 Customs Enforcement; and MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, 15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Y.A.A. (“Petitioner”) filed an Amended Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus and Order to Show Cause Within Three Days; Complaint for Declaratory 20 and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Petition”) on May 20, 2026. [Dkt. no. 4.] On June 30, 21 2026, the Court issued an order granting the Amended Petition in part and denying it in 22 part (“6/30 Order”). [Dkt. no. 12.] The 6/30 Order directed the respondents, identified in 23 the Amended Petition as Christopher J. LaRose, Senior Warden of the Otay Mesa 24 Detention Center; Gregory J. Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, U.S. 25 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Enforcement and Removal Operations 26 (collectively with ICE, “ICE ERO”); Todd M. Lyons, Senior Official Performing the 27 1 Duties of the Director, ICE; and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of 2 Homeland Security (“DHS” and all collectively, “Respondents”), to, inter alia, conduct 3 or obtain an age determination for Petitioner consistent with the terms of the 6/30 Order 4 within fourteen days. [Id. at 19-20.] 5 On July 15, 2026, Respondents filed a document which informed the Court 6 that ICE ERO had determined that Petitioner was an adult at the time of his entry into the 7 United States. [Supplemental Document, filed 7/15/26 (dkt. no. 13), at 2.] Attached to the 8 Supplemental Document is a DHS Memorandum of Investigation, Form G-166C, dated 9 July 14, 2026 (“Form G-166C”). [Dkt. no. 13-1.] The Form G-166C is ICE ERO’s 10 determination that Petitioner was an adult when he entered the United States. See id. at 2. 11 On July 16, 2026, Petitioner filed his Opposition to Respondents’ 12 Supplemental Age Determination and Request to Enforce the June 30, 2026 Order; 13 Request for Order to Show Cause (“7/16 Supplement”). [Dkt. no. 14.] The 7/16 14 Supplement alleges that, inter alia, Respondents failed to conduct or obtain an age 15 determination for Petitioner consistent with the terms of the 6/30 Order. See id. at 1-3. 16 Pursuant to a minute order filed on July 17, 2026, [dkt. no. 15,] Respondents filed a 17 response to the 7/16 Supplement on July 31, 2026 (“7/31 Response”), which argues that 18 the ICE ERO age determination, as recorded in the Form G-166C, complies with the 19 Court’s 6/30 Order and that the Court should deny the Petition. [Dkt. no. 16.] 20 DISCUSSION 21 The 6/30 Order concluded, inter alia, that Respondents failed to comply 22 with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) and its 23 implementing regulations. See 6/30 Order at 18. Accordingly, the Court ruled that 24 Respondents may not continue to rely on the existing adult-age determination or the immigration judge’s May 22, 2026 custody 25 determination as the basis for detaining Petitioner as an adult unless 26 and until Respondents conduct or obtain an age determination that complies with [Title 8 United States Code] Section 1232(b)(4) and the 27 applicable agency procedures. That determination must consider the 28 1 totality of the evidence, including, but not limited to: Petitioner’s explanation during his credible fear interview of the reason that he 2 previously provided an incorrect birthdate; the asylum officer’s 3 notation that Petitioner was a possible [unaccompanied alien child (“UAC”)]; any statements disclosed by Petitioner; Petitioner’s 4 Ethiopian birth certificate; and any other documentary or testimonial 5 evidence available to Petitioner and Respondents.

6 [Id.] 7 The Court concludes that ICE ERO did not comply with the terms of the 8 6/30 Order in making its written age determination. Specifically, there is no indication in 9 the Form G-166C, [dkt. no. 13-1,] that ICE ERO considered all of the “documentary or 10 testimonial evidence available to Petitioner and Respondents.” See 6/30 Order at 18. 11 Petitioner argues, and Respondents do not dispute, that the Form G-166C does not 12 mention “the notarized affidavit and signed statement of [Petitioner’s] aunt Ardo Moalin 13 Abdi” and “the signed family-support statement of Hassan Mohamud Abdullahi,” [7/16 14 Supplement at 2,] and the Court’s review of the Form G-166C confirms that ICE ERO 15 did not consider those statements. The Office of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied 16 Alien Children Bureau Policy Guide (“ORR Guide”) expressly refers to these types of 17 statements as evidence that may be considered in the totality of the evidence analysis in 18 making an age determination. See ORR Guide, https://acf.gov/orr/policy- 19 guidance/unaccompanied-children-program-policy-guide-section-1#1.6 at § 1.6.2: 20 Determining the Age of an Individual without Lawful Immigration Status (Revised 21 Aug. 13, 2024), available at https://perma.cc/3K4R-ZJFK. 22 Accordingly, the Court orders Respondents to reconsider Petitioner’s age 23 determination and issue an age re-determination that considers and discusses the totality 24 of all available evidence related to Petitioner, including all documentary or testimonial 25 evidence available to the parties, such as the signed statements provided to Respondents 26 by Petitioner. See A.D. v. Mullin, 3:26-CV-00983-MJH, 2026 WL 1983137, at *5 (W.D. 27 Pa. July 9, 2026) (directing that an age re-determination be completed that expressly 28 1 considers and discusses sworn declarations from the petitioner’s family members). The 2 age re-determination should identify each item of evidence that was considered. If ICE 3 ERO finds that any piece of documentary or testimonial evidence is not credible, the age 4 re-determination must set forth the reasons supporting that finding. Additionally, the age 5 re-determination must comply with the terms set forth in the 6/30 Order. See 6/30 Order 6 at 18-20. 7 The Court, however, declines to issue an order requiring Respondents to 8 show cause why Petitioner should not be released to an appropriate least restrictive 9 setting subject to reasonable conditions of supervision pending completion of a 10 determination that does comply with the 6/30 Order. See 7/16 Supplement at 11-12. ICE 11 ERO has presented findings about the authenticity of Petitioner’s purported birth 12 certificate and the credibility of Petitioner’s previous statements. See, e.g., dkt. no. 13-1 13 (Form G-166C) at 1 (assessing the authenticity of Petitioner’s purported birth certificate); 14 id. at 1-2 (discussing an immigration judge’s assessment about the credibility of 15 Petitioner’s assertions that he was coerced by immigration officers). The Court considers 16 those findings to be substantiated. Accordingly, the Court elects to maintain the status 17 quo while ICE ERO completes an age re-determination consistent with the instant Order 18 and the 6/30 Order. 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Respondents to complete a 21 written age re-determination consistent with the terms of this Order and the 6/30 Order 22 within fourteen days of the filing of this Order. If Respondents determine that Petitioner 23 was under eighteen when he was first detained and otherwise qualified as a UAC, 24 Respondents are ORDERED to conduct the least-restrictive-setting analysis required by 25 Title 8 United States Code Section 1232(c)(2)(B) within seven days of that age 26 determination. That analysis must consider Petitioner’s danger to self, danger to the 27 community, and risk of flight, as well as alternatives to detention, including release to 28 1 || Petitioner’s proposed sponsor, Ardo Moalin Abdi, or another appropriate placement that 2 ||is less restrictive than detention. If the least-restrictive-setting analysis is conducted, 3 || Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner and his counsel with the analysis and 4 || file that analysis with the Court within three days of the least-restrictive-setting analysis 5 || being made. 6 If Respondents determine that Petitioner was an adult when he entered the 7 || United States, Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner and his counsel with the 8 || written age re-determination and file that re-determination with the Court within three 9 || days of the re-determination being made. If an age re-determination is filed, no party will 10 || be allowed to file memoranda in response to the age re-determination unless expressly 11 ordered to by the Court. 12 Petitioner’s request that an order to show cause be issued is DENIED 13 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 14, 2026. 17 <poetin,. Sy 18 oy) /s! Leslie E. Kobayashi 19 Leslie E. Kobayashi 20 6 Senor U.S. District Judge 22 23 || YA.A. VS. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, ETC., ET AL; 3:26-cv-03071 LEK-VET; MINUTE ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT AN AGE RE- DETERMINATION AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S 25 || REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 26 27 28