Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Araks Palyan and her children, Leo Stepanyan, age eleven, and Luna Stepanyan, age five, fled Armenia in early October 2026 and entered the United States near the San Ysidro port of entry on October 17. Customs and Border Protection agents detained them shortly afterward, and they were held at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station. Palyan immediately expressed fear of return to Armenia. The children's father, Sarkis Stepanyan, had previously fled Armenia, lived in Los Angeles, and had a pending asylum application.
The family received a negative credible-fear determination on October 19. An immigration judge later vacated that determination as to Armenia but affirmed it concerning Costa Rica, the alternative removal country. The petitioners then received expedited removal orders to Costa Rica and remained in custody during the removal period. Their habeas petition raised four claims, including challenges to the removal orders and detention in an unlicensed facility under the Fifth Amendment and the Flores Settlement Agreement. The court resolved only the FSA claim and expressly left the merits of the remaining claims unaddressed.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the government's jurisdictional objections as applied to the FSA detention claim. It explained that Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bar classwide injunctive relief but do not extend to individual cases. Because these petitioners sought relief for themselves rather than the entire Flores class, the individual-alien exception applied. The court also found no authority making the FSA generally unenforceable and noted repeated Ninth Circuit enforcement of the agreement since § 1252(f)(1) was enacted.
The court further held that §§ 1252(g), 1252(a)(2)(A), and 1252(e) did not bar this claim because it challenged present custody, not the removal proceedings or the purported removal order. Under Pinson v. Carvajal, the claim was cognizable in habeas because a successful showing that the detention itself lacked legal authorization would require release, rather than merely improve conditions of confinement.
On the merits, the court explained that the FSA ordinarily requires the government, within three days, either to release a minor who presents neither a flight nor a safety risk to an available qualified custodian or to place the minor in a non-secure, state-licensed facility. The government did not contest that the children remained in the Imperial Beach CBP facility, that their father was ready and able to accept custody, or that the record contained no support for a flight or safety risk. It also offered no justification for failing to release or transfer them. The court therefore found their continued detention unlawful and granted the petition.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents were ordered to release Leo and Luna Stepanyan immediately to their father, Sarkis Stepanyan.
- The government had to file a notice confirming the children's release by 12:00 p.m. on November 9, 2026.
- The court denied the family's temporary-restraining-order motion as moot after granting habeas relief.
- Because the FSA applies only to minors, the court did not find Palyan's detention unlawful under that agreement, but urged consideration of humanitarian parole and ordered a status update concerning her by the same deadline.
- The court issued its decision before the November 10 traverse deadline because of its findings and the case's involvement of children ages five and eleven.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an individual habeas challenge to children's ongoing detention from prohibited classwide injunctions and from challenges to removal orders. It treats the FSA's release and licensed-placement requirements as enforceable in this individual custody dispute, while expressly avoiding the petition's other statutory and constitutional claims.
The relief was also deliberately different for the mother and the children. The children received a mandatory immediate-release order, whereas Palyan received only a request for humanitarian-parole consideration and a required status update. The court grounded that distinction in the FSA's limitation to minors and cited regulations and agency standards addressing release with an accompanying parent and maintaining family unity.