Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
S.R.I., a native of Ethiopia, entered the United States on May 5, 2026, and was detained the following day. He said he fled Ethiopia because a government official and the official's family were targeting and harassing him. Although officers initially processed him as a minor based on his birth certificate, information associated with his passport and visa suggested an adult birthdate. On May 7, 2026, DHS reprocessed him as an adult and placed him in expedited removal proceedings. He was subsequently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, an adult facility.
The petitioner maintained that he was seventeen and that his documents reflected different years under the Ethiopian and Gregorian calendars. He alleged that officers pressured him to say he was an adult and that he did not make some of the statements attributed to him. A dental examination was also used in assessing his age. After USCIS issued a negative credible-fear determination, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations prepared a Form G-166C on August 19, 2026, concluding that he was an adult when he entered the country.
His August 7 habeas petition alleged violations of the TVPRA, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Flores Settlement Agreement. He sought release to a sponsor or, alternatively, transfer to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, together with other relief. Respondents sought dismissal or a stay, arguing among other things that he had not exhausted administrative remedies and was subject to mandatory detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court first rejected the exhaustion argument. Although prudential exhaustion ordinarily may be required in Section 2241 cases, the court found further administrative pursuit futile: there was no appeal process for the age determination, the petitioner said his attempt to raise it before an immigration judge was unsuccessful, and the petition did not challenge the expedited removal order itself. The request to dismiss or stay on exhaustion grounds was therefore denied.
On the merits, the court emphasized that it was reviewing compliance with age-determination procedures, not deciding S.R.I.'s birthdate or reweighing the evidence. Section 1232(b)(4) and the ORR Guide require consideration of multiple forms of evidence and the totality of the circumstances. The Form G-166C failed that threshold because it relied on the passport without addressing the petitioner's explanation for its inaccurate birthdate, described a dental assessment using another name and figures that did not match the report in the record, and did not confront inconsistencies between the passport, dental evidence, and his statements.
The court also found that the form inadequately addressed his coercion and calendar explanations, treated his July 30 interview as his first assertion of a 2009 birth year despite earlier record evidence, and rejected his documents without required verification or adequate explanation. Its wholesale discounting of affidavits, school and medical records, and expert reports did not constitute the required careful evaluation. The court consequently enjoined reliance on the Form G-166C and the May 7 reprocessing as bases for adult detention, ordered coordination with HHS for transfer to ORR within seven business days, and required a compliance notice within three business days after transfer. Release to the sponsor and Flores relief were denied without prejudice because the court did not determine minority; APA and Fifth Amendment claims were not reached, and supplementation and discovery requests were denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A written age determination must do more than list evidence; it must reflect consideration of the totality of the evidence under the TVPRA and ORR procedures.
- The court reviewed procedural compliance rather than deciding whether S.R.I. was actually a minor or substituting its own weighing of the evidence.
- Respondents may not rely on the Form G-166C or the May 7, 2026 adult reprocessing to continue detaining the petitioner as an adult.
- The ordered remedy was an interim transfer to ORR custody, not immediate release to the proposed sponsor or a declaration that the petitioner was a minor.
- A compliant age redetermination could reach the same adult-age conclusion, while the unresolved APA, Fifth Amendment, and Flores issues were not decided on their merits.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes judicial review of whether immigration agencies followed mandatory age-assessment procedures from impermissible review of their discretionary weighing of evidence. It identifies concrete failures—including reliance on an inaccurate description of dental evidence, unexplained fraud findings, and disregard of explanations and corroborating records—that prevented the agency from crossing the compliance threshold.
The ruling also limits its practical effect. It requires interim ORR placement and preserves the possibility of a lawful redetermination, while leaving the petitioner's actual age, removal proceedings, and several constitutional and statutory claims unresolved. If transfer does not occur within seven business days, respondents must show cause why he should not be released to an appropriate least restrictive setting pending a compliant redetermination.