govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-00955-0

1 
26cv0955 DMS MMP 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
ANAS ADEN MOHAMED, 
                                                      
Petitioner, 
           v. 
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of 
the Otay Mesa Detention Facility, San 
Diego, California, in his official capacity; 
et al.,  
                           Respondents. 
 Case No.:  26cv0955 DMS MMP 
 
ORDER GRANTING 
RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO 
CLARIFY ORDER GRANTING 
PETITION 
 
This case comes before the Court on Respondents’ motion to clarify the Court’s 
March 30, 2026 Order granting the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.  
Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion and Respondents filed a reply.1  
In the March 30, 2026 Order, the Court found the evidence in the record supported 
Petitioner’s claim he was a minor, and the Court therefore ordered Respondents to transfer 
Petitioner from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to the 
 
1 Before the Court was able to rule on the present motion, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion to Prohibit 
Transfer Pending Resolution of the present motion.  In light of the present ruling, Petitioner’s Emergency 
Motion is denied as moot.   
Case 3:26-cv-00955-DMS-MMP     Document 25     Filed 06/16/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 3
 
2 
26cv0955 DMS MMP 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Department of Health and Human Services  (“HHS”).  Respondents complied with that 
Order and transferred Petitioner to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
(“ORR”), which is part of HHS.     
After Petitioner was placed in ORR custody, ORR made a formal age determination 
regarding Petitioner, finding he was not a minor.  As a result of that finding, Respondents 
filed the present motion stating ORR no longer has jurisdiction over Petitioner and wants 
to transfer him back into DHS custody.  Respondents seek clarification from the Court 
about whether the March 30, 2026 Order “prohibits the return of Petitioner to ICE custody 
after ORR has made a formal determination that Petitioner is not a minor.”   
In the Amended Petition, Petitioner argued he was entitled to release from DHS 
custody due to DHS’s “violation of mandatory statutory commands governing 
unaccompanied children” and its “contravention of the binding Flores Settlement 
Agreement.”  (ECF No. 3 ¶ 70.)  Petitioner specifically pointed to Respondents’ “fail[ure] 
to comply with mandatory notice and transfer requirements after Petitioner repeatedly 
asserted he was a minor on December 22, 2025 and again on December 25, 2025.”  ( Id.).  
It was that conduct, i.e., Respondents’ failure to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(2), that 
served as the basis for the Court’s March 30, 2026 Order directing Respondents to transfer 
Petitioner to ORR custody.   
Respondents have complied with the Court’s order, and ORR has now made a formal 
determination that Petitioner is not a minor.  Petitioner continues to dispute that finding, 
but that age determination is not presently before the Court.  Indeed, because that  age 
determination was not made until May 28, 2026, it could not have served as the basis for 
the Amended Petition, which was filed on February 17, 2026.  There is also no claim in the 
Amended Petition that ORR’s age determination violates the Trafficking Victims 
Protection and Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), which appears to be the vehicle for a 
challenge to ORR’s age determination.  See N.B. v. Barr, No. 19-CV-1536 JLS (LL), 2019 
WL 4849175, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019) (addressing claim that ORR’s age 
determination violated the TVPRA); Imon v. Keeton, No. CV-20-0037-PHX-DWL (JZB), 
Case 3:26-cv-00955-DMS-MMP     Document 25     Filed 06/16/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 3
 
3 
26cv0955 DMS MMP 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
2020 WL 4284378, at *4 (D. Ariz. July 27, 2020) (same); B.I.C. v. Asher, No. C16-132-
MJP-JPD, 2016 WL 8672760, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2016) (same) .  Absent a 
challenge to ORR’s age determination, there is nothing in the Court’s order that prohibits 
Respondents from returning Petitioner to ICE custody.  Accordingly, Respondents’ motion 
to clarify is granted.   
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  June 16, 2026 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Case 3:26-cv-00955-DMS-MMP     Document 25     Filed 06/16/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight