UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IXECUTIVL OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
100 MONTGOMERY 57., SUITE 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

Pangea LegaI SerLCes
VllIEeraly Manel

3 a Sansone Stzcet
Suite 655

Saw CA 94104

In the matter of F:1e_ DATE: 26, 2018

Unable to forward 7 NC address pravided.
Attached 15 a Copy of the decxsion cf he Judge. deusmn
1s fInaI unless an appeal 'e wIth the Board of Appeals
30 Calendar days of 1b? date of :1e ling of written decISJon.
See the enclosed forms and strucmc'xs f0: properly prepanng your appeaI.
Your notIce of appeal, attaz. ed documents, and fee or fee <>, VA 2904:
Attacnfiu 1 Copy Of the 5f the Immigratnon judge as the result
of your Fallure to Appear at you schedLled deporLaCan or removal heaung.
This declsxon :3 final unless a Motmn to Reopen fIIed accordance
w'tn Sectmn 242b(c)(3/ of the :mmgvauon and Na nah Act, a u.s.c. 5
1252mm (3) 1n cepcxtaLIon proceealngs o: 24mm mm, 3 11.5.0 5
:n removal If you file a motion to :eopen, your
must be filed mu. Hus Court:
IMMIGRAT: COURT
1C0 MONTGOMERY ST., SUITE 830
SAN FRANCISCO, 94104
Attachea I a copy of the deCJSeOn of HM jnaqe eratIm; ta a
Reasonable F821: REVI This Ls a fILnal aruer Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
no adm nIStraEJve appeal 15 avaflablet Fowever, you may file
a petlteon for so days mm the appvop ate Cerult Court of I
AppeaIs to dppeal th,s decxsion pJISJant to U,s.c. 1252; 5242.

 

 

   
     

 

 

   

 

 

 

Attached Is a of dec;SIon sf no ;m'mgrat,on judge :elatjnq to a
Credlbl? Fear REVIQWV This is A final order. ND appeal 15 available.

   

 

X, Other: Attacned 3e- Orae:

 

 

 

:03 

ZMMIGRA ON caum FF

 

cc: CHEUNG, GRACE
Jon MONTGOMERY IF 2m
SAN CA, 941040000

   

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

 

IMMIGRATION COURT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of: 
File Number:--


H-- 
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Respondent Dale: April 23, 2018




On Behalf of the Respondent On Behalf of DHS

Mariel Villarreal, Esqt Grace Cheung) Esq.

Pangea Legal Services Assistant Chief Counsel

350 Sansome Street, Suite 650 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94104

Application: Motion to Determine the Age of the Respondent

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

on April 19, 2013, the respondent, through counsel, filed a "Motion for Age
Determination", asking the Court to determine whether the respondent is a child or an adult. The
Department's position is that the respondent is an adult and that the court does not have
jurisdiction to make an age determination. For the reasons stated helew. the court finds that it
does have jurisdiction to determine the respondent's age, and that the evidence presently in the
record establishes by a preponderance that the respondent is under the age of eighteen.

The oourt has independent authority to resolve disputes relating to a respondent's status
as an Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC). See Legal Opinion of OGC, EOIR's
Authority to Interpret die Unaccompanied Alien Child for Purposes of Certain
Prov (September 19, 2017). That necessarily includes resolving disputes
regar age.

 

The court carefully considered and appropriately weighed all of the evidence in the
record regarding the respondent's age The court finds that the evidence weighs more heavily in
favor of a finding that the respondent is under the age of eighteen. Specifically, the respondent's
birth certificate and consistent assertions of being under eighteen outweigh the dental age test
and his use of a different birth date while traveling to the US.

The mun directs \lle parties In take appropriate actions consistent with the court's
finding.

  



Patrick S. O'Bricu
Immigration Judge