Attorneys for a teenager identified only as "A.D." say Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept him in an adult detention facility at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in central Pennsylvania for nearly two months before a federal judge ordered he be moved into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services. The lawyers, who provided documents showing he was born in May 2009, argue he should have been treated as a minor and placed in child-appropriate custody. The case has put a spotlight on ICE’s age-determination process and on conditions inside the GEO Group-run lockup in rural Clearfield County.
Court filings and timeline
Counsel filed a habeas corpus petition on May 17, 2026, asking federal judges to block any transfer while the court sorted out A.D.’s age and safety concerns. That filing triggered an administrative stay and a string of status conferences where judges ordered ICE to keep the court updated on A.D.’s exact location and to submit a care plan while an age redetermination was underway. Those filings and orders are reflected in the federal docket, according to Habeas Dockets.
What attorneys say
Defense lawyers say they gave the government a stack of records showing a 2009 birth year, including passport and birth-certificate copies, New York family-court records, and an HHS entry record. According to their filings, a school exam from Guinea mistakenly listed 2000 as the birth year. They allege ICE challenged those records, ordered dental X-rays on June 17 as part of an age review, and at times confined A.D. to a medical unit with added restrictions. Those claims appear in court papers and were reported by The City Reporter.
"The court recognized the irreparable harm A.D. would suffer at Moshannon Valley," Safe Passage Project legal director Tania Cohen told reporters, according to reporting on the case. Court filings also describe a June 24 incident report stating that A.D. smeared feces on a cell camera and then lost access to phones and tablets for two weeks while he was under observation in the medical unit. Counsel says A.D. turned 17 while in custody and that judges have ordered coordination between agencies while the age determination is finalized, as reflected in both the docket and news coverage.
Moshannon under scrutiny
The Moshannon Valley Processing Center has already been under the microscope in recent months, with congressional oversight visits, local protests, hunger-strike allegations, and complaints about medical care and transfers. Lawmakers who toured the facility, along with local outlets, have documented detainee grievances and operational questions, increasing scrutiny of how ICE and its private contractor handle vulnerable people in custody. Recent oversight and reporting have been detailed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Spotlight PA.
Legal framework
Under federal law, responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children lies with HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, and agencies are generally required to transfer custody to HHS promptly once someone is identified as a child. That requirement sits at the center of the fight over A.D.’s status. It also shapes how judges review whether a person in immigration custody is legally a minor and whether keeping that person in an adult facility passes legal muster. The ORR policy guide lays out the agency’s duties and procedures for placing and caring for children in federal custody, as outlined by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
What happens next
The federal docket shows the court has issued orders directing ICE and HHS to coordinate and to file regular reports while age-determination procedures continue, and that a court order on the habeas petition was entered in early July. Lawyers for A.D. say they will keep pushing for a rapid transfer into HHS care and for any additional court orders they believe are needed to protect him, while ICE has maintained that it does not consider him a minor. The case is expected to remain active in federal court while the agencies finalize the age review and judges resolve the habeas petition, per the court docket, according to Habeas Dockets.
