Santos ex rel. O.G.L.S. v. Smith, 260 F. Supp. 3d 598

O.G.L.S., a Honduran minor, entered the U.S. without inspection in Dec. 2014, was classified an unaccompanied alien child (UAC), and transferred to ORR custody; his mother, Dilcia Santos, who resides in the U.S., promptly sought reunification.
ORR completed a home-study recommending reunification, but ORR delayed and ultimately denied reunification multiple times over ~29 months, citing safety risk and need for high supervision; some denial letters included erroneous statements about criminal convictions.
O.G.L.S. had prior gang involvement in Honduras, later recanted some admissions, and exhibited behavioral incidents in ORR custody (some involving altercations); juvenile charges were later dismissed.
Many advocates (child advocate, some clinicians, and the home-study) recommended release to the mother; ORR decisionmakers repeatedly denied reunification and only later offered a teleconference/video appeal process.
Petitioners filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging procedural and substantive due process; the court held an expedited proceeding and considered exhibits and argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Santos may bring her own § 2241 claim	Santos argued she has an individual claim to family unity	Respondents argued Santos lacks custody and thus § 2241 standing	Dismissed Santos's individual § 2241 claim; she may proceed as next friend for her son
Who are proper respondents in § 2241 action	Petitioners named custodial warden and ORR Director; sought relief practicable to ORR	Respondents argued only immediate custodian is proper respondent	Court retained both immediate custodian (Smith) and ORR Director (Lloyd); dismissed peripheral respondents
Whether minor stopped at border has constitutional due process rights re: family reunification	Petitioners argued UAC has Fifth Amendment due process right to challenge ORR denial of release to parent	Respondents argued entry-fiction/excludable-alien doctrine limits constitutional process	Court held O.G.L.S. has due process protections in this context and family-unity interests apply
Whether ORR’s reunification procedures satisfied procedural due process (Mathews factors)	Petitioners argued procedures lacked adequate notice, placed burdens on parent, included excessive delay, and denied a meaningful neutral hearing	Respondents argued ORR process was sufficient and additional procedures would not change outcome	Court found due process violated (insufficient notice/detail; burden improperly on parent; unreasonable delay; lack of meaningful hearing) and ordered immediate release to mother

D.B. v. Cardall, 826 F.3d 721 (4th Cir. 2016) (framework for UAC custody and remand directing Mathews analysis for ORR procedures)
Beltran v. Cardall, 222 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2016) (on remand, district court applied Mathews and ordered release where ORR procedures were deficient)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (warden-as-respondent rule in federal habeas cases)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental fundamental rights in care and custody of children)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (due process applies to persons ‘within the United States’ and discussion of entry-fiction)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (framework governing detention and release of minors in INS custody)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (government burden standards for pretrial detention and liberty restraints)