oops the quote I used was from just above that line. However, the court cited it as evidence that the Department relied upon, having no cavil with it. If disputed, it would have said so. Also, the footnote on that point says "This number has fluctuated. It will likely continue to fluctuate somewhat as disputes regarding the age of certain persons taken into custody are resolved."

So we are both right in reading this stuff, differently. Interesting how that works.