Overview

• Full name: Andrew Tan
• Age at disappearance: 8 years old
• Date last seen: August 25, 2008
• Last known city: Union City
• County: Alameda County
• State: California
• Case classification: Missing person
• Current status: Listed as missing in publicly accessible secondary databases; current official investigative status not independently confirmed
• NamUs reference: 40564, as reproduced in secondary case listings
• Physical description: Asian male, black hair, brown eyes, approximately 4 feet 11 inches tall and 75 pounds at the time of disappearance
• Circumstances: Andrew was reported missing from Union City on August 25, 2008. The precise location, circumstances of his last confirmed sighting, and events immediately preceding his disappearance could not be independently established.

Detailed Case Breakdown

Andrew Tan Missing Since 2008 in Union City, California: The Unresolved Disappearance of an 8-Year-Old Boy

On August 25, 2008, eight-year-old Andrew Tan was reported last seen in Union City, California. His disappearance remains documented in publicly accessible missing-person listings, but the circumstances surrounding his case are not well established in available reporting.

More than 18 years after his reported disappearance, important questions remain unanswered: What happened to Andrew, what circumstances led to his disappearance, and has any information emerged that could establish his whereabouts?

Andrew’s case is associated with NamUs reference number 40564. Although secondary missing-person databases continue to list him, publicly accessible information provides few details about the original investigation. It is therefore important to distinguish what the records establish from what remains unknown.

Case Summary

• Full name: Andrew Tan
• Age at disappearance: 8 years old
• Date last seen: August 25, 2008
• Last known city: Union City
• County: Alameda County
• State: California
• Case classification: Missing person
• Current status: Listed as missing in publicly accessible secondary databases; current official investigative status not independently confirmed
• NamUs reference: 40564, as reproduced in secondary case listings
• Physical description: Asian male, black hair, brown eyes, approximately 4 feet 11 inches tall and 75 pounds at the time of disappearance
• Circumstances: Andrew was reported missing from Union City on August 25, 2008. The precise location, circumstances of his last confirmed sighting, and events immediately preceding his disappearance could not be independently established.

Background: Who Was Andrew Tan?

Andrew Tan was an eight-year-old boy whose disappearance was recorded in Union City, a community in southern Alameda County in California’s San Francisco Bay Area.

Available missing-person listings describe Andrew as an Asian male with black hair and brown eyes. At the time he went missing, he was reportedly approximately 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighed 75 pounds.

These identifying characteristics reflect his reported appearance in 2008. They should not be treated as a reliable description of how he would look today.

Andrew would be approximately 26 years old in October 2026, depending on his exact birth date.

Unfortunately, the publicly accessible records located for this case do not provide a detailed biography. Information about his school, hobbies, family relationships, or daily activities before August 25, 2008, could not be independently verified.

Rather than speculate about Andrew’s childhood, the available evidence establishes a narrower but important fact: he was a young child whose disappearance became part of California’s missing-person records.

The Disappearance on August 25, 2008

August 25, 2008, is the date consistently associated with Andrew Tan’s disappearance in the missing-person listings located during research.

Union City, California, is identified as his last known location.

However, the available listings do not establish precisely where Andrew was last seen within Union City. They also do not provide a verified account of who last saw him, what he was doing, or when his absence was first noticed.

No independently verified account was located describing whether Andrew disappeared from a residence, public location, school, or another setting.

Similarly, the available information does not establish whether he was accompanied by another person when he was last seen.

These gaps matter because the circumstances of a child’s disappearance can substantially affect how a case is investigated and classified.

Without verified documentation, it would be inappropriate to describe Andrew’s disappearance as an abduction, runaway incident, custody-related disappearance, or homicide.

The established public record supports identifying him as a missing child, but it does not establish what caused his disappearance.

Investigation History and Available Evidence

Missing-person database records

One of the most concrete publicly accessible references to Andrew’s disappearance is the NamUs identifier reproduced by secondary missing-person databases.

Andrew is associated with reference number 40564.

The CaseTrace missing-person directory identifies Andrew Tan as an eight-year-old who was last seen in Union City on August 25, 2008. The directory identifies NamUs as its source.

Another secondary listing, SpotCrime, reproduces the same disappearance date and physical characteristics and displays the reference as MP40564.

These references are useful for identifying the case, but they should not be mistaken for independent investigative findings. The underlying current NamUs case record was not independently reviewed during this research.

Searches and investigative efforts

No detailed, independently verifiable account of the initial search for Andrew was located in the accessible sources reviewed.

Consequently, it is not possible to establish whether investigators conducted neighborhood searches, interviews, public appeals, or other specific investigative operations.

The absence of publicly available search documentation does not mean those efforts never occurred. It means their details could not be substantiated from the sources located.

Witness statements and physical evidence

No authenticated witness statement describing Andrew’s disappearance was located.

Likewise, no publicly confirmed physical evidence, surveillance footage, recovered personal belongings, or forensic findings directly connected to his disappearance could be established.

There was also no verified public information located identifying a suspect or person of interest.

DNA testing and forensic identification

No publicly confirmed DNA identification, investigative genetic genealogy development, or identification of remains connected to Andrew Tan’s case was located.

This does not establish that investigators have never collected or examined biological evidence. It means no such case-specific development could be verified in the publicly accessible material reviewed.

Law enforcement and investigative jurisdiction

Because Andrew’s reported last known location was Union City, the Union City Police Department is an appropriate local agency for anyone seeking information about the case.

However, the publicly accessible sources reviewed did not independently identify the primary investigating agency or provide a verified original police report number.

The department’s jurisdiction should not be confused with confirmation that it currently maintains the lead investigative file.

Theories and Unresolved Questions

Andrew Tan’s disappearance presents several unanswered questions, but there is insufficient verified information to support a specific theory about what happened.

Was another person involved?

The available records do not establish whether another individual was involved in Andrew’s disappearance.

No verified evidence was located supporting a claim that he was abducted, harmed, or deliberately concealed.

Any such explanation remains speculative without further documentation.

Could the disappearance have involved a family or custody situation?

Some missing-child investigations involve family circumstances or custody disputes. However, no verified source located during this research establishes that such circumstances were involved in Andrew’s case.

It would therefore be misleading to characterize his disappearance as parental abduction or a custody-related incident.

Why is so little information publicly available?

The available secondary records establish basic identifying details but offer little investigative history.

Possible explanations for limited public documentation cannot be established from these listings alone.

It is unknown whether additional records exist in law enforcement files, whether earlier news reports remain accessible through archives, or whether subsequent developments were communicated privately.

Questions that remain unanswered

Several significant questions remain unresolved in the accessible public record:

• Where exactly was Andrew last seen on August 25, 2008?
• Who reported his disappearance, and when?
• What investigative findings, if any, were established during the initial response?
• Was any evidence recovered that could help determine what happened?
• Has his case been reviewed or updated by investigators in subsequent years?
• What is his current officially confirmed missing-person status?

Until additional primary-source records become available, these questions should remain open rather than be answered through speculation.

Latest Publicly Available Investigative Updates

As of October 27, 2026, no publicly confirmed recent investigative breakthrough involving Andrew Tan was located in the sources reviewed.

The publicly accessible secondary listings continue to associate Andrew with the August 25, 2008, disappearance in Union City.

However, the continued appearance of a person’s name in a missing-person directory is not, by itself, evidence of a new investigative development or proof that the underlying official record was recently reviewed.

No independently verified recent announcement was located concerning an arrest, criminal charges, recovery of remains, confirmed sighting, or forensic identification involving this specific case.

Likewise, no verified case-specific age-progression release, recent family appeal, or cold-case announcement was established.

The current status of the original investigation should therefore be confirmed directly with the appropriate law enforcement agency or through an authenticated, current NamUs record.

Conclusion: Keeping Andrew Tan’s Case in Public Awareness

Andrew Tan was just eight years old when he was reported missing from Union City, California, on August 25, 2008.

The limited publicly accessible record does not explain what happened to him. It also does not establish that he was the victim of a crime.

His disappearance deserves careful, accurate attention without unsupported allegations or assumptions.

Anyone with credible, firsthand information about Andrew’s whereabouts or the circumstances surrounding his disappearance should contact the Union City Police Department or the appropriate investigating agency.

When providing a tip, include Andrew’s full name, his reported disappearance date, and the NamUs reference 40564 as an identifying aid, while recognizing that the reference should be confirmed against the official record.

Even after many years, accurate information can be important in helping authorities review an unresolved disappearance.