# BELTRAND-RODRIGUEZ

> Board of Immigration Appeals · March 27, 2025 · 29 I. & N. Dec. 76

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11061476

## Case

- **Court:** Board of Immigration Appeals
- **Decided:** March 27, 2025
- **Citations:** 29 I. & N. Dec. 76
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11061476

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that DHS met its burden of proving dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence because the alien engaged in sexual conduct with a 12-year-old female who was also his half-sister, and thus his behavior was “dangerous and subjected a person who was particularly vulner…

## Opinion text

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 76 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4097

Matter of Christofer Alejandro BELTRAND-RODRIGUEZ,
Respondent
Decided by Board March 27, 2025 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals

The respondent’s release on bond would pose a danger to the community based on his
dangerous behavior that subjected a person who was particularly vulnerable because of her
age and her familial relationship to the respondent to unlawful sexual conduct.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Raquel G. Posada, Esquire, Montebello, California
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Christopher R. Brown,
Assistant Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge;
PETTY and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges.

GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge:

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from the
Immigration Judge’s September 6, 2022, 2 decision ordering the release of the
respondent upon payment of a $10,000 bond and compliance with certain
conditions. 3 The respondent has not filed a brief on appeal. We will sustain
the appeal, vacate the September 6, 2022, bond order, and order the
respondent detained in DHS’ custody.

We will sustain DHS’ appeal because, under our de novo review, the
Immigration Judge erred in holding that DHS did not meet its burden of
1
Pursuant to Order No. 6273-2025, dated May 23, 2025, the Attorney General designated
the Board’s decision in Matter of Beltrand-Rodriguez (BIA March 27, 2025), as precedent
in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2
On September 29, 2022, the Immigration Judge issued a written memorandum
supporting the bond order.
3
The Immigration Judge held the bond hearing under the authority of Rodriguez v.
Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015), rev’d, Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S.
281 (2018), which placed the burden on DHS to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that an alien’s continued detention is justified.
Page
76
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 76 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4097

proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent’s release
would pose a danger to the community. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii)
(2025); see also Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (stating
that relevant factors in determining whether an alien should be released from
immigration custody include how extensive, recent, and serious the alien’s
criminal activity is). Whether an alien poses a danger to the community upon
release or is a flight risk are questions of judgment that we review de novo,
but the factual findings underlying such judgments are reviewed for clear
error. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)–(ii) (2025).

We discern no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s findings that on
January 25, 2022, the respondent was convicted of lewd or lascivious acts
with a minor under the age of 14 years, in violation of section 288(a) of the
California Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to 365 days in county jail,
and 4 years of formal probation. The Immigration Judge also found that the
respondent was convicted of the offense of harmful matter sent to a minor,
in violation of section 288.2(a)(2) of the California Penal Code, for which he
received a suspended sentence of 4 years’ probation. The Immigration Judge
also found that the maximum combined sentence for both offenses is 11 years
in prison.

We also discern no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s finding that the
respondent was ordered to register as a sex offender for a period of 10 years,
complete a 52-week sex offender course, and stay away from the victim for
a period of 10 years. We also discern no clear error in the Immigration
Judge’s finding that the convictions were based on conduct in which the
respondent kissed his 12-year-old half-sister several times and sent her
sexually explicit photographs of himself and videos of him engaging in
sexual conduct.

The Immigration Judge also found that the record was devoid of any
evidence that the respondent had a prior criminal history, or that he had
engaged in any prior sexually deviant behavior. The Immigration Judge also
found that DHS did not submit any evidence that the respondent was likely
to violate the 10-year protective order issued by the criminal court.

The Immigration Judge’s findings of fact are supported by the record and
are not clearly erroneous. See Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm.,
594 U.S. 647, 687 (2021) (explaining that if the trier of fact’s “view of the
evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, an appellate court may not
reverse even if it is convinced that it would have weighed the evidence
differently in the first instance”); Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 309 (2017)
(stating that under clear error review, reversal is appropriate only when “left
page
77
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 76 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4097

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”
(citation omitted)).

Under our de novo review, however, we hold that the Immigration Judge
erred in determining that the findings of fact did not support a determination
that DHS met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
the respondent is a danger. The respondent engaged in sexual conduct with
a 12-year-old female who is also his half-sister. The respondent’s behavior
was dangerous and subjected a person who was particularly vulnerable
because of her age and her familial relationship to the respondent to unlawful
sexual conduct. See McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32 (2002) (“Sex offenders
are a serious threat in this Nation.”); see also Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec.
at 41 (holding that evidence of criminal activity is pertinent to whether the
respondent poses a danger to the community). Thus, under our de novo
review, we hold that DHS met its burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the respondent’s release would pose a danger to the
community, and the Immigration Judge erred in granting the respondent’s
release on bond. See Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009)
(“Dangerous aliens are properly detained without bond.”). Accordingly, the
following orders will be issued.

ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s September 6, 2022,
order granting the respondent’s release on payment of a $10,000 bond and
compliance with certain conditions is vacated.

FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered held in DHS’ custody
without bond.

page
78

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11061476. Public record. Not legal advice.