R-A-V-P

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3980

Matter of R-A-V-P-, Respondent

Decided March 18, 2020

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent was a flight risk and

denied his request for a custody redetermination where, although he had a pending

application for asylum, he had no family, employment, or community ties and no probable

path to obtain lawful status so as to warrant his release on bond.

FOR RESPONDENT: Alexandra L. Lampert, Esquire

BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; LIEBOWITZ, Board Member;

MORRIS, Temporary Board Member.

MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman:

In a decision dated June 5, 2019, an Immigration Judge denied the

respondent’s request to be released on bond, providing the reasons for the

denial in a bond memorandum issued on July 17, 2019. The respondent has

appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

The respondent is a native and citizen of Honduras who arrived in the

United States on February 24, 2019. He did not attempt to enter at a port of

entry but entered unlawfully instead. He was detained soon thereafter by the

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and requested a change in his

custody status. The Immigration Judge denied that request based on a finding

that the respondent failed to meet his burden to establish that he would not

present a significant risk of flight if he is released on a monetary bond.1

The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erred by not ordering

his release on bond. Specifically, he asserts that the DHS should bear the

burden of proof to demonstrate that he should not be released on bond, which

it has not met. Alternatively, the respondent contends that the Immigration

Judge erred in denying bond by mischaracterizing the record, giving

insufficient weight to the evidence provided, and impermissibly elevating the

burden of proof.

1

The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent would not pose a danger to

community or a threat to national security if he is released on bond. The DHS has not

challenged the Immigration Judge’s determination in this regard. Therefore, the sole issue

presented in this case is whether the respondent is “likely to abscond, or [is] otherwise a

poor bail risk.” Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006).

803

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3980

The “setting of bond is designed to ensure an alien’s presence at

proceedings.” Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009). Whether

an alien should be allowed to remain in the United States is determined in

removal proceedings, but whether the alien should be detained pending that

determination is considered in a separate bond proceeding. See section

236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (2018);

Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 37–38 (BIA 2006). Bond hearings

provide a preliminary evaluation of the facts and evidence presented by the

parties and are less formal than removal proceedings, where conclusive

factual findings and legal determinations are made based on the testimony

and evidence presented at a full hearing on the merits. See Matter of

Chirinos, 16 I&N Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977).

Neither section 236(a) of the Act nor the applicable regulations confer on

an alien the right to release on bond. See Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. 572,

575 (A.G. 2003) (citing Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 534 (1952));

8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19(a), 1236.1(d)(1) (2019). An alien requesting a

redetermination of his or her custody status under section 236(a) “must

establish to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge and the Board that he

or she does not present a danger to persons or property, is not a threat to the

national security, and does not pose a risk of flight.” Matter of Siniauskas,

27 I&N Dec. 207, 207 (BIA 2018). The respondent’s assertion that the DHS

should bear the burden to demonstrate that he is a flight risk by clear and

convincing evidence lacks merit because we have clearly held that section

236(a) places the burden of proof on the alien to show that he merits release

on bond. See Matter of Fatahi, 26 I&N Dec. 791, 795 n.3 (BIA 2016) (stating

that the Board has “consistently held that aliens have the burden to establish

eligibility for bond while proceedings are pending”); Matter of Guerra,

24 I&N Dec. at 40.2

In conducting a custody hearing, the Immigration Judge should first

consider whether the respondent is a danger to the community or a threat to

national security before considering whether he presents a risk of flight. See

Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. at 141. Bond determinations depend heavily

on the alien’s circumstances and the specific facts of the case, and any

“probative and specific” evidence may be considered in assessing whether

his release on bond is warranted, including unfavorable evidence of his

conduct. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40–41. The Immigration

Judge is in the best position to analyze these considerations and “may choose

2

The respondent also argues that placing the burden of proof on the alien to establish that

he merits release on bond is constitutionally deficient. However, we do not have the

authority to entertain constitutional challenges to the statutes and regulations we administer.

See Matter of Cruz de Ortiz, 25 I&N Dec. 601, 605 (BIA 2011).

804

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3980

to give greater weight to one factor over others, as long as the decision is

reasonable.” Id. at 40.

In determining whether an alien merits release on bond and what amount

of bond is appropriate, the Immigration Judge may consider a variety of

factors, including

(1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; (2) the alien’s length

of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s family ties in the United States, and

whether they may entitle the alien to reside permanently in the United States in the

future; (4) the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien’s record of appearance in

court; (6) the alien’s criminal record, including the extensiveness of criminal activity,

the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien’s

history of immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution

or otherwise escape from authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the

United States.

Id. The Immigration Judge may also consider the likelihood that relief from

removal will be granted in determining whether an alien warrants bond. See

Matter of Andrade, 19 I&N Dec. 488, 490 (BIA 1987) (stating that an alien

with a greater likelihood of being granted relief has a stronger motivation to

appear for a hearing than one who has less potential to obtain relief).

The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge mischaracterized the

record and did not give sufficient weight to the evidence he submitted. We

disagree and will affirm the Immigration Judge’s decision.

The record reflects that the Immigration Judge properly considered and

weighed the relevant factors in determining that the respondent presents a

significant risk of flight and should remain in immigration custody pending

the outcome of his removal proceedings. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec.

at 40 (stating that an Immigration Judge has broad discretion in deciding the

factors that he may consider in custody redeterminations). The respondent

only recently arrived in the United States, having entered without inspection,

and he has made no claim to lawful status in this country, either now or in

the past. He also has no family ties, no employment history, no community

ties, or any record of appearances in court in the United States. These factors

militate against the respondent’s release on bond because they indicate that

he is less likely to appear for his removal hearing. By contrast, we have

found that an alien who had prior lawful status and a probable path to future

lawful status, as well as immediate family members with whom he could

continue to reside in the United States, did not present a flight risk. See

Matter of Patel, 15 I&N Dec. 666, 667 (BIA 1976) (relying on the facts that

the alien was admitted as a student, was living with his wife and United States

citizen child, and was seeking lawful status through a labor certification filed

by his employer).

805

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3980

In support of his request for release on bond, the respondent maintains

that he has a fixed address where he will reside and that he has demonstrated

eligibility for relief from removal. He submitted a signed statement from an

individual who indicated his willingness to support the respondent and

provide him a place to stay in the United States. The statement was

accompanied by this person’s Honduran passport and a copy of a utility bill

with his residential address. At the bond hearing, counsel for the respondent

also proffered that this friend is willing to pay for a bus ticket for the

respondent to travel to Texas and that his wife is familiar with the Houston

Immigration Court.

While the friend’s willingness to assist the respondent is laudable, we

agree with the Immigration Judge that it is insufficient to adequately ensure

the respondent’s appearance for his removal proceedings and, if necessary,

his removal from the United States. In considering the friend’s written

statement, the Immigration Judge properly noted the lack of independent

evidence establishing his present immigration status, as well as his ability to

support the respondent and ensure his appearance at future immigration

hearings.3

In addition, the respondent’s friend is not an immediate family member

and does not appear to be related to him. The statement he provided does not

include any information regarding how he knows the respondent or the nature

of their relationship. The Immigration Judge properly concluded that

counsel’s proffer that the friend is willing to pay for a bus ticket for the

respondent to travel to Texas and that his wife is familiar with the Houston

Immigration Court falls far short of meeting the respondent’s burden of proof

to establish that he should be released on bond.

The respondent also asserts that he has a high incentive to appear

for his hearings because he is seeking asylum. He maintains that he has

demonstrated past persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution based

on past threats of violence and homophobic harassment in Honduras.

However, for various reasons, eligibility for asylum can be difficult to

establish, and an Immigration Judge may consider an alien’s circumstances

in determining how likely it is that his application for relief will ultimately

be approved. Even for aliens who are found to have a credible fear, a grant

of asylum is uncertain, in part because the legal standard for establishing

eligibility for asylum is higher than that for a credible fear.

3

The respondent contends that it was not proper for the Immigration Judge to consider

these factors since they are not listed in Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40. Although

not specifically enumerated there, these facts are relevant to determining whether the

respondent’s friend will provide a fixed address for him and will ensure his presence at

future proceedings.

806

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3980

The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent did not

demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum.4 The

respondent’s limited avenue for relief, combined with his other minimal ties

to the United States, support the Immigration Judge’s determination that the

respondent poses a high flight risk and should be held without bond pending

the outcome of his removal proceedings. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec.

at 40. We therefore agree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent

failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he does not present a significant

risk of flight and that his release on bond is warranted. Accordingly, the

respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

4

Although not controlling in this case, the internal records of the Executive Office for

Immigration Review reflect that the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application

for asylum and related relief and protection in removal proceedings on November 7, 2019.

His appeal from that decision is pending before us, and the Immigration Judge’s decision

is not administratively final. However, the current posture of the case does not improve

the likelihood that the respondent will be granted relief from removal.

807