Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8
 
C, E Name: CE
US pam of usi
Executive Oce r Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals Oce of the Clerk
5107 leebg Pike, Su
u
e 2000 Fas Church. Vtgmt 2041
HSICE Oice of Chief Counsel -SFR P
0
Box 26449 Sa Fracisco, CA 94126649 A 516 Date of this otice 420207
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-rerenced case. Enclosure
Pl Mb: Greer, Anne J
Sincerely, Cynthia
L.
Crosby Acting Chie Clerk
: Dcket
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
 I   m m i   r  a n t   & R  e  f   u e  e  A  p  p e  l   l   a t   e  C e  n t   e  r  , L  L  C w w w . i   r  a c  . n e  t  
Cite as: E-C-, AXXX XXX 516 (BIA April 20, 2017)
 
U.S Depatment of Justice
·
Executive Oce
r
Imaton Revew Fals Church, Vgna
22041
File: 516 -San Francisco, CA In reE C a.kaIN BOND PROCEEDNGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se ON BEHALF OF DHS Grace H Cheung Assistat Chef Cousel APPICATION Redeteination of custody staus
Decson of the Bod of maton Appeals
Date
APR 2 0 17
In a decision dated October 26, 2016, an Immiation Judge ordered the respondent released om the custody of the Depment of Homeland Security ("DHS) on the condition that he post a $7,500 bond
1
Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Immiation and Nationality Act, 8 USC
§
1226(a)(2)(A) (2011)  The DHS has appealed om that decision, arguing that the Immiation Judge should have ordered the respondent detaned without bond because he poses a danger to the commuiy The appeal will be dismissed  The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, is in ongoing removal proceedings bsed on a charge that he is present in the United States without having been admited or paroled Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 USC
§
1182(a)(6)(A)(i) Aer tng the respondent ito custody, the DHS made  initial deteination that he should remain in detention without bond  The respondent thereaer requested a bond redetermination heing bere an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 CFR
§
1236l(d)(l), and at the conclsion of a hearng held on October 26, 2016, the Iiation Judge ordered the DHS to release the respondent upon his payment of a $7,500 bond and compliance with conditions related to hs eollment n a residential alcohol rehabilitation proam Ths timely appeal llowed
A
aien in bond proceedings bears the burden of demonstrating that he merits release
Matter of Fatahi,
26 I&N Dec. 791, 793, 795 & n.3 (BIA 2016);
Mater of Guerra,
24 I&N Dec 37, 40 (BIA 2006) To meet that burden, the aien must demonstrate that his release would not pose a danger to propery or persons, among other things
Maer of Fatahi, supra,
at 793;
Matter of Urena,
25 I&N Dec 140, 141 (BIA 2009);
Matter of deni,
22 I&N Dec 1102, 111113 (BIA 1999) (relying in p on 8 CFR
§
1236l(c)(8))
A
Immigration Judge has broad discretion to consider y matter he or she deems relevant when deteining whether 
1
 The reasons r the Immiation Judge's decision e set rh in a bond memoradum dated  November 28, 2016
 I   m m i   r  a n t   & R  e  f   u e  e  A  p  p e  l   l   a t   e  C e  n t   e  r  , L  L  C w w w . i   r  a c  . n e  t  
Cite as: E-C-, AXXX XXX 516 (BIA April 20, 2017)
 
.•
.
516 alien's release on bond is permissible or advisable, d therere a custody redetermination tat has a "reasonable undation will not
b
disturbed on appeal
Matter of Guerra supra
at 39-40 (relying in par on
 Carlson
v
Landon
342 US 524, 534 (1952)). On appeal, the HS maintais that e respondent would pose a dger to the counity if released In suppor of that argument, the HS points out that the respondent sustained two convictionsin May 2016 d June 2016r driving under the inuence ("DUI) in violation of section 23152(a) of the Calia Vehicle Code, as well as 2011 and 2013 convictions r public intoxication (HS Brief at 3-4) We aee with the HS that the respondent's very recent DUI convictions raise serious conces The Iiation Judge ackowledged the respondent's crimes d he DHS's evidence regding recidivism associated wit DUI oenses (J Bond Memo at 2) Neverheless, she concluded that the respondent carried his burden of proving that he would not endanger the community if released In suppor of that deteiation, the Immiation Judge ud tat the respondent paricipated in alcohol rehabilitation programs during his detention and presented evidence of eollment in a residential treatment program if released d of available suppor d assistance om s family (J Bond Memo at 2-3) The Imiation Judge's bond order also directed the respondent to remain in treatment aer release d to atend Alcoholics onymous meetings In bond proceedgs, a ndg of ture dgerousness is legally dispositive of  alien's eligibility r release
Matter of Urena, supra
at 141 ("Dangerous aliens e properly detained without bond);
Matter of Dsdale
20 &N Dec 815, 817 (BIA 1994) ("[]f the alien caot demonstrate that he is not a danger to the county upon consideration of he relevant ctors, he should be detained in the custody of the Seice) Such a nding necessarily involves a prediction as to the likelihood that te alien will reoend or othewise engage in dangerous conduct in the ure In immiation proceedings, an Immiation Judge's predictive ndings of what may or may not occur in he ture are ndings of ct, whch are subject to a clely eoneous standard of review
Mater of
Z-Z-0-,
26 &N Dec 586, 590 (BIA 2015);
 see also Matter of Fatahi supra
at 793 n2 (noting that an Iiation Judge's ctual ndings in bond proceedings e subject to cle eor review); 8 CFR § 1003(d)(3)(i);
c also United States
v
Hir
51 7 F 3d 1081, 1086
(9
Cir 2008) (reviewing dangerousness ndings r cle eor in the bail context) Clear eor review is siicantly deferential, d precludes us om reversing the Immiation Judge even if we are convinced that we would have weiged the evidence o dangerousness dierently had we been the ctnder.
See Anderson
v
 Ci of Bessemer Ci NC
 470 US 564 573 74 (1985) "[Where there are two peissible_views o the evidence, the ctnder's choice between them c ot be clearly eoneous.
Id.
at 574 We conclude tat the Immigration Judge's determination was based on a "peissible view of he evidence, and therere we defer to it In light of that assessment, we will not disturb the Immation Judge's  judent that the respondent is eligible r release on bond and conditions as set by the Immiation Judge Accordingly, the llowing order will be issued 2
 I   m m i   r  a n t   & R  e  f   u e  e  A  p  p e  l   l   a t   e  C e  n t   e  r  , L  L  C w w w . i   r  a c  . n e  t  
Cite as: E-C-, AXXX XXX 516 (BIA April 20, 2017)

Satisfaites votre curiosité

Tout ce que vous voulez lire.
À tout moment. Partout. Sur n'importe quel appareil.
Aucun engagement. Annulez à tout moment.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505