'

U.S. Department of Justice

NOv 1 6 20\S

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SDC

146 CCA Road, P.O. Box 248
Lumpkin, GA 31815

Name:E--B

Date of this notice: 11/13/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,

Donn.L CaNLJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Holiona, Hope Malia

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: E-J-E-B-, AXXX XXX 122 (BIA Nov. 13, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Said, Naima
Naima Said & Assoc.
5513 Twin Knolls Rd., Ste. 219
Columbia, MD 21045

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision ofthe Board oflmmigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: ,...122 - Lumpkin, GA

Date:

NOV 1 3 2015

IN BOND PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Naima Said, Esquire
APPLICATION: Redetermination ofcustody status
The respondent has appealed from the Immigration Judge's decision dated
September I, 2015. The Immigration Judge issued a bond memorandum on September 17, 2015,
setting forth the reasons for the decision. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent
presented a risk of flight and ordered the respondent held on a "no bond" condition pursuant to
section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). The appeal will be
sustained.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility oftestimony, under the "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). The
Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from
decisions oflmmigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R. !003.l(d)(3)(ii).
An alien in a custody determination under section 236(a) of the Act must establish to the
satisfaction of the Immigration Judge and this 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 offlight. See
Matter ofAdeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999). In this matter, the Immigration Judge found
that the respondent presented a significant risk of flight and ordered him held on a "no bond"
condition pursuant to section 236(a) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).
The Immigration Judge noted that the respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, arrived in
the United States in June 2015, presented evidence that his father, mother and sister are living in
the United States, and presented further evidence that he would live with his parents and sister if
released from custody. Despite these family ties in the United States and place to live if
released, the Immigration Judge concluded that, because the respondent's family members
recently entered the United States on visitor's visas, he has no "long-term" ties to the United
States that would mitigate his risk of flight (I.J. at 3). The Immigration Judge further found that
while the respondent claimed that an immigration officer made a positive credible fear
determination in his case, his ultimate prospect for relief "remains speculative," and because of
this, the presence of his family in the United States "could serve as a further disincentive to
appear before the Court" (l.J. at 3).
We recognize that the respondent's recent arrival in the United States is an adverse factor to
be considered in determining whether the respondent should be granted a monetary bond.
However, considering the evidence of record, including evidence that the respondent has strong
family ties in the United States (regardless of their immigration status or length of time in this
Cite as: E-J-E-B-, AXXX XXX 122 (BIA Nov. 13, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

In re:E-.... E

Am11111122

country), has a place to live if released from custody, and has apparently had a positive credible
fear deterrnimrtion made on his behalf, we find that, while the respondent does pose g_ome risk of
flight, a $10,000 bond is reasonable and sufficient to ensure the respondent's presence at future
proceedings under these circumstances. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006).
Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge's decision is vacated and the respondent is
ordered released from custody upon posting a bond in the amount of $10,000.

c!
) b.
FTHEBOARD

----

2
Cite as: E-J-E-B-, AXXX XXX 122 (BIA Nov. 13, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

ORDER: The respondent's bond appeal is sustained.