Bond
Bond Motions
Bond Motion
ICPM 5.1
(a) Where to File -
The immigration court may entertain motions only in those cases in which it has jurisdiction. See subsections (1), (2), (3), below, Appendix J (Filing Motions). If the immigration court has jurisdiction, motions are filed with the immigration court having administrative control over the Record of Proceedings. See Chapter 3.1(a) (Filing).
(1) Cases not yet filed with the immigration court - Except for requests for bond redetermination proceedings, the immigration court cannot entertain motions if a charging document (i.e., a Notice to Appear) has not been filed with the court. See Chapters 4.2 (Commencement of Removal Proceedings), 9.3(b) (Jurisdiction).
Mandatory Detention
Mandatory immigrant detention, is the requirement that certain categories of migrants remain detained throughout the entirety of their immigration proceedings, is a creation of Congress. In 1996, lawmakers passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which expanded the definition of what is known as an aggravated felony and exponentially increased the use of mandatory detention, with limited opportunities for judicial review and without the opportunity to seek bond. Under IIRIRA, all noncitizens—including asylum seekers and lawful permanent residents—are subject to mandatory detention and placed in expedited removal proceedings if they are convicted of an aggravated felony: any crime of violence, theft, or burglary for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year, as well as illegal trafficking in drugs, firearms, or destructive devices.
Dangerousness in Bond Determination
At a bond hearing conducted pursuant to section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (2018), the burden of proof is on the respondent to demonstrate “to the satisfaction” of the Immigration Judge and the Board that his “release would not pose a danger to property or persons,” and that the respondent is likely to appear for any future proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) (2025); accord Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102, 1112 (BIA 1999); see also Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009) (“Dangerous aliens are properly detained without bond.”); Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006).
An Immigration Judge has broad discretion to consider any matter he or she deems relevant when determining whether an alien’s release on bond is permissible or advisable. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 39. A custody redetermination that has a “reasonable foundation” will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. at 39–40. Section 236(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), does not give detained aliens any right to release on bond. Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. 572, 575 (A.G. 2003). Rather, it “merely gives the [Immigration Judge] the authority to grant bond if he [or she] concludes, in the exercise of broad discretion, that the alien’s release on bond is warranted.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Bond for Drinking & Driving
We reverse the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent met his burden to show that he is not a danger to the community. Driving under the influence represents a grave danger to the community and is a significant adverse consideration in bond proceedings. Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207, 209 (BIA 2018); see also Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 141–42 (2008) (recognizing that “[d]runk driving is an extremely dangerous crime” which creates a serious potential risk of physical injury to others), abrogated on other grounds, Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).
Matter of Felipe CHOC-TUT, 29 I&N Dec. 48 (BIA 2025)
While an Immigration Judge may consider a State court’s decision as to dangerousness and the amount of bail that was set in criminal proceedings, an Immigration Judge does not owe a State court custody order deference in immigration bond proceedings.
Under these circumstances, we are unpersuaded that the respondent has met his burden to show that he is not a danger to the community. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40. Therefore, his release on bond is not appropriate. See Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. at 141 (holding that only if an alien has established that he would not pose a danger to property or persons should an Immigration Judge decide the amount of bond necessary to ensure the alien’s presence at proceedings to remove him from the United States).