# Dangerousness in Bond Determination

<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">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); </span>**accord Matter of Adeniji,** <span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">22 I&amp;N Dec. 1102, 1112 (BIA 1999);</span> **see also Matter of Urena,** <span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">25 I&amp;N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009) (“Dangerous aliens are properly detained without bond.”); </span>**Matter of Guerra,** <span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">24 I&amp;N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). </span>

<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.</span> **See Matter of Guerra**<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">, 24 I&amp;N Dec. at 39. A custody redetermination that has a “reasonable foundation” will not be disturbed on appeal. </span>**Id.**<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;"> 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. </span>**Matter of D-J-**<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, 23 I&amp;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.”</span> **Id.** <span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">(emphasis omitted).</span>

#### <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Bond for Drinking &amp; Driving </span>

<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">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. </span>**Matter of Siniauskas**<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">, 27 I&amp;N Dec. 207, 209 (BIA 2018); </span>**see also Begay v. United States**<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); white-space: pre-wrap;">, 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, </span>**Johnson v. United States**<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).</span>

#### Matter of Felipe CHOC-TUT, 29 I&amp;N Dec. 48 (BIA 2025)

<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.</span>

<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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&amp;N Dec. at 40. Therefore, his release on bond is not appropriate. See Matter of Urena, 25 I&amp;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).</span>