U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suile 2000 Falls Chul'ch. Virginia 20530

Yacub, Ivan, Esq. Yacub Law 307 E. Annandale Rd. Ste.201 Falls Church, VA 22042

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ELP 1545 Hawkins Blvd. EI Paso, TX 79925

Name:

Date of this notice: 8/7/2014

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

DOYutL {!t2AAJ Donna Carr Chief Clerk Enclosure Panel Members: Hoffman, Sharon Grant, Edward R. Manuel, Elise

r J.fjh'~Jqi.'~.; Usertearn: pocket

....

'. U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of lnunigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginil1 20530

File: _ _ El Paso, TX

Date:

In re: IN BOND PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Ivan Yacub, Esquire ON BE!l.ALF OF: DIl.S: Briftan~~~rfield ,*?, wit.i",'.v Assistance Chief Counsel APPLICATION: Change in custody' status

The respondent has appealed the June 12, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge denying her request for a redetennination of her custody status. The Iinmigration Judge's decision is supported by a bond memorandum dated June 24, 2014. On appeal, the respondent argues that hnmigration Judge erred in concluding that she was an extreme flight risk and that no amount of bond would reasonably assure her appearance at future immigration proceedings. The appeal will be sustained. We review hnmigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law, discretion, and judgment, and aU other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3). The determination of whether an alien who is not subject to the mandatory detention provisions of section 236(c) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), should be detained or required to post bond is a two-step process. First, a detennination must be made as to whether the alien poses a danger to the safety of persons, or property in his community. Matter of Drysdale, 20 I&N Dec, 815 (BIA 1994) (detennination of dangerousness analyzed). If the alien does not pose a danger to the community, a detennination must be made as to whether an alien is a flight risk unlikely to appear for future proceedings·. See e.g" Matter of Patel, 15 I&N Dec. 666 (1976) (factors unique to each alien must be evaluated in determining suitability for release from custody). The respondent, a native and citizen of EI Salvador, attempted to enter the United States by employing an alien smuggler. She is single and has no children. She has no record of employment and she owns no property in the United States. Her parents live in the United States under Temporary Protected Status, and she has a brother who is a United States citizen as well as several other siblings who reside in the United States without lawful status. The respondent contends that she has a colorable claim to asylum and she has submitted a copy of her asylum application and supporting evidence. If released on bond the respondent indicated that she will reside with her brother in Virginia, and she has provided proof of his residence. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the respondent is a flight risk. However, she has shown that she has significant family ties in this

country. She has also presented a prima facie claim for asylum and withholding of removal. Although the respondent is a flight risk, we find that the evidence of a fixed address where she will reside, significant family ties in this country, and her claim of relief from removal provide some incentive for her to appear for future immigration proceedings. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006) (discussing relevant factors for consideration of suitability for custody redetermination); see a/so Matter of Andrade, 19 I&N Dec. 488,490 (BIA 1987) (stating that "a respondent with a greater likelihood of being granted relief from deportation has a greater motivation to appear for a deportation hearing than one who, ,based on a criminal record or otherwise, has less potential of being granted such relief'). Accordingly, despite our conclusion that the respondent is a flight risk, we find that the respondent's appearance at future immigration proceedings may be reasonably assured by the imposition of a substantial bond. Accordingly, the respondent's appeal is sustained, and she is ordered released upon the posting of a $5,000 bond. See e.g., Matter of Patel, 15 I&N Dec. 666 (1976) (factors unique to each alien must be evaluated in determining suitability for release from custody). ORDER: The respondent is ordered released upon the posting of a $5,000 bond.

D

2