Summary
This Board of Immigration Appeals decision reviews a Department of Homeland Security appeal of an Immigration Judge’s order granting the respondent release on a $10,000 bond. Applying de novo review, the Board finds that the respondent’s prior convictions for lewd acts with a minor and sending harmful matter to a minor demonstrate he poses a danger to the community upon release. Consequently, the Board sustains the appeal, vacates the bond order, and orders the respondent detained without bond.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether DHS met its burden of clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses a danger to the community, justifying detention without bond
- Whether the Immigration Judge erred in granting the respondent’s release on bond
Holdings
- The Board held that DHS met its burden of clear and convincing evidence that the respondent’s release would pose a danger to the community, and therefore the respondent must be detained without bond.
- The Board held that the Immigration Judge erred in granting release because the burden of clear and convincing evidence was not satisfied.
Key quotations
“The respondent’s release on bond would pose a danger to the community based on his dangerous behavior that subjected a person who was particularly vulnerable because of her age and her familial relationship to the respondent to unlawful sexual conduct.” (76)
Factual background
The respondent was convicted on January 25, 2022, of lewd or lascivious acts with a minor under 14 (Cal. Penal Code §288(a)) and of sending harmful matter to a minor (Cal. Penal Code §288.2(a)(2)), receiving a combined maximum sentence of 11 years. He was required to register as a sex offender for ten years, complete a 52‑week sex offender program, and stay away from the victim, his 12‑year‑old half‑sister, for ten years. No prior criminal history was found.
Procedural history
The Immigration Judge ordered the respondent released on a $10,000 bond on September 6, 2022. The Department of Homeland Security appealed, arguing the judge erred in finding DHS had not met its burden of clear and convincing evidence that the respondent posed a danger to the community. The Board reviewed the appeal de novo.