Matter of Andrade, Interim Decision Number 3037

• Citation: 19 I&N Dec. 488
• Decision Date: 20 November 1987
• Docket Number: A-12271705.,Interim Decision Number 3037
• Parties: MATTER OF ANDRADE. In Bond Proceedings Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 242.2(b).
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

19 I&N Dec. 488

MATTER OF ANDRADE.

In Bond Proceedings Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 242.2(b).

Interim Decision Number 3037

A-12271705.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board November 20, 1987.

(1) In bond redetermination proceedings, the Board of Immigration Appeals may consider the respondent's extensive and recent criminal record in determining the necessity for a bond or the appropriate amount of a bond.

(2) The Board determined that the respondent's numerous convictions indicate a consistent disrespect for the laws of the United States and adversely reflect upon his character.

(3) In setting a substantial bond, the Board took into consideration the respondent's disrespect for the law, his poor character, and the effect of his crimes upon his eligibility for relief from deportation.

(4) An alien's early release from prison and transition to a parole status do not necessarily reflect rehabilitation, and, therefore, such facts do not carry significant weight in determining whether he is a good bail risk for immigration purposes.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Ronald E. LeFevre District Counsel Beverley M. Phillips General Attorney

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members. Concurring Opinion: Heilman, Board Member.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has appealed from an immigration judge's February 27, 1987, decision releasing the respondent on his own recognizance, after the district director had set bond at $15,000. The appeal will be sustained and the bond will be raised to $10,000.

By Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Form I-221S) dated February 20, 1987, the respondent was alleged to be a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted to the United States on April 9, 1960, as a lawful permanent resident, but who was deportable for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. See section 241(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4) (1982). At the time the Order to Show Cause was issued, the district director ordered a $15,000 bond. Following a bond redetermination hearing, the immigration judge determined that release on recognizance was appropriate for several reasons. She noted that the respondent had been a lawful permanent resident since the age of 3 and that his entire family are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. The immigration judge found that, although the respondent had a criminal record, there was no evidence that he had ever failed to appear for immigration or criminal proceedings. She relied on the fact that the state parole authorities had granted the respondent early release. Such release, stated the immigration judge, "demonstrates an assessment by experts, who are better qualified than I am on such matters, that he is rehabilitated and does not constitute a threat to public safety," and that he is not likely to abscond. In addition, the immigration judge considered the respondent's possible eligibility for a waiver of deportation under section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1982). She expressed the view that the respondent has "many factors in his case which would militate toward a favorable exercise of discretion" on a section 212(c) application and that the respondent would therefore have every reason to appear for deportation proceedings to pursue this remedy. Citing Matter of Kwun, 13 I&N Dec. 457 (BIA 1969, 1970), the immigration judge held that the respondent should not be denied bail "for punitive reasons, nor should the alien be deprived of his liberty pending deportation proceedings unless there are compelling reasons." She concluded that the decision to impose a $15,000 bond "reflects the displeasure" of the Service at the respondent's criminal record. Finding that the respondent was "not a flight risk," she released him on his own recognizance.

The Service has filed a lengthy brief on appeal detailing why, in its view, the immigration judge's decision should be vacated and a substantial bond set. Without addressing each of the Service's contentions specifically, we agree that a substantial bond is necessary in this case.

We have held that an alien generally should not be detained or required to post bond pending a determination of deportability unless there is a finding that he is a threat to the national security or is a poor bail risk. Matter of Patel, 15 I&N Dec. 666 (BIA 1976). In determining the necessity for and the amount of bond, such factors as a stable employment history, the length of residence in the community, the existence of family ties, a record of nonappearance at court proceedings, and previous criminal or immigration law violations may properly be considered. See id.; Matter of San Martin, 15 I&N Dec. 167 (BIA 1974); Matter of Moise, 12 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 1967); Matter of S---- Y---- L----, 9 I&N Dec. 575 (BIA 1962).

In the present case, the respondent does have a very long residence in this country, having lived here virtually all his life. He also has his family living here. However, he does not have a stable employment history. Indeed, during much of the last 12 years the respondent appears to have been engaged...