Interim Decision #2599 

MATTER OF CHIRINOS 

In Bond Proceedings 

A-20424783 

Decided by Board July 14, 1977 

(1) The primary consideration in a bail determination is that the parties be able to place 

. the facts before an impartial judge as promptly as possible. There is no requirement for 

a formal "hearing." Informal procedures, even telephonic "hearings," are encouraged so 

long as prejudice does not result. 

(2) There is no right to a transcript of a bond redetermination hearing. 

(3) 8 C.F. R. 242.2(b) provides that bond redetermination hearings shall be held separate and 

apart from the deportation hearing itself. This was not done in this case. However, the 

respondent does not appear to have been prejudiced by this error. Therefore, the appeal 

from the immigration judge's order denying a bond redetermination will be dismissed. 

CHARGE: 

Order. Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)}—Nonimmigrant—remained 

longer than permitted 

APPLICATION: Redetermination of bond 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Frank Murray, Esquire George Indelicato 

28 West Flagler, Suite 400 Appellate Trial Attorney 

Miami, Florida 33130 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Maniatis, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members 

The respondent appeals from a decision of an immigration judge, 

dated January 24, 1977, denying his request for a bond redetermination. 

The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a 24-year-old native and citizen of the Honduras, 

who last entered the United States on June 7, 1974, as a nonimmigrant 

visitor, authorized to remain until June 30, 1974. He was taken into 

custody by Service officers pursuant to an Order to Show Cause, Notice 

of Hearing and Warrant for Arrest, issued on January 14, 1977. The 

District Director authorized his release from custody under bond in the 

amount of $1,000. The bond was posted and he was released on January 

17, 1977. At his deportation hearing on January 24, 1977, the respondent's request for cancellation of bond was denied by the immigration 

judge. 
Interim Decision #2599 

The regulations require that the determination of the immigration 

judge concerning custody status or bond shall be entered on Form 1-342 

and shall be accompanied by a memorandum by the immigration judge 

as to the reasons for his determination. 8 C.F.R. 242.2(b). Although 

these procedures were followed, the regulations also require that this 

consideration "be separate and apart from any deportation hearing or 

proceeding, and shall form no part of such hearing or proceeding or of 

the record thereof." 8 C.F.R. 242.2(b). Therefore, the procedures followed in this case were inappropriate. The bond issue should have been 

handled separately, with a separate order and a separate appeal to this 

Board. 

Nevertheless, there is no right to a transcript of a bond redetermination hearing. Indeed, there is no requirement of a formal "hearing." Our 

primary consideration in a bail determination is that the parties be able 

to place the facts as promptly as possible before an impartial arbiter. To 

achieve this objective we not only countenance, but will encourage, 

informal procedures so long as they do not result in prejudice. Thus, we 

even favor telephonic "hearings" before the immigration judge with the 

consent of the parties, where feasible. The bail record forwarded to us, 

in addition to the memorandum of the immigration judge, may contain 

any information which will he helpful to our consideration of the matter. 

See U.S. ex rel. Barbour v. District Director, 491 F.2d 573 (C.A. 5, 

1974). 

Obviously, this informality cannot carry over to a deportation hearing. The requirement of a separate bond procedure and record is part of 

the effort to divorce, so far as possible, the bond matter from the 

deportation hearing. While it is sometimes helpful to have the results of 

the deportation hearing when considering a bond appeal, it is neither 

required, nor necessary. Moreover, if transcription of the deportation 

proceedings would entail delay in passing upon the bond appeal, it would 

be most undesirable to hold up a bond determination until a transcript 

could be prepared. 

While the bond issue was not handled separately, on review of this 

case, the respondent does not appear to have been prejudiced by the 

error. The matter is before us now and on consideration of the merits of 

the bond appeal, we find that a bond in the amount of $1,000 is appropriate in this case. See Matter of San Martin, Interim Decision 2340 (BIA 

1974). 

ORDER: The appeal from the immigration judge's order denying a 

bond redetermination is dismissed. 

277