Interim Decision #2744 

• MATTER OF SHAW 

IN BOND PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 8 C.F.R. 242.2(b) 

A-24021848 

Decided by Board December 14, 1979 

(1) The fact that a respondent is the subject of pending criminal charges and the 

seriousness of those charges are relevant to an inquiry into the amount of an immigration bond necessary to assure the respondent's presence at future deportation 

proceedings. 

(2) It is inappropriate for the immigration judge to speculate as to the possible rationale 

for a minimal bond set by a state court in a pending criminal proceeding and to find 

that the low criminal bond weighs in favor of a larger immigration bond. 

(3) The manner of a respondent's entry into the United States is relevant in a bond 

determination inquiry. 

(4) A $5,000 appearance bond was not unwarranted in the case of a respondent who came 

forward with no evidence of community ties of any nature that would suggest his 

continuing availability for future immigration proceedings, who was charged with a 

serious criminal offense involving the possession of firearms, and whose manner of 

entry into the United States was unknown. 

CHARGE: 

Orden Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Failure to establish entry 

information as required under section 291 [8 U.S.C. 1361] 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Barst & Mukamal, Esquires Daniel Meisner 

121 John Street Trial Attorney 

New York, New York 10038 

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

The respondent appeals from the November 23, 1979, decision of the 

immigration judge ordering the $10,000 bond imposed by the District 

Director reduced to the amount of $5,000. The respondent seeks further 

reduction of the bond. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent, a 21-year-old native and citizen of Jamaica, came 

into the custody of the Service following his arrest by New York State 

177 
Interim Decision #2744 

authorities on charges relating to the criminal possession of firearms. ' 

The respondent was released by the state authorities in November 

1979 after posting a one dollar bond. He was released into the custody 

of the Service because an Order to Show Cause had been issued on 

November 8, 1979. The District Director then set a $10,000 immigration 

appearance bond. The respondent requested a bond redetermination 

hearing before the immigration judge. 

The immigration judge concluded that a significant bond was necessary in this case to assure the respondent's appearance at future 

immigration proceedings. He noted in this regard the respondent's 

minimal ties to the community,' the serious nature of the criminal 

charge, the minimal amount of the criminal bond, and the fact that the 

sole indication of the respondent's future appearances was a statement 

that he would appear when called. He reduced the bond to $5,000, 

however, because the respondent apparently had no prior criminal 

record. 

The respondent appeals, seeking a reduction of the bond from $5,000 

to $500 to $1,000. It is submitted that the immigration judge erred in 

declining to hear testimony regarding the circumstances of the respondent's arrest, in relying on the "seriousness" of the criminal 

charges in determining the amount of the bond when the state court 

having jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding ordered the respondent released on a minimal bond, and by speculating that the state court 

fixed the bond in a minimal amount because of an awareness that the 

respondent was to be released into Service custody. 

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 national security or 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 the 

nature of the respondent's criminal or immigration law history may 

properly be considered. See Matter of Patel, supra; Matter of San 

Martin, 15 I&N Dec. 16'7 (BIA 1974); Matter of Moise, 12 I&N Dec. 102 

(BIA 1967); Matter of S -Y-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 575 (BIA 1962). Moreover, 

The decision of the immigration judge indicates that the respondent and the four 

other persons arrested with him were charged with criminal possession of a weapon in 

the second degree and with possession of stolen property. The record contains no 

evidence regarding the nature of the charges, however, other than a surety receipt which 

reflects the offense as being the criminal possession of a weapon in the third decree. The 

charges apparently stem from the alleged possession of seven handguns and one sawedoff shotgun. 

I The respondent's sole family tie was apparently a lawful permanent resident uncle. 

178 
Interim Decision #2744 

both the fact that a respondent is the subject of pending criminal 

charges and the seriousness of those charges are relevant to an inquiry 

into the amount of an immigration bond necessary to assure a respondent's presence at future deportation proceedings. 

On the facts before us, however, we find that the immigration judge 

placed an undue reliance on the parading criminal charges and the lack 

of a large criminal bond in setting the significant bond ordered in this 

case. We find it inappropriate to speculate as to the possible rationale 

for the one dollar bond set in the criminal proceeding, and we do not 

agree that the fact that a low criminal bond was set somehow weighs in 

favor of a larger immigration bond. 

Although we disagree with this aspect of the immigration judge's 

rationale for ordering a significant bond, we do not fmd that a $5,000 

bond is unwarranted under the facts of this case. The respondent has 

apparently come forward with no evidence below or on appeal, as to the 

length of his residence in the United States. We do not know if it has 

been a matter of weeks, months, or years. There is nothing of record 

regarding the respondent's employment history, or even an indication 

of whether he was employed at the time of his arrest. There is no 

statement as to where the respondent resided in the country, how long 

he lived there, or with whom he lived. Other than an indication that he 

has a lawful permanent resident uncle in this country, there is in fact 

no evidence at all of community ties of any nature which would suggest 

his continuing availability for future immigration proceedings. This 

complete lack of information regarding community ties, when considered with the serious criminal charge pending against the respondent and the fact that it is unknown how or when he entered the United 

States, warrants the significant bond imposed by the immigration 

judge.3 

Accordingly, on the record now before us, we will order the appeal 

dismissed. 

ORDER1 The appeal is dismissed. 

The manner of a respondent's entry is relevant in a bond determination inquiry. For 

example, a greater bond will ordinarily be warranted in the case of a respondent who 

entered the United States unlawfully (through evasion of immigration authorities nr rise 

of a false identity) than in the case of a respondent, otherwise similarly situated, who 

has entered this country lawfully using a true identity. When a respondent declines to 

state the time and manner of his entry, it will not be assumed that he entered lawfully. 

179