Page:Kilmer-Abrego-Garcia-Documents.pdf/10

gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a “past, proven, and reliable source of information” verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.

The Court further held that no bond was appropriate in order to ensure the Respondent’s appearance at future hearings, as he had not met his burden of showing that he would not be a flight risk. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(3). The Respondent’s case presents limited eligibility for relief, thereby significantly diminishing his incentive to appear for future immigration proceedings. He is not married to his fiancé, and any immigration relief that he can be expected to gain from a marital relationship with her in the future is speculative. Although the Respondent stated that he intends to file for asylum, his eligibility appears limited to withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture due to his failure to file an application within one year of his arrival in the United States. Those forms of relief are limited and contain standards that are difficult to meet. In addition, the record evidence shows that the Respondent has a history of failing to appear for proceedings pertaining to his traffic violations. See Bond Exh. 2, Tab I at 28–29. He asserted that he did not receive notice of these proceedings, but in his written statement, he admitted that he remembers receiving citations that he chose not to follow up on. See Bond Exh. 2, Tab B at 5. The Respondent’s lack of diligence in following up on his traffic court cases indicates that he cannot be trusted to appear in immigration court.

In light of these findings, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. That order was issued on April 24, 2019. The Respondent reserved the right to appeal.

Date 5.22.2019