Page:Kilmer-Abrego-Garcia-Documents.pdf/9

Respondent stated that he intends to apply for relief in the form of asylum and adjustment of status based on his relationship to his fiancé, whom he intends to marry. The Respondent also argued that he is not a danger to the community. He has no criminal convictions. He denied being a gang member and objected to the admissibility of the Form I-213 and the Prince George’s County Police Department Gang Field Interview Sheet because he lacked the opportunity to cross-examine the detective who determined that he is a gang member.

The DHS opposed the Respondent’s request for bond. The DHS asserted that the Respondent is a verified gang member. The Respondent was arrested in the company of other ranking gang members and was confirmed to be a ranking member of the MS-13 gang by a proven and reliable source. The OHS argued that the Form I-213 is admissible as a legally reliable document in immigration court.

An alien seeking a custody redetermination under section 236(a) of the Act bears the burden of demonstrating that he merits release on bond. Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). The respondent may satisfy this burden by demonstrating that his release does not pose a danger to persons or property, a threat to national security, or a risk of flight, and that he is likely to appear for any future proceedings. Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207, 207 (BIA 2018); Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102, 1111–13 (BIA 1999).

An immigration judge has broad discretion to consider any matter deemed relevant to determining whether an alien’s release on bond is permissible or advisable. Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40 (noting that an immigration judge “may choose to give greater weight to one factor over others, as long as the decision is reasonable”). Relevant factors include: (1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; (2) the alien’s length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s family ties in the United States, and whether they may entitle the alien to reside permanently in the United States in the future; (4) the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien’s record of appearance in court; (6) the alien’s criminal record, including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recent nature of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien’s history of immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution or otherwise escape from authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the United States. Id.; see also Matter of Saelee, 22 I&N Dec. 1258 (BIA 2000).

After considering the information provided by both parties, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13. Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. at 210; Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. at 1111–13; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(3). The BIA has held that, absent any indication that the information therein is incorrect or was the result of coercion or duress, Form I-213 is “inherently trustworthy and admissible.” Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988). The Respondent contends that the Form I-213 in his case erroneously states that he was detained in connection to a murder investigation. He also claims that the I-213 is internally contradicts itself as to whether the Respondent fears returning to El Salvador. The reason for the Respondent’s arrest given on his Form I-213 does appear at odds with the Gang Field Interview Sheet, which states that the Respondent was approached because he and others were loitering outside of a Home Depot. Regardless, the determination that the Respondent is a