27 I. & N. Dec. 207
BIA2018Background
- Respondent: Lithuanian national who overstayed a 2000 nonimmigrant admission; married to an LPR and has a U.S. citizen daughter with an approved visa petition.
- Criminal history: three DUI convictions in 2006–2007 (two involving accidents) and a 2017 DUI arrest (charges pending); DHS took custody after the 2017 arrest.
- Immigration Judge (Mar 13, 2017) initially denied bond; after additional evidence, IJ (May 15, 2017) granted release on $25,000 bond.
- DHS appealed the bond grant, arguing respondent failed to prove he is not a danger to the community.
- Respondent presented evidence of treatment and AA participation, and claimed the 2017 incident was an aberration linked to his mother’s death anniversary.
- Board concludes repeated DUI convictions plus the recent arrest rebut rehabilitation claim and orders respondent detained without bond.
Issues
| Issue | Respondent's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent proved he is not a danger to the community (bond eligibility under INA §236(a)) | He has taken rehabilitation steps (treatment, AA), last conviction was 10 years ago, and the 2017 arrest was an aberration tied to grief | Multiple DUI convictions and a recent DUI arrest (involving accidents) show ongoing dangerousness; respondent did not meet burden | DHS appeal sustained; respondent is a danger to the community and is ineligible for bond (detained without bond) |
| Whether family/community ties mitigate dangerousness | Family, fixed address, employment, church support show stability and rehabilitation | Such ties may address flight risk but do not negate dangerousness from DUI history | Family and community ties do not mitigate dangerousness here |
| Whether arrests (not just convictions) are proper for bond determinations | Not disputed; respondent emphasizes convictions are older | Arrests and convictions are relevant to assessing extent, recency, seriousness | IJ may consider arrests and convictions; recent arrest undermines claim of rehabilitation |
| Whether monetary bond ($25,000) was appropriate given dangerousness | IJ set significant bond reflecting seriousness | Bond inappropriate if alien presents danger; bond only if alien first shows not dangerous | Monetary bond improper because respondent failed to establish he is not a danger |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (drunk driving is an extremely dangerous crime)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (DUI poses serious risk of physical injury; national road-safety toll)
- United States v. DeSantiago-Gonzalez, 207 F.3d 261 (DUI inherently risks physical harm to others)
- Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (recognizing well-established dangers of drunk driving)