MATTER OF DRYSDALE
A-41454629
Board of Immigration Appeals
May 25, 1994
Interim Decision #3221
In Bond Proceedings Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 242.2(d)
In bond proceedings under section 242(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (Supp. IV 1992), there is a presumption against the release from the Immigration and Naturalization Service‘s custody of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony unless the alien demonstrates that he was lawfully admitted to the United States, is not a threat to the community, and is likely to appear for any scheduled hearings.- If a lawfully admitted alien convicted of an aggravated felony cannot rebut the statutory presumption that he is a danger to the community, he should be detained in the custody of the Service.
- Once a lawfully admitted alien convicted of an aggravated felony rebuts the presumption that he is a danger to the community, the likelihood that he will appear for future proceedings becomes relevant in assessing the amount of bond needed to motivate the respondent to appear.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Leo Jerome Lahey, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Richard J. Averwater, General Attorney
BY: Dunne, Acting Chairman; Vacca and Heilman, Board Members
The respondent has appealed from a decision, dated November 29, 1993, in which the immigration judge ordered that a bond be set for the respondent in the amount of $20,000. The appeal will be dismissed.
The respondent is a native and citizen of Jamaica, who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident on June 24, 1988, when he was 17 years of age. The respondent attended high school in the United States. However, he left school without graduating and continued to reside with his mother and five brothers in Los Angeles, California, for 1 year. He then traveled to Oregon to live with a cousin. This cousin was engaged in drug trafficking, with which the respondent also became involved. The respondent was subsequently convicted on May 14, 1991, in the United States District Court for the District of
The respondent‘s mother and three of his brothers are lawful permanent residents. The respondent‘s other two brothers are United States citizens. The respondent‘s employment history consists of an unspecified period of part-time employment in a grocery store while he was living with his family in Los Angeles. Also, after leaving high school, the respondent completed coursework in typing, computer use, and word processing with the Los Angeles Urban League Youth Services. The record contains a letter which states that the respondent has an employment prospect with a cleaning company in Los Angeles.
On July 15, 1991, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form I-221) against the respondent, charging him with deportability under
On appeal, the respondent requests that bond be set at $5,000 or less. He claims that the immigration judge set bond in an excessive amount because he failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence that was presented to show that the respondent is neither a threat to the community nor a bail risk.
Since the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony, his request for a bond redetermination is governed by
The Attorney General may not release from custody any lawfully admitted alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, either before or after a determination of deportability, unless the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such alien is not a threat to the community and that the alien is likely to appear before any scheduled hearings.
We have held that the statutory scheme and the language of
Here, the immigration judge found that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption because his successful completion of a term in a halfway house, as well as his exemplary behavior as a prisoner, demonstrated that he was not a danger to the community or a bail risk. Specifically, the immigration judge stated that the respondent “is not a flight risk or a danger to the community.” However, he added that “a significant bond is still needed to insure his presence at future hearings.”
Upon our review of the record, we find, contrary to the respondent‘s allegation on appeal, that the immigration judge did consider the factors relevant to a bond determination in rendering his decision. See Matter of Andrade, 19 I&N Dec. 488, 489 (BIA 1987);
We interpret the statutory framework under
Here, the immigration judge, for the reasons stated in his decision, found that the respondent does not present a danger to the community. However, it was his assessment that a significant bond was required. The purpose of the bond is to ensure the respondent‘s presence at future proceedings. Under the circumstances presented here, where the respondent left his parental home and moved to another area, committed a serious drug trafficking crime soon after entering the United States, and was ineligible for any form of relief from deportation, we agree with the immigration judge‘s bond determination. This assessment is reinforced by the fact that the respondent is now subject to an administratively final order of deportation.1 See Matter of Andrade, supra;
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.