E-Y-F-G-

Page
103
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2025) 	Interim Decision #4102
Matter of E-Y-F-G-, Respondent
Decided by Board May 6, 20251
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
A grant of withholding of removal that is pending on appeal does not justify release on
bond where the factors regarding flight risk weigh strongly against release on bond.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Lauren Finkelstein, Esquire, Brooklyn, New York
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Ilijana Markisich, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge, MULLANE
and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges.
GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security (“DHS”) appeals 	from 	the
Immigration 	Judge’s 	bond 	order 	dated 	March 	4, 	2025, 	granting 	the
respondent’s request for a change in custody status and releasing her from
custody upon payment of a $10,000 bond. The Immigration Judge issued a
bond memorandum explaining his bond decision on March 26, 2025. DHS’
appeal will be sustained.
The respondent’s custody determination is governed by the provisions of
section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (2018). “An alien in a custody determination under th[is] section
must establish . . . that he or she does not present a danger to persons or
property, is not a threat to the national security, and does not pose a risk of
flight.” Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006); see also Matter
of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. 572, 576 (A.G. 2003); Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec.
1102, 1112 (BIA 1999); 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). Section 236(a) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), does not give detained aliens any right to release on bond;
rather, it merely gives the Attorney General the authority to grant bond if he
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 6289-2025, dated June 6, 2025, the Attorney General designated
the Board’s decision in Matter of E-Y-F-G- (BIA May 6, 2025), as precedent in all
proceedings involving the same issue or issues. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2025) 	Interim Decision #4102
page
104
or she concludes, in the exercise of broad discretion, that the alien’s release
on bond is warranted. Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. at 575. On appeal, DHS
argues that the Immigration Judge erred in finding that the grant of
withholding of removal, which DHS has appealed, constitutes a material
change in circumstances since the prior bond redetermination, and that the
respondent has not met her burden of establishing that she does not present a
flight risk.
Even 	assuming, 	arguendo, 	that 	the 	Immigration 	Judge’s 	grant 	of
withholding of removal constitutes a material change in circumstances under
8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e) (2025), we agree with DHS’s alternative argument that
the respondent has not met her burden on flight risk. See id. We consider a
variety of factors in assessing whether an alien merits release on bond,
including:
(1) [W]hether 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 recency 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.
Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803, 805 (BIA 2020) (quoting Matter of
Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40).
The 	record 	reflects 	that 	the 	respondent 	entered 	the 	United 	States
unlawfully on September 6, 2023, does not have work history in this country,
was arrested for petty theft on October 22, 2023, removed her court ordered
GPS ankle monitor, and assisted her son in fleeing from law enforcement
after shooting at a police officer. 	Weighing heavily against the respondent
are the short length of her residency in this country, her criminal activity
shortly after entry, her removal of the ankle monitor, and her role in assisting
a fugitive in evading law enforcement; the respondent has demonstrated
repeated disregard for the laws of this country during her short residence.
See Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. at 805. 	While the respondent may
succeed in securing relief from removal despite DHS’ appeal, the grant of
such relief is not final at this time, and the Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at
40, factors weigh strongly against the respondent’s release from custody
given the flight risk she poses.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2025) 	Interim Decision #4102
page
105
The Immigration Judge’s grant of relief in removal proceedings is not
final as it has been appealed. 	See Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. at 1115
(holding that despite the Immigration Judge’s grant of withholding of
removal, given the alien’s “criminal record and history of questionable or
deceitful behavior,” the alien is a flight risk “should he lose his case on the
merits”). 	Bond 	proceedings 	are 	separate 	and 	distinct 	from 	removal
proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); see also Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N
Dec. at 40 n.2 (“Bond proceedings are separate and apart from the removal
hearing.”). 	The determinations made here are only for the purpose of this
bond appeal; the ultimate finding regarding removability and relief from
removal will be made in the underlying removal proceedings. See Matter of
Chirinos, 16 I&N Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977).
While we acknowledge the Immigration Judge’s broad discretion in
deciding whether or not to release an alien on bond, the favorable factors in
this case do not outweigh the significant flight risk. 	See Matter of D-J-,
23 I&N Dec. at 575–76 (discussing the Attorney General’s broad discretion
in bond determinations). Thus, upon our de novo review, we conclude that
the respondent has not met her burden of demonstrating to our satisfaction
that she is not a flight risk. 	See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), 1236.1(c)(8);
see also Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. at 1112–13; Matter of Guerra,
24 I&N Dec. at 40. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s decision ordering the
respondent released on $10,000 bond is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The respondent is ordered detained without
bond.