Z-N-L-

page
511
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 511 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4172
Matter of Z-N-L-, Respondent
Decided March 12, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The discrepancies in the record regarding whether the respondent resides in Oklahoma,
where he was apprehended, or California, as claimed in his application, when considered
as part of the totality of the circumstances, demonstrate that the respondent is a flight risk
and does not warrant release on bond. Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025),
followed.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: James J. Pasquali, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Max W. Rerucha, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: HUNSUCKER, OWEN, and GEMOETS, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals the Immigration
Judge’s September 22, 2025, decision granting the respondent’s request for
a change in custody status and ordering the respondent’s release from
custody upon the posting of a $7,500 bond. 	The respondent, a native and
citizen of China, opposes the appeal. We will sustain the appeal, vacate the
Immigration Judge’s decision, and order the respondent held in DHS’
custody without bond.
The Immigration Judge granted the respondent a change in custody status
after determining that he carried his burden of establishing that his release
would not pose a danger to persons or property and that a bond amount of
$7,500 would secure his appearance at future hearings. 	See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1236.1(c)(8) (2026). Immigration Judges have broad discretion in deciding
what factors to consider in determining whether an alien warrants release
from detention and, if so, what amount of bond is appropriate. See Matter of
Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). 	Whether an alien poses a flight
risk is a question of judgment the Board reviews de novo. 	See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2026). 	We review the factual findings underlying that
judgment for clear error. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2026).

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 511 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4172
page
512
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the respondent did not meet his
burden to demonstrate that he is not a flight risk or that his flight risk could
be mitigated by posting a bond. In Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166,
167–68 (BIA 2025), we held that significant discrepancies regarding the
respondent’s residence in different states and his past failure to file timely
change of address notices with the Immigration Court demonstrated that he
is a flight risk and does not warrant release on bond. Similarly, the record in
this case includes inconsistent evidence regarding whether the respondent
has a fixed address in the United States. 	See Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N
Dec. at 167 (highlighting inconsistent residence evidence); see also Matter of
Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40 (listing a fixed address as a factor to consider in
evaluating whether an alien merits release on bond).
The Immigration Judge did not consider the significant discrepancies in
the 	record 	regarding 	the 	respondent’s 	residence. 	According 	to 	the
Form 	I-213, 	Record 	of 	Deportable/Inadmissible 	Alien, 	DHS 	agents
encountered the respondent living and working at a business that was
illegally growing marijuana in Oklahoma. 	The respondent’s bond request
worksheet 	asserts 	he 	was 	detained 	by 	immigration 	officials 	“at 	[his]
residence.” However, in the asylum application he filed with United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the respondent indicated that he
resides in California. The respondent’s purported sponsor also claims to live
at the same address in California. 	The respondent bears the burden of
resolving discrepancies in the record, and he has not done so here.
Furthermore, although the respondent’s alleged sponsor states in his
affidavit that he is the respondent’s cousin, the respondent has submitted no
evidence to verify this claimed relationship. 	See Matter of Dobrotvorskii,
29 I&N Dec. 211, 213–14 (BIA 2025) (explaining that “evidence of a
legitimate sponsor relates directly to whether the alien has a fixed address,
which is a flight risk factor”). In addition, the fact that the respondent has an
affirmative asylum application pending does not sufficiently mitigate his
flight risk. 	See Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803, 806–07 (BIA 2020)
(explaining that an application for relief may not be a sufficiently strong
incentive to ensure a respondent’s appearance); see also Matter of E-Y-F-G-,
29 I&N Dec. 103, 104–05 (BIA 2025) (providing that even an Immigration
Judge’s grant of relief may not adequately mitigate flight risk).
Overall, the discrepancies in the record regarding whether the respondent
resides in Oklahoma, where he was apprehended, or California, as claimed
in 	his 	application, 	when 	considered 	as 	part 	of 	the 	totality 	of 	the
circumstances, demonstrate that the respondent is a flight risk and does not

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 511 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4172
page
513
warrant release on bond. Therefore, we will vacate the Immigration Judge’s
decision and order the respondent detained without bond.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s September 22, 2025,
decision ordering the respondent released on $7,500 bond is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The respondent is ordered detained without
bond.