SHENTU

page
595
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4188
Matter of Yujing SHENTU, Respondent
Decided April 27, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
An FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating that the respondent is a potential national
security risk warrants significant weight in bond proceedings.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: John R. Odle, Assistant Chief
Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board 	Panel: 	MALPHRUS, 	Chief 	Appellate 	Immigration 	Judge;
HUNSUCKER and CHABAN, Appellate Immigration Judges.
MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals an Immigration
Judge’s bond order dated February 27, 2025, granting the respondent’s
request for a change in custody status and releasing her from custody upon
payment of a $7,500 bond. 	The Immigration Judge issued a memorandum
explaining the bond decision on April 8, 2025. During the pendency of the
appeal, the respondent filed a motion to terminate and a motion to compel
discovery or suppress evidence. 	We will sustain the appeal, deny the
respondent’s motions, vacate the Immigration Judge’s decision, and order
the respondent detained without bond.
On April 12, 2024, DHS served the respondent, who is a native and
citizen of the People’s Republic of China, a notice to appear charging her
with 	removability 	under 	section 	237(a)(1)(B) 	of 	the 	Immigration 	and
Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2024), as an alien who
is present in the United States in violation of law. 	On February 15, 2025,
DHS took the respondent into custody pursuant to section 236(a) of the INA,
8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1226(a) 	(2024), 	and 	the 	respondent 	requested 	a 	bond
redetermination.
Prior to the bond redetermination hearing, DHS filed an FBI Letterhead
Memorandum dated November 6, 2024, in support of its position that the
respondent represents a national security risk and should remain in detention.
In granting the respondent’s release on bond, the Immigration Judge noted

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4188
page
596
that DHS did not present the author of the FBI memorandum for testimony,
the respondent contested DHS’ allegations, and the respondent “showed
respectful demeanor and appeared truthful” in her testimony that she had
never been a member of the Chinese military and had not held any position
with or been a member of the Chinese Communist Party. The Immigration
Judge 	granted 	a 	change 	in 	custody 	status 	after 	determining 	that 	the
respondent established her release would not pose a danger to persons or
property and that she is not a flight risk. 	See INA § 236(a), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). 	On appeal, DHS argues that the Immigration Judge erred in
weighing the evidence and that the respondent did not carry her burden of
establishing she is not a danger.
At a bond hearing conducted pursuant to section 236(a) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the burden of proof is on the respondent to demonstrate
that “release would not pose a danger to property or persons,” and that the
respondent “is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” 	8 C.F.R.
§ 1236.1(c)(8) (2026); accord Matter of Salas Pena, 29 I&N Dec. 173, 174
(BIA 2025); Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102, 1112–13 (BIA 1999); see
also Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009) (“Dangerous aliens
are properly detained without bond.”); Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37,
39–40 (BIA 2006). An Immigration Judge has broad discretion to consider
any matter deemed relevant when determining whether an alien’s release on
bond is permissible or advisable. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 39–
40.
Moreover, dangerousness determinations may properly consider national
security concerns and need not be limited to evidence of prior criminal
conduct. 	Matter of Fatahi, 26 I&N Dec. 791, 793–94 (BIA 2016) (“The
Supreme 	Court 	has 	long 	recognized 	national 	security 	concerns 	as 	a
fundamental 	consideration 	in 	immigration 	bond 	proceedings.”) 	(citing
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523–24 (2003)). Section 236(a) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), “does not give detained aliens any right to release on
bond.” 	Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. 572, 575 (A.G. 2003) (emphasis in
original). Rather, it “merely gives the [Immigration Judge] the authority to
grant bond if he [or she] concludes, in the exercise of broad discretion, that
the alien’s release on bond is warranted.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Immigration Judge gave
insufficient weight to DHS’ evidence and that the respondent did not carry
her burden to show that her release would not pose a danger to persons or
property. 	8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2026), 1236.1(c)(8); see Matter of
Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40; Matter of Fatahi, 26 I&N Dec. at 793–94. The
FBI Letterhead Memorandum submitted by DHS states that the respondent

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4188
page
597
is the subject of an active national security investigation and is believed to
be engaged with a foreign government in a manner that presents a national
security threat. The respondent argues that the FBI Letterhead Memorandum
is unsigned, unsworn, and therefore inherently unreliable.
We reject the respondent’s argument that the Immigration Judge erred by
admitting the FBI Letterhead Memorandum. “In immigration proceedings,
the ‘sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative
and its admission is fundamentally fair.’” 	Matter of E-F-N-, 28 I&N Dec.
591, 593 (BIA 2022) (quoting Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 458 (BIA
2011), remanded on other grounds, Radojkovic v. Holder, 599 F. App’x 646
(9th Cir. 2015)). 	Further, courts have long recognized that public officials
are presumed to perform their duties properly and that records made by
public officials in the ordinary course of their duties carry strong indicia of
reliability. See, e.g., Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988)
(holding that a Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, is
inherently reliable and admissible to prove alienage); see also Olender v.
United States, 210 F.2d 795, 801 (9th Cir. 1954) (holding that “records and
reports prepared by [government] officials in the course of their duties are
generally trustworthy”). Immigration proceedings are civil in nature and are
not governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. 	Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N
Dec. at 445. 	In addition, “hearsay rules are not binding in immigration
proceedings.” Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 337 (BIA 2021).
While the respondent disagrees with the FBI Letterhead Memorandum
and asserts that it is based on undisclosed intelligence, anonymous sources,
and ethnic suspicion rather than on actual evidence, she has not carried her
burden of establishing that the evidence was inaccurate, obtained by coercion
or duress, or otherwise fundamentally unfair to admit. 	See Matter of
Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. at 611; Matter of Gomez-Gomez, 23 I&N Dec. 522,
524 (BIA 2002) (en banc). 	Accordingly, it was properly admitted into
evidence. 	The evidentiary review conducted in bond proceedings is based
on “a preliminary evaluation of the facts and evidence” and is necessarily
more flexible and less structured than an adversarial hearing on the merits.
Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803, 804 (BIA 2020). 	Therefore, an
Immigration Judge may consider probative evidence of conduct and risk in
assessing custody, even if that evidence may not prove to be sufficient to
support ultimate determinations in the underlying removal proceedings. See
id.; Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 39–40.
These considerations are especially important in bond proceedings where,
as here, the evidence bears on national security. 	The Board has held that
dangerousness in the bond context may be established through direct or

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4188
page
598
circumstantial evidence reflecting threats to national security. 	Matter of
Fatahi, 26 I&N Dec. at 793–94; see also Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. 572,
579 (A.G. 2003) (holding that national security considerations provide a
reasonable foundation to deny release on bond under section 236(a) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). 	Immigration Judges may properly consider
agency 	intelligence 	assessments, 	investigative 	memoranda, 	and 	other
government records that are probative of whether the respondent’s release
would present a danger, including a potential national security risk. 	See
Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. at 579; see also Matter of J-A-, 29 I&N Dec.
253, 255–56 (BIA 2025) (holding that an FBI memorandum was properly
admitted and considered as probative evidence bearing on whether the alien
presents a national security risk). 	Given the Government’s compelling
interest in addressing national security threats, bond proceedings may
consider investigative assessments relating to that risk.
In light of the above, we conclude that the FBI Letterhead Memorandum
was properly admitted. An FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating that the
respondent is a potential national security risk warrants significant weight in
bond proceedings. 	See Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I&N Dec. 209, 212
(BIA 2010) (“[T]he Board has authority to give different weight to the
evidence from that given by the Immigration Judge.”), rev’d on other
grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). In this
case, the memorandum was issued on FBI letterhead by the Unit Chief of the
China Foreign Influence Unit of the Counterintelligence Division and states
that the FBI maintains an active investigation of the respondent based on its
belief that she is employed by and actively engaged with the Chinese
Government. Such evidence is clearly probative of whether the respondent’s
release would pose a danger, including a potential national security risk. See
Matter of Fatahi, 26 I&N Dec. at 793–94; Matter of J-A-, 29 I&N Dec. at
255–56. 	The respondent offered no persuasive evidence rebutting the
substance of the FBI’s national security assessment. She relied primarily on
the absence of criminal history, community ties, and general denials of
wrongdoing. 	Although such factors are relevant, they are insufficient to
outweigh a facially credible national security assessment by a government
agency in these bond proceedings. 	See Matter of Fatahi, 26 I&N Dec. at
794–95.
Accordingly, on this record, the respondent has failed to meet her burden
of establishing that her release would not pose a danger to persons or
property. 	In light of the FBI memorandum and the absence of meaningful

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4188
page
599
countervailing evidence addressing the national security concerns it raises,
continued detention is warranted.1
The respondent’s remaining challenges to DHS’ evidence fall outside the
limited scope of these bond proceedings, which are “separate and apart from
the removal hearing.” Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40 n.2. These bond
proceedings address only whether the respondent should remain detained
during the pendency of removal proceedings and are not a final resolution of
contested 	factual 	allegations, 	suppression 	claims, 	or 	the 	ultimate
determination of removability or relief from removal. 	See Matter of
R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. at 804.
The respondent’s motion to terminate removal proceedings and related
arguments concerning the notice to appear, jurisdiction, and other arguments
are likewise not properly before us in this custody appeal. 	See id. 	Those
other issues must be litigated in the underlying removal proceedings.
Therefore, we will deny the respondent’s motions.
Accordingly, we will sustain DHS’ appeal and order that the respondent
remain detained without bond.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent’s motions are denied.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The Immigration Judge’s decision is vacated,
and the respondent is ordered detained without bond.
1 	We decline to address whether the respondent is a flight risk as a finding of
dangerousness is legally dispositive of the alien’s eligibility for release. Matter of Urena,
25 I&N Dec. at 141.