An immigration judge approved release on a $15,000 bond. The Department of Homeland Security appealed, and on November 10 the Board of Immigration Appeals set the decision aside. The only issue on appeal was flight risk: whether the man would show up for future proceedings. The Board sent the case back for a new decision without deciding that question itself.
The precedent, Matter of G-M-T-, draws a distinction between what a judge can consider at a bond hearing and what the judge should explain if the decision is appealed. A lawyer can present an account of the facts without calling a witness. A judge can sometimes credit a credible, undisputed account without supporting documents. But if either side offers a competing account of a fact that matters to bond, or points out that the account lacks support or conflicts with the record, the judge should explain in the written bond memorandum how much weight each account deserves and why. That explanation can come after the hearing.
The dispute over taxes shows why the written explanation matters. DHS questioned the man’s claimed business activity because there were no supporting tax returns in the bond record. The judge credited his statement that he had paid taxes since 2012. The Board found the memorandum did not explain why the judge credited it despite the objection. That is a finding about the record and the judge’s explanation; the Board did not find that the man failed to pay taxes.
The Board saw a similar gap in the letters from proposed sponsors. The letters mainly described the man’s character. The memorandum did not explain how the sponsors, who were in Kansas, would help him appear for immigration proceedings in Colorado. A letter vouching for someone’s character and an account of how that person would get to court answer different questions.
On return, the judge is to weigh the disputed information against the whole record, explain what weight it deserves, and decide whether the man has shown he is not a flight risk. The ruling addresses the reasons for a bond decision where bond is already at issue. It does not give anyone a new right to a bond hearing.