Interim Decision #3124
MATTER OF ULUOCHA
In Bond Proceedings Pursuant To 8 C.F.R. § 242.2(d)
A-26422976
Decided by Board November 15, 1989
(1) The bond regulations-(8 C.F.R. §§ 3.18(a) and 242.2(d) (1989)), which establish
unique and informal proceedings, do not specifically address motions to reopen and
do not expressly limit a detained alien to one application for modification of the
amount or terms of a bond.
(2) Immigration judges can further consider requests to modify bonds by detained aliens
without a formal motion to reopen under
8 C.F.R. § 242.22 (1989).
(1) Further requests to modify bonds should be considered on the merits and if there are
no changed circumstances shown, the immigration judge can decline to change the
prior bond decision. Matter of Chew,
18 I&N Dec. 262 (BIA 1982), followed.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
John P. Navarre, Esquire Nora Kathryn Duncan
P.O. Drawer C-R General Attorney
Oakdale, Louisiana 71463
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Yam% and Heilman, Board Members
In a decision rendered March 31, 1989, an immigration judge
granted the respondent's request, through counsel, for a change in
custody status and ordered that the respondent be released from
custody under bond of $10,000. No appeal was taken from that
decision. On April 19, 1989, the respondent filed a motion to reopen
bond proceedings. In a decision dated April 24, 1989, the immigration
judge denied the respondent's motion. The respondent has appealed
from that decision. For the reasons discussed below, the record will be
returned to the Office of the Immigration Judge without further
action.
The respondent is a married male alien, a native and citizen of
Nigeria. In the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form I-
221), the Immigration and Naturalization Service charged the respondent with deportability for having been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude (theft and receipt of stolen mail) committed within 5
years after entry and sentenced to confinement therefor in a prison or
133
Interim Decision #3124
corrective institution for a year or more. In the Notification to Alien of
Conditions of Release or Detention (Form 1-286), the officer in charge
set bond at $15,000.
In the respondent's motion to reopen, he asked for the bond to be
reduced to $5,000. He stated that his wife has to take care of her sick
mother as well as her 17-year-old brother. The respondent stated that
he wants to receive his college degree from the University of Houston
this year and make arrangements for his family in the event he is
deported.
The immigration judge denied the respondent's motion to reopen
on the ground that he had failed to persuade the immigration judge
that the motion should be granted in the exercise of discretion.
On appeal, the respondent contends that because of his strong ties
with his family and school there is no reason to keep his bond at
$10,000 and it should be lowered to $5,000, which is a substantial and
reasonable bond.
Bond proceedings before immigration judges are governed by 8
C.F.R. §§ 3.18(a) and 242.2(d) (1989). Immigration judges can further
consider requests to modify bonds by detained aliens without a formal
motion to reopen under
8 C.F.R. § 242.22 (1989). The bond
regulations, which establish unique and informal proceedings, do not
specifically address motions to reopen and do not expressly limit a
detained alien to one application for modification of the amount or
terms of a bond.
In Matter of Chew,
18 I&N Dec. 262, 263 (BIA 1982), we noted that
the bond regulations give a detained alien the right to apply to an
immigration judge for modification of the conditions of his release at
any time after an initial custody determination has been made by the
district director and before an order of deportation becomes administratively final. 1 See
8 C.F.R. § 242.2(d) (1989). Matter of Chew
suggests that a respondent is not limited to only one bond reduction
request. Bond proceedings are not really "closed" so long as a
respondent is subject to a bond. If there are no changed circumstances
shown, the immigration judge can decline to change the prior bond
decision. See
id. at 263 n.2. However, such requests should be
considered on the merits and not denied for failure to satisfy the
technical requirements of
8 C.F.R. § 242.22 (1989) regarding motions
to reopen.
If the present respondent were still in custody, we would remand
1 If an alien has been released from custody, however, he must apply to the
immigration judge for modification of the conditions of his release within 7 days from
the date of release; thereafter, his application can only be considered by the district
director. See
8 C.F.R. § 242.2(d) (1989).
134
Interim Decision #3124
this case to provide the immigration judge the opportunity to address
the bond reduction request on the merits. However, the respondent
was released from custody after a $10,000 bond was posted on May 24,
1989. Thus, under 8 C.F.R. § 242.2(d) (1989), the respondent may
now only apply to the district director for a reduction in bond.
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER The record is returned to the Office of the Immigration Judge without further action.
135
