Dubon Miranda

Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                                 Interim Decision #4144




     Matter of Oscar Alfredo DUBON MIRANDA, Respondent
                      Decided by Board September 22, 2025 1
                           U.S. Department of Justice
                    Executive Office for Immigration Review
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

  Given the respondent’s inappropriate and concerning behavior with his stepdaughter, his
criminal convictions for driving under the influence and disturbing the peace, and the lack
of information explaining the disturbing the peace convictions, the respondent has not
satisfied his burden of demonstrating that he is not a danger to the community.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: John D. DeWald, Esquire, Omaha, Nebraska
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Kourtney A. Greenfield,
Assistant Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel:          MULLANE, HUNSUCKER, and GEMOETS, Appellate
Immigration Judges.
HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judge:


    The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals the Immigration
Judge’s July 17, 2024, decision ordering the release of the respondent upon
payment of a $7,000 bond subject to conditions within DHS’ discretion. The
Immigration Judge issued a bond memorandum explaining the reasons for
the determination on August 20, 2024. The respondent opposes the appeal.
We will sustain DHS’ appeal, vacate the Immigration Judge’s bond decision,
and order the respondent detained in DHS’ custody.

   The Immigration Judge found that the respondent established he was not
a danger to the community. 2 DHS argues the Immigration Judge erred in

1
   Pursuant to Order No. 6522-2025, dated December 8, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Dubon Miranda (BIA Sept. 22, 2025), as
precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 

(g)(3)
(2025). Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2
    During the pendency of this appeal, the Board issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which
held that “Immigration Judges lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond to
aliens . . . who are present in the United States without admission.” Matter of
Yajure Hurtado, 

 (BIA 2025). While neither party has raised the
issue of jurisdiction in this case, it appears the respondent may be present in the United
States without admission. If so, the Immigration Judge would lack jurisdiction to hear the
                                           page
                                           335
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                                Interim Decision #4144




finding that the respondent is not a danger to the community. In bond
proceedings, respondents bear the burden to show they are not a danger to
the community or such a flight risk that no bond amount would be sufficient
to secure their appearance. See Matter of Urena, 

(BIA 2009); Matter of Guerra, 

 (BIA 2006).

    Upon our de novo review, we conclude that the Immigration Judge erred
in determining that the respondent met his burden to show he is not a danger
to the community. See Matter of Beltrand-Rodriguez, 

(BIA 2025) (“Whether an alien poses a danger to the community upon release
or is a flight risk are questions of judgment that we review de novo, but the
factual findings underlying such judgments are reviewed for clear error.”);
see also 

(d)(3)(i)–(ii) (2025). It is undisputed that the
respondent was charged with Third Degree Sexual Assault of a Child on
September 28, 2022, and two counts of Third Degree Sexual Assault of a
Child on July 10, 2022. They stem from allegations that the respondent
touched his stepdaughter in a sexual manner on several occasions when she
was between 7 and 12 years old and sent her text messages asking that he be
her boyfriend. While these charges were dismissed and the stepdaughter
recanted her claims about being physically touched, the Immigration Judge
clearly erred in giving such definitive weight to these factors. They do not
resolve the question of whether the respondent was a danger to his
stepdaughter or is a danger to other children given the other serious factors
present.

    Specifically, the Immigration Judge found, without clear error, that the
respondent sent his stepdaughter text messages that stated he wanted to be
her boyfriend. The Immigration Judge correctly characterized the text
messages as “inappropriate.” The Immigration Judge also found, without
clear error, that the respondent attempted to enter his stepdaughter’s room
while intoxicated. The respondent’s inappropriate request to a minor that he
be her boyfriend and his attempts to enter her room while intoxicated suggest
he may have, at the very least, attempted to “subject[] a person who was
particularly vulnerable because of her age and her familial relationship to the
respondent to unlawful sexual conduct.” Matter of Beltrand-Rodriguez,
29 I&N Dec. at 78. Such behavior is highly indicative of being a danger to
the community. See id.


respondent’s bond request. Id. However, because the respondent will be held without
bond for the reasons discussed in this decision, it is not necessary to address the
jurisdictional issue at this time. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 

 (1976)
(explaining that as a general rule, “courts and agencies are not required to make findings
on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach”).
                                          Page
                                          336
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                       Interim Decision #4144




    The Immigration Judge also found, without clear error, that the
respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of disturbing the peace based on
incidents that appear related to his stepdaughter. These criminal convictions
are also indicative of his dangerousness. See Matter of Guerra, 

 (identifying “the alien’s criminal record” as a relevant factor in bond
determinations). The Immigration Judge found, without clear error, that
when asked what he did to commit the offense, the respondent said he entered
a guilty plea so “everything could end.” This nonresponsive answer and the
lack of additional evidence explaining the disturbing the peace convictions
leaves open questions about what the respondent did, which is key to
assessing his dangerousness. It is particularly concerning given the
inappropriate conduct the respondent exhibited toward his stepdaughter and
that these convictions appear to be related to his stepdaughter.

    Finally, it is undisputed that the respondent was convicted of driving
under the influence of liquor in 2010. This fact further illustrates the
respondent’s dangerousness, particularly given the Immigration Judge’s
finding as to the respondent’s more recent behavior involving his
stepdaughter while intoxicated. See Matter of Choc-Tut, 

(BIA 2025) (“Driving under the influence represents a grave danger to the
community and is a significant adverse consideration in bond proceedings.”).

    As stated, the respondent bears the burden of demonstrating that he is not
a danger to the community. See Matter of Urena, 

; Matter
of Guerra, 

. Given the respondent’s inappropriate and
concerning behavior with his stepdaughter, his criminal convictions for
driving under the influence and disturbing the peace, and the lack of
information explaining the disturbing the peace convictions, the respondent
has not satisfied this burden. “Dangerous aliens are properly detained
without bond,” and we will therefore reverse the Immigration Judge’s grant
of a bond. Matter of Urena, 

. Because the respondent
has not established he is not a danger to the community, it is not necessary
to address the Immigration Judge’s flight risk finding. See 

 (“Only if an
alien demonstrates that he does not pose a danger to the community should
an Immigration Judge continue to a determination regarding the extent of
flight risk posed by the alien.”). Accordingly, the following orders are
entered.

   ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
   FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s July 17, 2024, order
granting the respondent’s release on payment of a $7,000 bond is vacated.

                                     Page
                                     337
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)             Interim Decision #4144




   FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered held in DHS’ custody
without bond.




                                     Page
                                     338