MORALES CUXUN

page
121
Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 121 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4255
Matter of Roberto MORALES CUXUN, Respondent
Decided by Board August 31, 2026 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The respondent did not meet his burden to show he is not a danger to the community
where he has a conviction and arrests for driving and boating under the influence and a
very recent arrest for domestic assault.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Molly Bowen, Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	RADICS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge;
GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judge; WANG, Temporary Appellate Immigration
Judge.
RADICS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security (“DHS”) appeals 	from 	the
Immigration Judge’s June 24, 2026, decision granting the respondent’s
release on $9,000 bond. 	The respondent has not responded to the appeal.
The appeal will be sustained, the Immigration Judge’s decision will be
vacated, and the respondent will be ordered detained without bond.
A respondent in a custody determination under section 236(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (2024), must
establish to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge and this Board that he
or she does not present a danger to persons or property, is not a threat to the
national security, and does not pose a risk of flight. 	Matter of Adeniji,
22 I&N Dec. 1102, 1112–13 (BIA 1999). 	A respondent who presents a
danger to persons or property should not be released during the pendency of
proceedings to remove him or her from the United States. 	Matter of
Drysdale, 20 I&N Dec. 815, 817 (BIA 1994). The purpose behind detaining
criminal respondents is to ensure their appearance at removal proceedings
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 7209-2026, dated September 24, 2026, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Morales Cuxun (BIA August 31, 2026), as
precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3)
(2026). Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 121 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4255
page
122
and to prevent them from engaging in further criminal activity. 	Matter of
Kotliar, 24 I&N Dec. 124, 127 (BIA 2007).
Upon de novo review, we agree with DHS that the respondent did not
meet his burden of establishing that he is not a danger to the community. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2026); Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140 (BIA
2009); Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).
The respondent has an extensive criminal record in the United States,
including a March 8, 2022, conviction for third degree driving while
intoxicated, a September 13, 2021, arrest for operating a motorboat under the
influence, a June 20, 2021, arrest for driving while impaired, and another
arrest on May 2, 2026—less than 2 months before his bond hearing—for
domestic assault, which the record indicates is pending adjudication, as well
as several motor vehicle violations. See generally Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N
Dec. at 41 (observing that an Immigration Judge may consider arrests that
did not result in convictions as unfavorable evidence of an alien’s conduct).
The 	circumstances 	of 	the 	respondent’s 	domestic 	violence 	charge 	are
particularly troubling. 	In response to the Immigration Judge’s questioning
during the bond hearing, the respondent reluctantly admitted to striking his
partner in the face in the presence of their children and his partner’s nephew.
A nephew called the police in this incident.
Upon our de novo review, we find that the respondent’s equities,
including, inter alia, his employment, lengthy presence in the United States,
family and community ties, and character letters, do not meet his burden of
proof. See Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207, 210 (BIA 2018) (noting
that “family and community ties generally do not mitigate an alien’s
dangerousness”). We afford substantial weight to the respondent’s 2021 and
2022 arrests for driving and boating under the influence, to include the
circumstances surrounding the arrests. See id. at 209 (explaining that driving
under the influence is a significant adverse consideration in determining
whether a respondent is a danger to the community in bond proceedings); see
also Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 141 (2008) (recognizing that
“[d]runk driving is an extremely dangerous crime” which creates a serious
potential risk of physical injury to others), abrogated on other grounds by
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). 	Indeed, the seriousness,
recidivism, 	recency, 	and 	circumstances 	surrounding 	the 	respondent’s
criminal history in the United States weigh heavily against him meeting his
burden of establishing that he is not a danger to the community. See Matter
of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 38, 40; Begay, 553 U.S. at 141 (recognizing that
drunk driving is an extremely dangerous crime creating a risk to the lives and
property of others); Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. at 209 (“Driving

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 121 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4255
page
123
under 	the 	influence 	is 	a 	significant 	adverse 	consideration 	in 	bond
proceedings.”).
While we recognize that the respondent has presented evidence of his
equities in the United States, we agree with DHS that this evidence is
insufficient to overcome the seriousness of the respondent’s criminal history
or otherwise demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community. 	See
Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40 (“An Immigration Judge has broad
discretion in deciding the factors that he or she may consider in custody
redeterminations . . . [and] may choose to give greater weight to one factor
over others, as long as the decision is reasonable.”). Neither the respondent’s
family, community ties, nor his apparent efforts to comply with rehabilitation
programs are sufficient to mitigate his dangerousness, particularly given the
severity and recency of his arrests. See Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec.
at 209–10. Under the totality of the circumstances presented and after careful
review, we disagree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent’s
positive factors outweigh his identified criminal history.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER 	ORDER: 	The Immigration Judge’s June 24, 2026,
decision granting bond is vacated, and the respondent will be held without
bond.