MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ

page
656
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 656 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4198
Matter of Manuel Dejesus MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Respondent
Decided by Board April 29, 20261
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The respondent’s conviction for false imprisonment and his arrest on other charges
demonstrate that he is a danger to the community and does not warrant release on bond.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Philip J. Hunter, Esquire, Baton Rouge, LA
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Luke Oberhansley, Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: RADICS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; OWEN
and GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judges.
GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals the order of the
Immigration Judge, dated February 17, 2026, ordering the respondent’s
release from detention upon the posting of a bond in the amount of $15,000.
The Immigration Judge, on March 11, 2026, issued a memorandum setting
forth the reasons for the decision. We will sustain the appeal and vacate the
Immigration Judge’s bond decision.
It is the respondent’s burden to demonstrate that he does not pose any
danger to the community. See Matter of Choc-Tut, 29 I&N Dec. 48, 49 (BIA
2025); Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207, 207–09 (BIA 2018); Matter
of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (holding that “the alien’s criminal
record, including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such
activity, and the seriousness of the offenses” is relevant to a determination of
whether the alien merits release on bond). Whether an alien poses a danger
to the community is a question of judgment that we review de novo, but the
factual findings underlying such a judgment are reviewed for clear error.
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 6873-2026, dated May 26, 2026, the Acting Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Martinez-Rodriguez (BIA Apr. 29, 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 29 I&N Dec. 656 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4198
page
657
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii) (2026); Matter of Beltrand-Rodriguez, 29 I&N
Dec. 76, 77 (BIA 2025).
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. The respondent was arrested in Knox County, Tennessee,
on April 25, 2019, for vandalism, domestic violence, and aggravated
burglary charges. 	He pled guilty to a single offense of false imprisonment
on August 11, 2021, and was sentenced to 348 days in state custody.
While we acknowledge the Immigration Judge’s findings, we conclude
that, considering the nature and seriousness of the respondent’s criminal
history, the respondent did not meet his burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that he is not a danger to the community. See Matter of
Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 39–40 (holding that Immigration Judges have broad
discretion in deciding the factors to consider in custody redeterminations and
are not limited to considering only criminal convictions in assessing whether
an alien is a danger to the community); Matter of Thomas, 21 I&N Dec. 23
(BIA 1995) (observing that evidence of unfavorable conduct, including
criminal conduct which has not culminated in a final conviction, may be
considered in discretionary determinations); see also Matter of V-A-K-,
28 I&N Dec. 630, 636 (BIA 2022) (noting that generic burglary is an
inherently dangerous crime because it “creates the possibility of a violent
confrontation between the offender and an occupant, caretaker, or some other
person who comes to investigate”) (citation omitted).
Thus, we conclude that the respondent has not met his burden to show
that he would not pose a danger to the community and is therefore ineligible
for bond. The finding of future dangerousness in bond proceedings is legally
dispositive of the respondent’s eligibility for release. 	Matter of Urena,
25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009); Matter of Drysdale, 20 I&N Dec. 815,
817 (BIA 1994) (“[I]f the alien cannot demonstrate that he is not a danger to
the community upon consideration of the relevant factors, he should be
detained in the custody of the Service.”). 	Hence, we need not reach DHS’
argument that the respondent should be denied bond as a flight risk. Matter
of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. at 141 (“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.”).
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The Immigration Judge’s decision is vacated,
and the respondent is ordered detained without bond.