AKHMEDOV

Page
166
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025) 	Interim Decision #4113
Matter of Gairat AKHMEDOV, Respondent
Decided by Board June 30, 20251
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Significant discrepancies regarding whether the respondent lives in New York or
Michigan and his past failure to file timely change of address notices with the Immigration
Court, when considered in the totality of the circumstances, demonstrate that the
respondent is a flight risk and does not warrant release on bond.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Vano I. Haroutunian, Esquire, New York, New York
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Aaron T. Keesler, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MANN, BAIRD, and MAHTABFAR, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
BAIRD, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security 	(“DHS”) 	has 	appealed 	the
Immigration Judge’s February 3, 2025, decision ordering the respondent’s
release from detention upon posting a $15,000 bond.2 	The respondent is
opposed to the appeal. The appeal will be sustained.
The respondent’s custody determination is governed by the provisions of
section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
(2018). 	An alien in a custody determination under this section “must
establish to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge and the 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 Siniauskas,
27 I&N Dec. 207, 207 (BIA 2018). “Dangerous aliens are properly detained
without bond,” so an Immigration Judge should only set a bond if it is first
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 6354-2025, dated August 4, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Akhmedov (BIA June 30, 2025), as precedent
in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2 	On March 6, 2025, the Immigration Judge issued a bond memorandum setting forth the
reasons for the decision.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025) 	Interim Decision #4113
page
167
determined that the alien does not present a danger to the community.
Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009).
Whether the respondent has satisfied his burden of proof for bond is a
legal question the Board reviews de novo. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii)
(2025). While we acknowledge the Immigration Judge’s broad discretion in
deciding whether or not to release an alien on bond, we agree with DHS that
the respondent did not meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that he is not
a flight risk. See Matter of E-Y-F-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 103, 104–05 (BIA 2025)
(concluding that the respondent had not met her burden on flight risk despite
a grant of relief from removal which was not final).
On appeal, DHS argues that the respondent has presented inconsistent
evidence regarding whether he has a fixed address in the United States. See
id. at 104 (identifying factors used in assessing whether an alien merits
release on bond). The respondent, a native and citizen of Russia, entered the
United States unlawfully in January 2022. At a February 2025 bond hearing,
the respondent claimed he had a permanent address residing in Michigan,
where he has family ties including his brother-in-law. However, the record
establishes that the respondent has ties to New York, where he has lived, and
that he only recently reported to the Immigration Court that he was living at
an address in Michigan.
In support of his request for custody redetermination, the respondent
submitted a letter from a cousin who purportedly resides in Rego Park,
New 	York, 	and 	who 	specifically 	offered 	to 	provide 	shelter 	to 	the
respondent. 	In its brief, DHS advises that in July 2023, the respondent
notified the Immigration Court that he was living in Rego Park, New York,
and that he filed a motion to change venue from Michigan to New York in
October 2023.3 	DHS further points out that when the respondent was
encountered on January 15, 2025, by immigration officers in Michigan, his
address of record with the Immigration Court was still in New York, even
though he told the officers he was living in Michigan. 	The electronic
administrative records of this agency reflect that the respondent did not
change his address with the Immigration Court from New York to Michigan
until after his encounter with immigration officers in January 2025.4 	See
3 	We observe that the respondent submitted evidence regarding an employment
authorization card, which was mailed to him at an address in New York, New York, in
February 2023, approximately 5 months before the respondent notified the Immigration
Court of his change of address from Michigan to New York.
4 	The record includes a Change of Address/Contact Information Form Immigration Court
(Form EOIR-33/IC), which was filed on February 12, 2025, indicating that the

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025) 	Interim Decision #4113
page
168
Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665, 674–75 (BIA 2008) (stating that an
alien must comply with the statutory responsibility to provide current address
information); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d)(2) (2025) (requiring an alien to provide
notice to the Immigration Court of any move within 5 days).
The respondent’s arguments before the Board regarding DHS’ address
concerns are not persuasive. In particular, his argument that he “eventually
report[ed]” his change of address from New York to Michigan does not
address why his address with the Immigration Court changed only after he
was encountered by immigration officers in January 2025, a period of more
than 1 year after he filed a request to change venue from Michigan to
New York. Nor does it provide any detail regarding why the February 2025
change of address form in the record, submitted after the respondent
indicated to immigration officers that he was living at 2331 Poland St.,
Hamtramck, Michigan, indicates the respondent moved from an address in
Port 	Huron, 	Michigan, 	to 	the 	same 	address 	he 	provided 	immigration
officers.5
The Immigration Judge did not address these address discrepancies, the
respondent’s length of residence in this country is short, and the merits of
any claims to relief from removal are unknown. 	See Matter of R-A-V-P-,
27 I&N Dec. 803, 806–07 (BIA 2020) (recognizing that the likelihood that a
respondent will be granted relief is a factor to consider in determining flight
risk). 	Overall, considering the totality of the circumstances, we are not
persuaded that the respondent has met his burden of demonstrating that he is
not a flight risk. See Matter of E-Y-F-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 105. No monetary
bond, even if coupled with alternatives to detention, would be sufficient to
ensure the respondent’s appearance at future immigration hearings and, if
necessary, his surrender for removal from this country.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The Immigration Judge’s decision ordering the
respondent released on $15,000 bond is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered detained without bond.
respondent’s address changed from an address in Port Huron, Michigan, to an address in
Hamtramck, Michigan.
5 	The 2331 Poland St., Hamtramck, Michigan address also differs from where the
respondent’s brother-in-law resides in Hamtramck, Michigan.