Y-M-B-

page
99
Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4251
Matter of Y-M-B-, Respondent
Decided by Board August 21, 2026 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The respondent did not meet his burden to establish that he is not a flight risk where he
engaged in asylum fraud and where the Immigration Judge denied his application for
asylum.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Leah N. Haynes, Esquire, Merrifield, Virginia
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Darren Crew, Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	GOODWIN and GEMOETS, Appellate Immigration Judges;
TERRIEN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
TERRIEN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security (“DHS”) appeals 	from 	the
Immigration Judge’s April 20, 2026, order granting the respondent’s release
from custody on a bond of $12,000. 	On May 28, 2026, the Immigration
Judge issued a memorandum setting forth his rationale for granting a bond.
The respondent opposes the appeal. The appeal will be sustained.
When 	reviewing 	bond 	determinations, 	we 	review 	the 	Immigration
Judge’s 	underlying 	factual 	findings 	for 	clear 	error, 	but 	whether 	the
respondent poses a flight risk is a question of judgment we review de novo.
Matter of A-L-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 794, 798 (BIA 2026).
On our de novo review, we determine that the facts found by the
Immigration Judge do not meet the respondent’s burden to establish that he
is not a flight risk. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2026). Two facts stand out.
First, 	the 	respondent, 	who 	entered 	the 	United 	States 	without 	lawful
authorization, admittedly filed an application for asylum that intentionally
misrepresented by omission the fact that he had traveled through Greece
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 7208-2026, dated September 24, 2026, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Y-M-B- (BIA August 21, 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. 99 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4251
page
100
before coming to the United States and had attempted to gain lawful status
there. This fact was material as it would have led to the revelation that the
respondent was granted asylum in Greece under a different identity with a
different name and different date of birth. 	This implicates critical issues
including the respondent’s identity, his credibility, statutory bars to relief,
and his willingness to commit immigration fraud in Greece, the United
States, or both countries. See Matter of I-S-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 811, 812 (BIA
2026) (explaining that “identity is ‘perhaps the most critical of elements’ of
an asylum claim” (citation omitted)). 	After DHS submitted evidence that
established the fraud, the respondent filed an affidavit that admitted the
omission was intentional, blamed his prior attorney, and indicated that he is
exploring a potential claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 	The
Immigration Judge correctly found that potentiality did not mitigate this
significant 	negative 	factor. 	“[E]vidence 	of 	an 	alien’s 	inconsistent
representations to immigration officials” is a “‘very serious adverse factor[]’
and compelling reason[] to conclude that the alien is a poor bail risk.” Matter
of A-W-M-K-, 29 I&N Dec 805, 809 (BIA 2026) (citation omitted).
Second, the respondent’s application for asylum and related relief was
denied by the Immigration Judge on February 13, 2025. While it is currently
pending on appeal, this is the only relief the respondent has pursued, and its
denial by the Immigration Judge reflects that the respondent’s prospects for
immigration relief are diminished. 	Id. at 806 (explaining that the denial of
an application for relief showed an alien’s “prospects for obtaining lawful
status in the United States are diminished”). 	Moreover, given the recent
revelation of apparent fraud in the respondent’s application and the host of
questions it raises about his identity, his credibility, and statutory bars to
relief, his prospects for success on appeal are remote. Id. at 808 (concluding
that “the likely success or failure of any viable defense against removal is a
proper factor in evaluating flight risk” and that “potentially serious adverse
evidence” in the record cuts against the likelihood of success); cf. Matter of
E-Y-F-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 103, 104–05 (BIA 2025) (providing that even an
Immigration Judge’s grant of relief may not adequately mitigate flight risk).
The respondent has equities in his favor, including the lack of a criminal
history, a fixed address in the United States, proof of authorized employment
and tax payment, and letters of support. 	On appeal, he argues that he has
never missed an immigration hearing. But “[i]nherent in the concept of flight
risk is not only whether the alien will appear at future hearings . . . , but also
whether the alien” will “comply with future orders.” 	Matter of A-L-S-,
29 I&N Dec. 794, 797 (BIA 2026). 	The incentives for the respondent to
appear at immigration hearings and thus prolong his proceedings in order to
remain in the United States are different than the incentives to comply with

Cite as 30 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4251
page
101
a final order of removal. Id. Particularly here, where the respondent filed an
application for immigration benefits that intentionally omitted significant
material facts which DHS discovered only after the application had already
been adjudicated, we have minimal confidence that he will comply with a
future order that enforces the immigration laws against him.
Ultimately, on our de novo review and weighing both positive and
negative factors, the respondent did not meet his burden to establish that he
is not a flight risk. Furthermore, given the aggravating factors present, there
is 	no 	monetary 	bond 	or 	non-monetary 	condition 	that 	can 	ensure 	the
respondent’s future appearance and compliance.
ORDER: 	DHS’ appeal is sustained, and the Immigration Judge’s
April 20, 2026, order granting release from custody on a $12,000 bond is
vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent shall be detained without bond.