BIA’s Decision in Matter of CHOC-TUT: Implications for Immigration Bond Proceedings

Case Overview
Felipe CHOC-TUT faced multiple arrests in 2024 for driving offenses, including three DUIs with high blood alcohol levels. Despite this, an IJ granted him a $4,000 bond, partly relying on a State court’s decision to set a low bail of $500. DHS appealed, arguing he was a danger to the community. The BIA agreed, overturning the IJ’s decision and ordering detention without bond, emphasizing the gravity of his repeated offenses. The BIA ruled that while IJs can consider State court decisions on dangerousness and bail, they don’t have to defer to them. This means IJs must judge based on immigration law, which can lead to stricter outcomes, like detention, even if State courts set a lower bail. This is crucial for immigrants with criminal records, as it may result in tougher detention decisions in immigration court.

The case involved Felipe CHOC-TUT, a respondent with multiple pending criminal charges related to driving offenses, including three arrests within a short period in 2024 for driving without a license, careless driving, and driving under the influence (DUI), with blood alcohol content levels of .201 and .214. The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially granted a bond of $4,000 on July 23, 2024, finding the respondent credible and not a danger to the community or a flight risk, partly relying on the State court’s decision to set a low bail of $500 after his third arrest.

DHS appealed this decision, arguing that the IJ erred in concluding the respondent met his burden of proving he was not a danger. In its decision dated February 25, 2025, the BIA sustained the appeal, vacated the IJ’s custody redetermination, and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

Legal Framework and Analysis

The legal framework for immigration bond proceedings is governed by Section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows IJs to grant bond if they conclude, in their discretion, that release is warranted. The burden is on the respondent to demonstrate they are not a danger to property or persons and are likely to appear for future proceedings, as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) (2025) and supported by precedents like Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999), and Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140 (BIA 2009).

The BIA’s ruling in Matter of CHOC-TUT specifically addressed the relationship between State court custody orders and immigration bond proceedings. The decision clarified that while IJs may consider a State court’s assessment of dangerousness and the amount of bail set, they do not defy these orders. This is because the legal standards for bail in State courts may differ from those in immigration court, and IJs must make independent determinations under the INA and applicable precedents, as reinforced by Matter of Panin, 28 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2024).
Key Findings and Reasoning

The BIA found that the IJ’s reliance on the State court’s low bail setting was misplaced, particularly given the respondent’s repeated and serious offenses. The decision highlighted that driving under the influence is a “grave danger to the community,” citing Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2018), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), which recognized DUI as an extremely dangerous crime. The respondent’s arrests, including a second DUI arrest just 18 days after the first, indicated a “strong disregard for public safety,” as noted in Portillo-Rendon v. Holder, 662 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2011).

The BIA concluded that the IJ’s bond determination lacked a “reasonable foundation,” as required by Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), and reversed the decision, ordering detention without bond.

This underscores that only if an alien establishes they are not a danger should the IJ proceed to set a bond amount, per Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. at 141.

Implications and Broader Context t

This ruling has significant implications for immigration bond proceedings, particularly for respondents with criminal histories. It establishes that, while informative, state court decisions do not bind IJs, who must prioritize immigration law standards. This may lead to stricter detention outcomes for immigrants with DUI or similar offenses, even if State courts view them as less dangerous. • Download Matter of CHOC-TUT, 29 I&N Dec. 48 (BIA 2025) https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-05/4092.pdf