Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)
Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)
Matter of R-A-V-P- holds that, in an ordinary custody redetermination under section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the detained noncitizen bears the burden of demonstrating that release on bond is warranted. The Immigration Judge may consider the totality of the circumstances, including the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, manner of entry, likelihood of obtaining relief, and the reliability of a proposed sponsor.[1]
Governing Legal Framework
Section 236(a) authorizes detention pending a decision on removability and permits release on bond or conditional parole:
“Pending such decision, the Attorney General . . . may release the alien on . . . bond of at least $1,500 . . . or conditional parole.”[1]
The implementing regulation provides that a custody determination is separate from the removal proceeding and may be based on information presented by either party:
“The determination . . . may be based upon any information that is available to the Immigration Judge or that is presented to him or her by the alien or the Service.”[2]
Under R-A-V-P-, the respondent must establish that he or she:
- Does not present a danger to persons or property;
- Is not a threat to national security; and
- Does not pose a significant flight risk.
The bond proceeding is separate from the merits proceeding and involves a preliminary assessment rather than final factual or legal determinations concerning removability or relief.[1]
Facts and Holding
The respondent was a Honduran national who had entered the United States without inspection shortly before his detention. He had applied for asylum and asserted that he had a fixed address and a friend willing to provide housing and assistance. The Immigration Judge denied bond, finding that the respondent had not shown that he would appear for future proceedings. The Board dismissed the appeal.[1]
The Board held that:
“Section 236(a) places the burden of proof on the alien to show that he merits release on bond.”[1]
The Board further held that a pending asylum application does not, by itself, establish that the respondent is likely to appear or that release is warranted. Eligibility for asylum remained uncertain, and the respondent’s minimal ties to the United States supported the flight-risk determination.[1]
Relevant Bond Factors
The Immigration Judge may consider any probative and specific evidence. The nonexclusive factors identified in Matter of Guerra and reaffirmed in R-A-V-P- include:
| Factor | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Fixed address | Whether the respondent can be located and is anchored in the community |
| Length of residence | Longer residence may reduce flight risk |
| Family ties | Particularly immediate family and ties supporting lawful residence |
| Employment history | Evidence of stability and community integration |
| Court-appearance record | Prior compliance with legal obligations |
| Criminal record | Extent, recency, and seriousness of criminal conduct |
| Immigration violations | Prior violations may increase flight risk |
| Attempts to flee or evade authorities | Direct evidence of nonappearance risk |
| Manner of entry | Unlawful entry may weigh against release |
| Likelihood of relief | A stronger, credible path to relief may provide an incentive to appear |
Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40–41 (B.I.A. 2006)[3]; R-A-V-P-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 803, 804–05 (B.I.A. 2020)[1]
An Immigration Judge may assign greater weight to one factor than to others, provided the decision is reasonable.[3]
Proposed Sponsor Evidence
R-A-V-P- is particularly significant concerning sponsor evidence. A sponsor’s general willingness to provide housing or transportation may be insufficient where the record does not establish:
- The sponsor’s immigration status;
- The sponsor’s ability to provide financial or logistical support;
- The sponsor’s relationship with the respondent;
- The specific address where the respondent will reside; and
- The sponsor’s willingness and ability to ensure the respondent’s appearance at future hearings.
The Board found that the proposed friend’s statement lacked adequate information about the relationship, the friend’s immigration status, and the friend’s ability to support the respondent and ensure his appearance.[1]
Subsequent Qualification
The burden allocation described in R-A-V-P- is not universally applicable to every current bond proceeding. In Matter of Dobrotvorskii, the Board recognized that, in proceedings governed by the continuing Rodriguez injunction, DHS bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a flight risk.[4]
Thus:
| Proceeding | Burden under cited authority |
|---|---|
| Ordinary section 236(a) custody redetermination | Respondent generally bears the burden to show that release is warranted under R-A-V-P- |
| Proceedings subject to the Rodriguez injunction | DHS may bear the burden by clear and convincing evidence, as recognized in Dobrotvorskii |
| Mandatory detention under section 236(c) | Different statutory framework; Immigration Judge jurisdiction may be limited |
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)[1]; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(1)(i)[5]; Dobrotvorskii, 29 I. & N. Dec. 211, 212–13 (B.I.A. 2025)[4]
Practical Significance
For a respondent seeking bond under the R-A-V-P- framework, the strongest submission should include:
- A detailed sponsor affidavit;
- Proof of the sponsor’s identity, immigration status, residence, income, and ability to provide support;
- Evidence establishing the sponsor’s relationship with the respondent;
- Proof of a stable residential address;
- Evidence of family, employment, and community ties;
- Documentation of prior court appearances and compliance;
- Evidence supporting the likelihood of relief from removal; and
- A concrete plan for transportation to and attendance at all hearings.
Bottom line: R-A-V-P- permits denial of bond where the respondent has recently entered unlawfully, lacks family, employment, and community ties, has an uncertain path to relief, and offers inadequate sponsor evidence, even when the respondent has a pending asylum application.[1]