Order of the Immigration Judge- Request for Bond Hearing (2008-02-26)
Synopsis
Background
In early January 2008, I had a bond hearing wherein the Immigration Court granted me a $5,000 bond.
Subsequent to that, DHS admitted at a later hearing, that they did not have any actual evidence to support their allegation I was an alien. I argued that without evidence of alienage, I must be presumed to be a US national. In which case, ICE/DHS and the Immigration Court do not have jurisdiction or authority over me. The judge and DHS lawyer agreed that is correct.
Given DHS's admission that they had not established alienage, I submitted multiple requests to be released from what amounted to illegal detention. The immigration court ignored the requests.
So I followed that with a formal request for a new bond hearing, arguing that, in the least, I should be released from custody until such time as DHS is actually able to establish alienage Request for Custody Redetermination Hearing, 2008-02-25.
This is Immigration Judge Sean Keenan's order denying my request for a second bond hearing. It's extremely important to note that this is not Keenan's denial of my request for bond, it's his denial of my request to even have a hearing on the matter of bond! Moreover, Keenan didn't even allow the submission of arguments. He denied the request without hearing any arguments or evidence.
Keenan relied on a federal regulation was states "...a request for a subsequent bond redetermination ... shall be considered only upon a showing that the alien's circumstances have changed materially..." 8 CFR §1003.19(e). However, that regulation explicitly uses the word "alien's", not "respondent's" or "person's", and therefore it only applies in cases where the respondent has actually been established to be an alien, which as of that point I had not.
PDFRICHARD STEVEN RIESS
Pro se
Assistant District Counsel
U.S. D.H.S.
1705 East Hanna Road
Eloy, Arizona 85231
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
Respondent has submitted a written request for a Second bond redetermination hearing. The record indicates that one prior bond redetermination hearing has been held. Consequently, Respondent’s request for a subsequent bond redetermination is governed by 8 C.F.R. §1003.19(e) (2007). Section 1003.19(e) provides, as follows:
After an initial bond redetermination, a request for a subsequent bond redetermination shall be made in writing and shall be considered only upon a showing that the alien’s circumstances have changed materially since the prior bond redetermination.”
The Request does not show that the alien’s circumstances have changed materially since the prior bond hearing. Therefore, the request is denied.
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent’s request for a Second bond redetermination hearing be DENIED.
Immigration Judge