Koford, Rebecca

Catholic Charities
2900 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77006
Name: SANTIAGO-JIMENEZ, DANIEL
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Offce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg l'ike. Suite 1000
Fals C/111rch, Virginia 21041
OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HOU
126 Norhpoint Drive, Suite 2020
Houston, TX 77060
A087-628-426
Date of this notice: 4/27/2011
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger, John
King, Carol
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Daniel Santiago-Jimenez, A097 628 426 (BIA April 27, 2011)
SANTIAGO-JIMENEZ, DANIEL
A# 087 -628-26
15850 EXPORT PLAZA
HOUSTON, TX 77032
Name: SANTIAGO-JIMENEZ, DANIEL
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 leesh11rg Pike. Suite 2000
Falls C111rcl1. Virginia 12041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel HOU
126 Norhpoint Drive, Suite 2020
Houston, TX 77060
A087 -628-426
Date of this notice: 4/27/2011
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.5(a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed
from the United States or afirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be
removed, any petition fr review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the
appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Adkins-Blanch, Charles K.
Guendelsberger, John
King, Carol
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Daniel Santiago-Jimenez, A097 628 426 (BIA April 27, 2011)
. U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigation Review
Decision of te Board of Imigraton Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: A087 628 426 - Houston, TX Date:
I re: DAL SANTIAGO-JIENEZ
I BOND PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: Rebecca Kofrd, Esquire
APPLICATION: Redeterination of custody status
APR 17 2011
I a bond order dated January 12, 2011, a higration Judge denied te respondent's request
fr a chage in custody stats based on a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 236(c) of the
higation and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), leaving te respondent detained without bond.
The respondent appealed fom that decision. The appeal will be sustained, ad the record will be
remanded.
A Notice to Appea was seied upon the respondent on November 2, 2009, chaging
him wit removabilit as present without being admitted or paoled under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i)
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). His removal hearings ae ongoing befre te higaton
Judge. The record includes conviction documents substatiating the respondent's 2009 Texas
conviction fr unauthorized use of a vehicle. On March 2, 2011, the higaton Judge issued a
second bond order witdrawing the Jauay 2011 order. I the March 2011 order, the hgation
Judge fund that the respondent's conviction was not a crime involving moral turitude, so that it did
not subject him to section 236(c) mandator detention. However, the record does not contain any
document indicating that the higation Judge aalyed te respondent's case under section 236(a)
of the Act or set a bond fr him.
Consequently, we must remad the bond record. On remad, the higation Judge is to
deterine whether te respondent is entitled to receive a bond under section 236(a) of the Act. If the
Immigaton Judge fnds that the respondent qualifes fr bond under section 236( a), he is to set bond
in a amout that is appropriate to ensure the respondent's appearace at upcoming immigation
proceedings, upon weighing the relevant fctors. See Matter of Gerra, 24 I&N Dec. 3 7 (I 2006)
(holding that an higation Judge has wide discretion in deciding the fctors that may be
considered in a section 236(a) custody redeterination). However, if the hgation Judge
deterines that te respondent has not met his burden to prove that he is not a dager to property or
persons, he is to order the respondent held without bond under section 236(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, we issue the fllowing order.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the record is remaded to the higation Court fr
fher proceedings, consistent with this opinion.
.6 +y+ $ M ~?
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Daniel Santiago-Jimenez, A097 628 426 (BIA April 27, 2011)
M
UITED STATES DEPATMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
5520 GREENS ROA
HOUSTON, TX 77032
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF GALVESTON-HOUSTON
KOFORD, ESQ. REBECCA A.
2900 LOUISIAA STREET
HOUSTON, TX 77006
IN THE MTTER OF
SATIAGO-JIMENEZ, DAIEL
FILE A087-628-426
I, THE UDERSIGNED EMPLOYEE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRTION REVIEW, SAY THAT ON THE DATE INDICATED BELOW I SERVED
THE ATTACHED DOCUENT/NOTICE(S) UPON THB FOLLOWING PERSON(S):
DISTRICT COUSEL/Victor P. Lehan, AC, TA
DEPATMENT OF HOMEL SECUITY
Houston, TX
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF GALVESTON-HOUSTON
KOFORD, ESQ. REBECCA A.
2900 LOUISIAA STREET
HOUSTON, TX 77006
I DECLE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJUY THAT THE FOREGOING IS
TRUE AD CORRECT.
(AUTHORITY:28 U.S.C. 1746.)
DATE OF MILING: Mar 2, 2011
CP
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

UITED STATES DEPARTN OF JSTICE
EXECUIVE OFFICE FOR IMIGRTION REVIEW
IMIGRTION COURT
HOOSTON(HSPC), TX
FILE: A087 628 426 March 2, 2011
IN RE: Daniel Santiago-Jimenez
IN CUSTODY REDETERMINATION PROCEEDINGS
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Rebecca A. Koford, Houston, TX
ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT: Assistant Chief Counsel, Houston
CHARGE: I&N Act-Section 212(a) (6) (A} (i), alien present
without admission.
MEMORDUM DECISION OF THE IMIGRATION JUDGE
On January 12, 2011, the Court curtailed Respondent's
custody re-determination hearing after determining that he
entered the United States illegally and was later convicted
of the State Jail Felony of unauthorized use of a motor
vehicle in Texas for which he was sentenced to confinement
for 9 months.
The Court found his conviction to be a jurisdictional
stripping crime involving moral turpitude.
Applying the Silva-Trevino analysis to the Texas Statute
in question the Court does not find that the Texas U
statute is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
Absent the indictment the Court can not perform the second
stage analysis under Silva-Trevino.
On the record before the Court the evidence would not
sustain a finding that the respondent has been convicted of
a crime involving morale turpitude.
The Court recants and withdraws its initial bond decision
finding no IJ jurisdiction.
mmie Lee Benton
mmigration Judge
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t