In the Matter of Chirinos

12 Citing cases

  1. Reyes v. Wolf

    Case No. 2:19-cv-02086-GMN-EJY (D. Nev. May. 8, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "Bond hearings provide a preliminary evaluation of the facts and evidence presented by the parties and are less formal than removal proceedings, where conclusive factual findings and legal determinations are made based on the testimony and evidence presented at a full hearing on the merits." Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I & N Dec. 803, 804 (BIA 2020) (citing Matter of Chirinos, 16 I & N Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977)). "The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply strictly in immigration removal proceedings."

  2. Najjar v. Reno

    97 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    Although the IJ's redetermination decision could "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," the IJ's consideration of an alien's request regarding custody or bond was to "be separate and apart from, and . . . form no part of, any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 3.19(d) (1995); see also Matter of Chirinos, 16 I N Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977) (holding that bond redetermination must be conducted separately from deportation hearings because "[t]he requirement of a separate bond procedure and record is part of the effort to divorce, so far as possible, the bond matter from the deportation hearing"). An alien was entitled to appeal the IJ's redetermination to the BIA.

  3. Reno v. Flores

    507 U.S. 292 (1993)   Cited 1,791 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the immigration context, minors aged sixteen or seventeen are not "too young or too ignorant to exercise" their right to make a revocable waiver of a removal or deportation hearing

    Cf. Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. N.Dec. 276 (BIA 1977). V

  4. Singh v. Holder

    638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 429 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal court may not second-guess the "executive's exercise of discretion" when it comes to the detention or release of noncitizens

    The BIA has long concluded that "[t]here is no right to a transcript of a bond redetermination hearing." Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. N. Dec. 276, 277 (B.I.A. 1977). Current procedures provide instead that a written memorandum decision is prepared only if a detainee appeals the oral bond determination.

  5. Joseph v. Holder

    600 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an adverse credibility finding may not be based on "speculation and conjecture"

    Section 9.3(e) of the Immigration Court Practice Manual states: "Bond hearings are less formal than immigration court proceedings." § 9.3(e); see also Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. N. Dec. 276 (B.I.A. 1977). The BIA Practice Manual states that "[b]ond hearings are seldom recorded and are not routinely transcribed.

  6. Castaneda v. Garland

    562 F. Supp. 3d 545 (C.D. Cal. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    First, because the statute and BIA precedent expressly provide for video and telephonic hearings, Castaneda need not be transferred to California for the Los Angeles Immigration Court to conduct bond proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A) ; Matter of Chirinos , 16 I. & N. Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977). Second, the fiscal costs associated with providing a bond hearing are "minimal."

  7. Gayle v. Warden Monmouth Cnty.

    Civil Action No. 12-2806 (FLW) (D.N.J. Sep. 3, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Immigration Court Practice Manual § 9.3(e)(iii) ("Bond hearings are generally not recorded."); see also Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. & N. Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977) ("[T]here is no right to a transcript of a bond redetermination hearing. Indeed there is no requirement of a formal 'hearing.'").

  8. Padilla v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't

    354 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that § 1252(f) does not bar "an injunction against actions and policies that violate those statutes and associated constitutional protections "

    To the contrary, a plethora of district court and Board of Immigration Appeals cases affirm the requirement of a "prompt" or "expeditious" bond hearing for immigrants seeking entry. See, e.g., Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. & N. Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977) ; Matter of Valles-Perez, 21 I. & Dec. 769, 772 (BIA 1997) ; Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2017). The Court is not required at this stage to determine the reasonableness of the precise time limit Plaintiffs seek to impose on the bond hearing process in order to find that they have rights to adjudicate, and will not dismiss their claims on this ground. With respect to their other due process claims concerning the bond hearing procedure, Plaintiffs have provided no support for their assertion that the government should bear the burden of proof in the bond hearing, or that the Bond Hearing class members are entitled to a "presumption of release".

  9. Gayle v. Johnson

    81 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D.N.J. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    and (2) the Supreme Court's decision not to impose a contemporaneous verbatim records requirement in criminal trials. Immigration Court Practice Manual § 9.3(e)(iii) (“Bond hearings are generally not recorded.”); see also Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. & N. Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977) (“[T]here is no right to a transcript of a bond redetermination hearing. Indeed there is no requirement of a formal ‘hearing.’ ”)

  10. Gayle v. Johnson

    Civil Action No. 12-2806 (FLW) (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2015)

    Immigration Court Practice Manual § 9.3(e)(iii) ("Bond hearings are generally not recorded."); see also Matter of Chirinos, 16 I. & N. Dec. 276, 277 (BIA 1977) ("[T]here is no right to a transcript of a bond redetermination hearing. Indeed there is no requirement of a formal 'hearing.'").