A recent nationwide immigration precedent makes one point unmistakable: a person seeking release from immigration detention cannot rely on the fact that criminal charges remain pending or that a state judge already ordered release. In Matter of Kamalov, 30 I&N Dec. 34, the Board of Immigration Appeals treated the conduct underlying several arrests as evidence of danger, vacated a $15,000 immigration bond, and ordered detention without bond.
The Board originally decided the case on July 17, 2026. On September 2, the Attorney General designated it as precedent in proceedings involving the same issues. It now appears in EOIR's published Volume 30 decisions. The ruling does not say that every arrest proves dangerousness. It does show why a Section 236(a) bond request must confront disputed or unresolved conduct with evidence rather than assume that a favorable state-court result will carry the day.
What happened in Kamalov
The respondent had entered the United States in 2024 on an F-1 student visa. According to the Board's description of the undisputed record, his driver's license was suspended in 2025 for street racing. Police stopped him on February 13, 2026, while he was driving on the suspended license. During the arrest, he tried to pull away and bent an officer's finger, although the officer was not injured. At the jail, he took his cell phone from an area controlled by an officer after being told he could not keep it, resulting in another arrest for contraband.
An Immigration Judge ordered his release on a $15,000 bond on March 9, 2026. The state court had released him on his own recognizance. DHS appealed, and the Board reversed. It characterized street racing and resisting arrest as inherently dangerous, treated the other alleged conduct as further evidence of disregard for the law, and found that the respondent had not carried his burden to show that he was not a danger.
That danger finding ended the analysis. The Board did not decide whether the respondent was also a flight risk because a person found dangerous is not eligible for release on bond under this framework.
The decision applies to a specific kind of custody case
Kamalov involved discretionary detention under INA § 236(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while removal proceedings were pending. In that setting, an Immigration Judge may redetermine custody when jurisdiction exists under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19.
The ruling does not create bond jurisdiction where another statute or regulation makes detention mandatory. It also does not govern custody after an administratively final removal order, which is generally addressed under INA § 241 and a different review process. Those distinctions matter. A strong release packet cannot give an Immigration Judge authority the judge does not have.
For a person who is eligible to request a Section 236(a) bond, the respondent bears the burden of showing that release would not endanger people or property and that the person is likely to appear for future proceedings. The Board reviews the underlying factual findings for clear error, but it reviews the ultimate judgment about danger de novo. That means a favorable decision from the Immigration Judge can still be reversed on appeal even when the basic facts are not disputed.
An arrest is not a conviction, but it is not invisible
Criminal guilt must be decided in the criminal case under the rules that govern that proceeding. An immigration bond hearing is a separate civil custody proceeding. The Board has long permitted Immigration Judges to consider unfavorable conduct that did not result in a final conviction. Kamalov applies that principle to a short and recent course of alleged conduct.
This does not make an arrest record conclusive. Police reports may contain errors, charges may be reduced or dismissed, and allegations may be contested. The practical problem is that simply pointing to the absence of a conviction may leave the government's version unrebutted. The bond record should identify what is admitted, what is disputed, what reliable documents support the dispute, and what has changed since the incident.
A state release order is relevant, not controlling
The Board acknowledged that the state court's release decision was relevant. It nevertheless held that release on recognizance did not resolve the federal immigration question. That follows the Board's earlier decision in Matter of Choc-Tut, 29 I&N Dec. 48, which states that an Immigration Judge need not defer to a state custody order.
The systems can use different standards, evidence, and purposes. A state judge may focus on appearance in the criminal case or impose conditions that do not answer the immigration court's danger inquiry. A helpful state order should still be submitted, especially if it contains findings or conditions, but counsel should explain why the underlying facts support release under the immigration standard.
How to prepare a stronger bond record
Obtain the complete criminal file. A docket printout rarely tells the whole story. Depending on what exists and can lawfully be obtained, the file may include charging documents, police reports, body-camera evidence, a state bail order, conditions of release, later dispositions, and records showing compliance. Review the documents for accuracy rather than submitting them unread.
Coordinate with criminal counsel. Statements made to obtain immigration release can affect a pending criminal case or the removal case. The person should not improvise testimony about unresolved allegations. Immigration and criminal counsel should decide what can be established safely through records, witnesses, stipulations, or testimony.
Match mitigation to the alleged risk. General statements that someone has family support or “a lot to lose” may be too abstract. If the allegation involves driving, evidence might address license status, access to a vehicle, transportation, education, or treatment. If it involves substance use, a documented evaluation and treatment plan may matter. The response should be concrete and connected to the conduct the government will emphasize.
Document the release plan. Identify a stable address, responsible sponsor, transportation, treatment or counseling, court reminders, and a realistic plan for attending both criminal and immigration proceedings. Letters are stronger when the writer explains personal knowledge, specific responsibilities, and how the plan will work.
Do not overlook favorable history. Length of residence, family ties, employment, compliance with prior court dates, rehabilitation, and available immigration relief may remain relevant. But Kamalov warns that favorable equities must actually mitigate the identified danger. They are not a substitute for addressing it.
What the decision does not decide
The opinion is only three pages and arose from an undisputed record. It does not establish that a single arrest automatically bars bond, define how much corroboration is required to rebut a police account, or decide every constitutional question that may arise in detention. It also does not convert an allegation into a criminal conviction.
Its practical effect is still significant. The Board can evaluate the actual conduct described in the record, give limited weight to a state release decision, and reverse an Immigration Judge's judgment about danger. Families preparing for bond should gather the criminal and immigration records early, preserve evidence that challenges or explains the allegations, and build a detailed plan that responds to the claimed risk. If a detained family member may qualify for a bond hearing, you may contact Zero One Legal through the firm's screening page to ask whether the firm can assist or provide an appropriate referral.
Primary sources
This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Immigration rules, procedures, and court decisions can change, and the law may apply differently to individual facts. Reading this article or contacting Zero One Legal does not create an attorney-client relationship. No result is guaranteed.