The Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of Cruz Aijiaco, 30 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4271, on November 2, 2026. The decision holds that “no amount of bond is sufficient” to ensure the respondent’s appearance at future hearings. The Board pointed first to his repeated violations of motor vehicle laws, and it added two more weaknesses in the record: his failure to establish a fixed address and his apparent ineligibility for relief from removal.
The most consequential part of the decision is the first factor. The Board reasoned that driving without a valid license shows a disregard for the law, and it treated that disregard as evidence that the respondent would not comply with an Immigration Judge’s orders to appear. In our practice, a traffic stop for unlicensed driving is one of the law enforcement contacts we see most often in our clients’ histories, so this reasoning will reach a large share of bond hearings.
The decision also continues a clear trend in bond law. Last week, the Attorney General designated Matter of N-L-U- as precedent, holding that a pending asylum application cannot by itself overcome flight risk. Matter of Cruz Aijiaco applies the same skepticism to a pending application for cancellation of removal and adds driving history to the factors that can defeat release.
Matter of Cruz Aijiaco is the thirty-first precedential decision in roughly ten weeks that shifts immigration law in the government’s direction. Appellate Immigration Judge Hunsucker wrote the opinion. It is the fifth consequential decision in that span that Judge Hunsucker has written or joined, following Matter of J-E-D-C-, Matter of Ozuna Mendoza, Matter of Callos Mercader, and Matter of S-N-K-C-, which she also wrote. We have tracked this as the Hunsucker pattern.
According to the record described by the Board, the respondent entered the United States in August 2016. In June 2017, police stopped him for an improper lane change and arrested him after learning that his driver’s license was suspended and that a warrant was pending for his arrest. In August 2017, police stopped him again because his brake lights were not working. He told the officers he did not have a valid license. A records check showed his license had been suspended multiple times, and he was arrested for knowingly driving without a license. The decision does not describe any conviction resulting from either arrest.
In February 2026, DHS encountered him in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and detained him. Removal proceedings followed. When first detained, he said he was unmarried and had no children. His later application for custody redetermination, the formal request for a bond hearing, listed a wife and children and gave an address of only “USA.”
Before the Immigration Judge, he said that if released he would live in Ocala, Florida, and he offered a letter from a friend in Florida promising to make sure he attended every hearing. On appeal, he said instead that he held a valid Indiana driver’s license when he was apprehended and that he lives in Westfield, Indiana.
On April 1, 2026, the Immigration Judge found that he was not a danger to the community and set bond at $8,000. The Immigration Judge relied on his pending application for cancellation of removal, a form of relief that allows certain long-term residents to obtain a green card, and on the finding that he lived with his wife and children. DHS appealed.
The Board sustained DHS’s appeal and vacated the bond. It then ordered the respondent detained without bond.
Bond decisions follow a two-step framework. Under Matter of Urenas, 25 I&N Dec. 140, 141 (BIA 2009), the Immigration Judge first asks whether release would pose a danger to people or property, and then asks what is required to ensure the person appears at future hearings. The Board assumed, without deciding, that the respondent was not a danger. It resolved the case at the second step, flight risk, which is the judge’s prediction of whether a person will keep appearing in court if released.
The Board reviewed the flight-risk question de novo, meaning fresh and without deferring to the Immigration Judge, under Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 2025). It reviewed the Immigration Judge’s underlying factual findings for clear error and concluded that the findings about the respondent’s family residence and his eligibility for relief were clearly erroneous.
The burden throughout was on the respondent. Under Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006), a detained person seeking bond must prove that he is likely to appear for future proceedings. The Board concluded that he had not carried that burden and that his flight risk could not be reduced to an acceptable level by any bond amount.
The Immigration Judge had acknowledged the respondent’s record of motor vehicle violations. The Board held that the Immigration Judge failed to give those violations sufficient weight.
The Board started from Matter of A-L-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 794, 797 (BIA 2026), which defines flight risk to include both whether a person will appear for hearings and whether the person is likely to comply with the Immigration Judge’s future orders. It then reasoned that licensing laws exist to protect everyone on the road, and that a person who repeatedly drives without a license has shown a disregard for those laws. From there, the Board concluded that the respondent’s refusal to comply with a legal requirement is “significant evidence” that he would not comply with an order to attend a future hearing.
To support that connection, the Board drew on two federal court decisions. The first, United States v. Leonard, 439 F.3d 648, 651 (10th Cir. 2006), is a federal criminal case describing persistent unlicensed driving as a conscious disregard for safety rules. The second, Portillo-Rendon v. Holder, 662 F.3d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 2011), is a Seventh Circuit immigration decision describing unlicensed driving as defiance of known legal obligations.
The Board also rejected the respondent’s explanation on appeal. He disputed the accuracy of DHS’s description of the violations and said he had misunderstood the procedural requirements for driving privileges. The Board found that he offered no evidence to support that account and that his repeated encounters with police over the same issue undermined it.
Several features of this reasoning deserve attention. The violations were nearly nine years old by the time of the bond hearing, and the decision describes arrests without describing convictions. The Board also gave no weight to the respondent’s claim that he held a valid Indiana license by 2026; it addressed that claim only as part of the confusion about where he lived. In our reading, the decision does not distinguish between a person who ignored a licensing requirement and a person who lived in a state that offered no license at all to someone without lawful status. Attorneys should expect that distinction to be contested in future bond hearings.
The Board held that the respondent had not clearly established a fixed address in the United States, and it said that failure “weighs heavily” against him.
The Board relied on Matter of Z-N-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 511, 512-13 (BIA 2026), and Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166, 167-68 (BIA 2025), which hold that inconsistent evidence about a fixed address supports a flight-risk finding. In Matter of Z-N-L-, the Board found the flight risk so severe that no bond could mitigate it, and the Board reached the same conclusion here.
The inconsistencies in this record built on one another. The respondent first said he had no spouse or children, then listed a wife and children. He gave his address as “USA,” then Ocala, Florida, then Westfield, Indiana. The Board concluded that the record did not show whether he lived with any family members, or even where he lived. Once the family residence was unproven, the Immigration Judge’s finding that he lived with his wife and children could not stand.
The friend’s letter promising to ensure his attendance did not rescue the case. After Matter of N-L-U-, judges must examine whether a sponsor’s promise is credible and supported by evidence, and a letter from a friend in a state where the respondent may not actually live offered little support.
The Immigration Judge treated the respondent’s pending cancellation application as a reason he would keep appearing. The Board rejected that finding as clearly erroneous because the record did not show that he was prima facie eligible, meaning eligible on the face of the evidence, for the relief he sought.
Cancellation of removal for a noncitizen who is not a permanent resident requires, among other things, 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States under INA § 240A(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). The respondent entered in August 2016 and was placed in removal proceedings in February 2026, which the Board counted as falling short of 10 years.
The Board cited Matter of Andrade, 19 I&N Dec. 488, 490 (BIA 1987), for the principle that a person with a greater likelihood of winning relief has a greater motivation to appear. It paired that principle with Matter of A-L-S-, which holds that speculative future eligibility based on hypothetical events does not materially reduce flight risk. The practical message is that a filed application helps at bond only when the record shows you can actually qualify.
Matter of Cruz Aijiaco is one piece of a framework the Board has assembled over the past year. Read together, these decisions show where bond law now stands.
Each decision adds a factor that DHS can raise and that the detained person must answer with evidence. The cumulative effect is a bond hearing in which a person who cannot document a stable residence and genuine eligibility for relief faces long odds, and a record of noncompliance with the law makes those odds longer.
Many people drive without a license because their state will not issue one to a person without lawful immigration status. Washington and Colorado take a different approach, and for readers in those states this decision makes a valid license more important.
Washington issues standard driver’s licenses without requiring proof of lawful immigration status. Under Chapter 46.20 RCW, an applicant must prove identity and Washington residency, and a person who has never been issued a Social Security number signs a declaration saying so.
Colorado issues standard licenses and identification cards regardless of immigration status under the Colorado Road and Community Safety Act, Senate Bill 13-251. Senate Bill 24-182 updated the requirements for undocumented residents effective March 31, 2025, and the Colorado DMV now offers these credentials at any state driver license office by appointment. A Colorado standard license is not REAL ID compliant and cannot be used for federal purposes.
A state license does not give anyone immigration status, and it will not erase older violations. After Matter of Cruz Aijiaco, though, a person who drove without a license years ago and has driven lawfully since can present that history as evidence of compliance. A person who continues to drive without a license where one is available hands DHS an argument.
Can one traffic ticket keep me detained without bond?
The decision does not say so. The Board relied on repeated violations of motor vehicle laws, including more than one arrest for driving without a valid license, together with an unclear address and doubtful eligibility for relief. A single minor citation is a different record, though DHS may still raise it.
What is flight risk?
Flight risk is the judge’s prediction of whether you will keep appearing for immigration court if you are released from detention. After Matter of A-L-S-, it also includes whether you are likely to follow the judge’s future orders.
Does it matter that I was arrested but never convicted?
It can. The Board in this case relied on arrests and citations, and the decision does not describe any convictions. Your attorney should still gather the final outcome of every case, because a dismissal or a resolved citation gives the judge a fuller picture.
I got a valid license after driving without one. Will that help?
It can help you show that you now comply with the law, especially if you have driven lawfully for years since. It will not erase the earlier violations, so bring both your current license and the records showing how the older cases ended.
Does a pending cancellation application help me get bond?
Only if the record shows you are actually eligible. The Board held that the respondent’s application did not reduce his flight risk because he had not shown 10 years of continuous physical presence.
Can I get a driver’s license in Washington or Colorado without legal status?
Yes. Both states issue standard licenses without proof of lawful immigration status, as long as you prove your identity and state residency and meet the other requirements. Check the current requirements with the Washington Department of Licensing or the Colorado DMV before your appointment.
Where can I find Matter of Cruz Aijiaco?
Matter of Cruz Aijiaco, 30 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4271, is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals decided November 2, 2026. It is available here and through the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review website.
Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. Our litigation team handles bond hearings, removal defense, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, federal habeas corpus petitions challenging detention, and petitions for review before federal courts of appeals including the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. We prepare bond cases with the documentation that current precedent now demands, from certified court dispositions to sponsor testimony. If you or a family member is detained or facing a bond hearing, contact us. We will tell you what we would do given your specific facts.
SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION
(888) 746-5245 | novo-legal.com/contact