The Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of G-M-T-, 30 I&N Dec. 228 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4273, on November 10, 2026. The decision addresses proffers, which are statements of fact that an attorney or party presents to the Immigration Judge at a bond hearing in place of sworn testimony. The Board held that judges may rely on proffers. It also held that when one party offers a competing account of a material fact, or challenges a proffer as uncorroborated or inconsistent with the record, the Immigration Judge should address that dispute and explain in the bond memorandum the weight given to each account.
Applying that rule, the Board vacated a $15,000 bond and sent the case back to the Immigration Judge for a new decision. The respondent is still eligible for release. The Immigration Judge must now decide again, this time resolving the disputed facts on the record.
The case arose in Colorado, and it carries practical lessons for every bond hearing in the Denver and Aurora Immigration Courts. Statements that once moved a bond hearing along, such as an attorney’s assurance that a client pays taxes or has a U.S. citizen child, now carry little weight once DHS contests them unless documents back them up.
Matter of G-M-T- is the thirty-third precedential decision in roughly twelve weeks that shifts immigration law in the government’s direction. It is the Board’s fourth precedent decision in under two weeks, and the third bond decision in that span after Matter of N-L-U- and Matter of Cruz Aijiaco.
The respondent entered the United States without inspection in 2011. DHS detained him and placed him in removal proceedings in Colorado. At his bond hearing, the Immigration Judge ordered him released on a $15,000 bond, and DHS appealed. The only issue on appeal was whether he posed a flight risk, meaning a risk that he would fail to appear for future hearings if released.
Some of the Immigration Judge’s findings rested on record evidence, and the Board left them in place. The record supported the findings that the respondent has no criminal convictions and has a fixed address, as well as the finding that he owns two vehicles.
Other findings rested on statements by the respondent and his counsel that DHS challenged. The Immigration Judge credited his claim that he has paid taxes since 2012 and accepted that his youngest child is a U.S. citizen. She also treated his pending Form I-589 as a reason he would appear. She also relied on the willingness of his brother and sister-in-law to sponsor him. DHS argued that each of these findings lacked support.
The Board began by confirming that proffers have a proper place in bond proceedings. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d), an Immigration Judge may base a bond decision on “any information” available to the judge or presented by either party. Bond hearings come early in a case and are less formal than a trial on the merits under Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803, 804 (BIA 2020). The Board also pointed to federal criminal courts, which routinely allow pretrial detention hearings to proceed by proffer.
The ability to proceed by proffer does not excuse the parties from supporting their positions with reliable information. Under Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211, 213 (BIA 2025), the judge must assess whether a proffer has enough indicia of reliability to be credited, including whether the record contains evidence that corroborates or contradicts it.
The Board drew a distinction based on whether the proffer is disputed. An attorney is an officer of the court and may not knowingly make a false statement, so a facially reliable, undisputed proffer by counsel may be credited even without documents. The Board cited United States v. Perez-Gomez, 638 F.2d 215, 217 (10th Cir. 1981), for that principle. An unsupported proffer that the other side contests, however, is entitled to only limited weight under Matter of Rodriguez Pena, 29 I&N Dec. 358, 360 (BIA 2025).
The Board then identified two ways a proffer can be placed in dispute. The opposing party may offer an alternative proffer, which is a competing account of the same fact. The opposing party may also challenge a proffer because reliable evidence does not corroborate it or because it conflicts with information in the record.
When either kind of dispute arises over a material fact, the Board held, the Immigration Judge should not simply accept one party’s account without explanation. The judge should address the dispute and explain the weight given to each account, identifying any corroborating documents and other considerations bearing on reliability. The judge may give that explanation after the hearing, in the bond memorandum, where the Board can review it on appeal. Judges remain free to decide bond on documents alone and need not take sworn testimony to resolve a weak proffer.
Taxes and employment. DHS challenged the legitimacy of the respondent’s claimed business because no tax returns supported it. The respondent’s own counsel disclaimed any knowledge of his tax filings. The Immigration Judge still credited his statement that he has paid taxes since 2012, without pointing to any supporting evidence or explaining why she believed it.
Children and family ties. Letters from friends and family described the respondent as having three children, but he offered no birth certificates or school records showing their ages or where they live. His counsel described the child said to be a U.S. citizen as a son at some points in the hearing and a daughter at others. One of his proposed sponsors said he arrived in the United States with his children, which contradicts the claim of a child born here. The Board held that the Immigration Judge needed to explain her finding that his youngest child is a U.S. citizen in light of that inconsistent information.
The pending Form I-589. The respondent did not submit a copy of his application or any supporting evidence at the bond hearing. The Immigration Judge described the application as “non-frivolous” without explaining that conclusion or how the application affected his incentive to appear. We discuss this issue in more detail below.
The sponsors. Under Matter of Dobrotvorskii, a “valid, reliable, and credible sponsor” is relevant to flight risk. The Board explained, however, that a person who merely offers to “support” a respondent assumes no enforceable obligation, unlike a visa sponsor or bond obligor, so the offer carries limited weight under Matter of R-A-V-P-. The respondent’s sponsors lived in Kansas while his proceedings were in Colorado. Their letters focused on his character and did not describe concrete steps they would take to help him attend his hearings.
The respondent’s Form I-589 sought only statutory withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It did not seek asylum. That distinction shaped the Board’s analysis.
Withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3) and CAT protection under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) both require a person to show that harm is more likely than not, a higher standard than the one for asylum. Neither leads to a green card. DHS argued that because these forms of protection offer no lawful path to permanent residence, a pending application for them does little to reduce flight risk.
The Board applied Matter of Andrade, 19 I&N Dec. 488, 490 (BIA 1987), which holds that a person with a low likelihood of winning relief has a weaker motivation to appear than a person with a high likelihood. It also cited Matter of A-L-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 794, 796 (BIA 2026), which faulted an Immigration Judge for not asking why a respondent who had lived in the United States for over a decade never sought protection before. Here, the record contained no evidence about the strength of the respondent’s claims, and he did not claim a family-based path to lawful status, which Matter of R-A-V-P- identifies as significant.
Many people pursue only withholding and CAT because the one-year filing deadline for asylum under INA § 208(a)(2)(B) bars them from asylum. After Matter of G-M-T-, a person in that position should expect DHS to argue that the pending application does little to reduce flight risk. The answer is evidence: a copy of the application and a supporting declaration, backed by country conditions documents showing that the claim has real merit.
The holding in Matter of G-M-T- applies whenever “a party” offers an alternative proffer or challenges a proffer as uncorroborated or inconsistent with the record. Nothing in the decision limits that rule to challenges brought by DHS.
Respondents can use that symmetry. DHS attorneys also make factual assertions at bond hearings that the record does not always support, such as describing an arrest without producing a disposition or alleging an affiliation without evidence. Under Matter of G-M-T-, respondent’s counsel can challenge that kind of proffer as uncorroborated and offer a competing account. Counsel can then ask the Immigration Judge to explain in the bond memorandum how much weight the government’s statement received.
Documentary evidence such as a Form I-213, the report DHS officers prepare after an arrest, is analyzed differently from a proffer. The Board’s emphasis on reliability and on explaining the weight given to disputed information still supports an argument that a judge should address a respondent’s specific challenges to the accuracy of that document. Counsel should make those challenges on the record so they can be reviewed on appeal.
We set out the full line of recent bond precedents in our post on Matter of Cruz Aijiaco. In brief, the detained person carries the burden under Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006), and the Board reviews the flight-risk judgment fresh under Matter of Dobrotvorskii. Recent decisions have added factors that weigh against release, including an inconsistent fixed address under Matter of Z-N-L-, speculative relief under Matter of A-L-S- and Matter of A-W-M-K-, a pending asylum application standing alone under Matter of N-L-U-, and repeated unlicensed driving under Matter of Cruz Aijiaco.
Matter of G-M-T- adds a procedural layer on top of those factors. It makes it harder for a bond grant to survive appeal when the favorable facts rest on contested statements without documents, and it gives DHS a clear path to a remand whenever it challenges those statements and the bond memorandum does not resolve the challenge.
What is a proffer?
A proffer is a statement of facts that an attorney or party presents to the judge in place of formal sworn testimony. Bond hearings often proceed this way because they are brief and informal.
Can the judge still release me based on what my attorney says?
Yes. A judge may credit a proffer, and an undisputed proffer from your attorney may be enough on its own. If DHS challenges it, though, the judge must explain the decision, and documents will make that explanation far easier to support.
Did the respondent in this case lose his bond permanently?
No. The Board vacated the $15,000 bond and sent the case back for a new decision. The Immigration Judge may grant bond again after resolving the disputed facts.
Does a pending withholding or CAT application help me get bond?
It can, but only if the record shows that the claim has real strength. Because neither form of protection leads to a green card and both require a high level of proof, the Board treats a bare filing as weak evidence that you will appear.
What should a sponsor letter say?
It should describe the specific help the sponsor will provide, such as housing near the court or transportation to hearings, and include proof of the sponsor’s address and immigration status. A letter that only praises your character carries limited weight.
Where can I find Matter of G-M-T-?
Matter of G-M-T-, 30 I&N Dec. 228 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4273, is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals decided November 10, 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 a document behind every material fact, because current precedent requires it. If you or a family member is detained or facing a bond hearing in Colorado or Washington, contact us. We will tell you what we would do given your specific facts.
SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION
(888) 746-5245 | novo-legal.com/contact