Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractjurisdictionhearingleaseimplied contract

contractplaintiffdefendantmotionwilllease

Related Cases

Aguilar v. United States, 124 Fed.Cl. 9

Facts

In October 2007, Aguilar executed a $15,000 cash bond to secure the release of an alien, Rene Gomez–Cazares, from ICE detention. The bond required Aguilar to deliver Gomez–Cazares to ICE upon demand. After Gomez–Cazares failed to appear for a scheduled hearing due to a notice being sent to the wrong address, ICE issued a delivery demand to Aguilar. On the specified date, Aguilar and Gomez–Cazares went to the federal building but left without delivering him to ICE, leading to ICE declaring the bond breached.

In October 2007, ICE detained an alien named Rene Gomez–Cazares and charged him with being removable from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) for being present in the United States without permission. Decision, Aguilar v. United States, at 3 (U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Feb. 24, 2015) [hereinafter “ICE Decision”], ECF No. 33–1; Supplemental Administrative Record (SAR) 2 at 28, ECF Nos. 33–3 to 33–8.

Issue

Did Aguilar substantially violate the terms of the immigration bond, thereby justifying the forfeiture of his $15,000 deposit?

Rule

Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims against the United States founded on express or implied contracts. Immigration bonds are contracts, and a substantial violation of the bond's terms can lead to forfeiture of the bond deposit.

An immigration bond is a contract with the United States. E.g., United States v. Davis, 202 F.2d 621, 625 (7th Cir.1953) ('The bond is a contract between the surety and the government that if the latter will release the principal from custody the surety will undertake that the principal will appear personally at any specified time and place to answer.'); Gonzales II, 103 F.Supp.3d at 1128–29, 2015 WL 2090395, at *2.

Analysis

The court found that ICE's determination that Aguilar substantially violated the bond was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. Aguilar failed to deliver Gomez–Cazares to ICE as required, and his belief that he was to deliver him to an immigration hearing instead did not absolve him of his obligations under the bond. The court noted that Aguilar did not take reasonable steps to clarify his obligations after receiving the breach notice.

The Court concludes that ICE's determination finding a substantial violation was neither arbitrary, nor capricious, nor contrary to law.

Conclusion

The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the United States, affirming that Aguilar had substantially violated the terms of the immigration bond and thus forfeited his $15,000 deposit.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record is DENIED and Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record is GRANTED.

Who won?

United States; the court found that Aguilar had substantially violated the bond terms, justifying the forfeiture of his deposit.

Defendant's motion granted.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password