hearing must be held is preferable because “were-we to impose a strict cutoff, a criminal alien could deliberately cause months of delays in the removal proceedings to obtain a bond hearing and then abscond and avoid removal altogether.” Id. at 1216. But this concern conflates the question of whether an alien is entitled to a bond hearing with the question of whether that alien is entitled to release. Again, under the bright-line approach, an alien who deliberately delayed her removal proceedings would, after six months, be entitled to a bond hearing. But she would not be entitled to release on bond. At the hearing, an immigration judge would consider whether she was dangerous or likely to abscond to avoid removal and then deny her release if she was either. See Lora, 804 F.3d at 616 (<HOLDING>). Further, an alien who engaged in intentional
holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states holding that an alien must be released unless the government demonstrates at a bond hearing that the alien poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable recognizing that at a bond hearing there is no limit to the discretionary factors that may be considered  in determining whether to detain an alien pending a decision on  removal holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient