On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedential decision in Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), holding that immigration judges lack authority to conduct bond hearings for individuals present in the United States without admission.
The ruling is based on the BIA's “plain language” interpretation of section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In practice, this means that people who entered the U.S. without inspection—regardless of how long they have lived here or their ties to family, jobs, and community—must remain in mandatory detention while their removal proceedings are pending
AILA Speaks Out
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has condemned the decision as a dangerous expansion of mandatory detention:
- Jeff Joseph, AILA President, warned:
“Removing immigration judges' longstanding authority to decide whether someone should be detained while they await civil court hearings will simply force detained individuals to file habeas corpus petitions and clog up the already burdened federal courts. This decision will put billions of taxpayer dollars in the pockets of private prison companies and irredeemably damage American families, businesses, and communities.”
- Ben Johnson, AILA Executive Director, added:
“Stripping immigration judges of their authority to conduct bond hearings or redetermine custody for potentially millions of people is a terrible plan. For no good reason, people who have been waiting patiently for years to get a fair day in court are now going to be scooped up and locked away… often in inhumane conditions.”
What the Decision Says
The BIA's reasoning rested on three main points:
1. Applicants for Admission Defined Broadly
The INA treats anyone who entered the U.S. without inspection as an “applicant for admission.” Under section 235(b)(2)(A), such individuals “shall be detained” for the duration of proceeding.
2. Bond Authority Under Section 236
While section 236 of the INA gives immigration judges authority to grant bond in some cases, the BIA ruled that it does not override the mandatory detention provisions of section 235.
3. Long Presence Does Not Equal Admission
Even if someone has lived in the U.S. for years, that does not change their classification as an “applicant for admission.” Remaining here without lawful admission does not create eligibility for bond.
Why This Matters
This ruling has sweeping implications:
- Detention Without Review: Immigrants who previously could seek bond before a judge may now be detained indefinitely without judicial oversight.
- Increased Federal Court Burden: As AILA notes, detainees will likely turn to habeas corpus petitions in federal court, adding to already overloaded dockets.
- Private Detention Expansion: Mandatory detention will funnel billions in taxpayer dollars into private prison contracts.
- Family & Community Harm: Parents, workers, and community members who pose no danger may be held for months or years without a chance at release.
What Options Remain
While immigration judges are stripped of bond authority under this ruling, detainees may still:
- Request Parole: DHS retains discretionary parole authority for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
- Pursue Habeas Relief: Federal courts can review the legality of prolonged detention.
- Advocate for Reform: As AILA urges, Congress must step in to stop the erosion of due process in immigration courts.
Conclusion
The Matter of Yajure Hurtado decision marks a dramatic shift in immigration law, effectively eliminating bond hearings for a vast number of immigrants. As AILA leadership stresses, this ruling undermines the fairness and integrity of the immigration court system, harms families and communities, and threatens to clog the federal judiciary.
At Saluja Law, we remain committed to advocating for our clients' rights in the face of these challenges. We will continue to fight for release options where possible, whether through parole requests, habeas petitions, or legislative advocacy.