On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that fundamentally restricts bond eligibility for noncitizens detained without admission. Immigration judges lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond to aliens who are present in the United States without admission under INA § 235(b)(2)(A). This ruling reverses nearly three decades of settled administrative practice and affects detention strategy in thousands of active removal cases.
What changed
On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals 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, based on the BIA’s “plain language” interpretation of section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The BIA held that those who entered without admission or inspection are considered applicants for admission under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), making them subject to mandatory detention, meaning Immigration Judges do not have authority to release them on bond. Even if someone has lived in the U.S. for years, that does not change their classification as an “applicant for admission”.
The factual posture: Mr. Yajure Hurtado entered the United States without inspection in November 2022 and was later granted Temporary Protected Status, but that designation expired on April 2, 2025, and he was thereafter apprehended and placed in removal proceedings. He requested bond, but the Immigration Judge indicated that he did not have the jurisdiction to set bond given the circumstances of Mr. Yajure Hurtado’s case. The BIA affirmed on jurisdictional grounds.
Why it matters
This decision eliminates independent judicial review of custody for a vast category of detained noncitizens. Entry without inspection is by far the most common charge in ongoing immigration court cases—in fiscal year 2024 alone, it was used in over a million of the 1.76 million immigration court cases initiated that year, with the trend continuing into 2025 at 62% of new cases.
Before Yajure Hurtado, it was common and accepted under case law, regulation and practice that individuals detained and in removal proceedings, including those who entered unlawfully, could request bond, particularly if they had been in the U.S. for substantial time or had factors showing low risk of flight or dangerousness, and these bond hearings allowed judges to evaluate whether it’s fair or humane to release someone pending the outcome of their immigration case.
Now, these individuals are classified as “applicants for admission” under INA §235(b)(2)(A) and must remain in custody unless DHS (the very agency prosecuting their removal) chooses to parole them, eliminating independent judicial oversight over custody for a significant category of noncitizens. Parole is all but a dead letter, with ICE data showing the average monthly parole releases for the last six months dropping by 98.5% compared to the last three months of 2024.
For practitioners: In immigration courts across the country, thousands of detained immigrants who were eligible for a bond hearing before this decision now have no recourse to be released during their immigration court proceedings unless they file—and win—a federal lawsuit.
Way forward
-
Assess active cases. Review all removal-proceeding clients detained for entry without inspection (EWI/INA § 235(b) context). Custody determinations made before September 5, 2025 may be subject to reconsideration; consult the immigration judge’s docket and local practice.
-
Explore habeas corpus. Practitioners are now trying to get their clients released from detention via habeas petitions. Federal district courts retain authority over constitutional questions. Identify sympathetic facts (long residence, family ties, lack of criminal history, serious health conditions).
-
Request parole with DHS. Parole authority remains with the Department of Homeland Security. File discretionary parole requests supported by rehabilitation, U.S. family ties, and community support letters. Parole grants are rare but possible.
-
Monitor appeals. The Supreme Court ended Chevron deference under Loper Bright, meaning higher courts need not defer to this BIA decision to interpret laws passed by Congress where those laws are ambiguous, and Yajure Hurtado will likely be appealed to a higher court. Track federal circuit litigation.
Disclaimer
This article explains a BIA precedential decision and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess how this ruling affects your individual case, rights, or obligations. The analysis above is based on publicly available sources, including the BIA’s September 5, 2025 decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Policy and case law can change without notice; verify all citations and current law against official sources before relying on them in practice.