Immigration judges nationwide are granting far fewer bonds to detainees, and the shift is sharpest at the Adelanto immigration court in San Bernardino County. Data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review reveals a stark pattern: judges who were denying about 36% of bond requests in 2024 moved to 43% denials in 2025, and have reached 55% denial rates in the first quarter of 2026. At Adelanto specifically, the denial rate more than doubled after a discrete inflection point in mid-November 2025.
What changed
An analysis of data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review shows that immigration judges nationwide are granting fewer bond requests, with judges denying about 43% of bond requests in 2025, up from about 36% in 2024. The denial rate continued to rise, reaching about 55% in the first three months of 2026.
The sharpest change is visible at Adelanto. Between January 1, 2024 and November 10, 2025, immigration judges there denied about 39% of bond requests, but since November 10, 2025, Adelanto judges have denied just over 57% of bond requests. Immigration attorneys based in Southern California have tied this to an internal email — referring to an ICE policy memo issued around that date.
The analysis, conducted by a Berkeley Law doctoral student and cited in habeas corpus filings before federal courts, is based on data published by the Executive Office for Immigration Review in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The researcher found 8,555 completed bond records at Adelanto between January 1, 2024 and April 30, 2026, with nearly half (4,110) coming after November 10, 2025.
Why it matters
This data shift has direct consequences for your detention strategy and client advising:
Bond outcomes are deteriorating. The bond denial rate at Adelanto nearly doubled from 39% (pre-November 10, 2025) to 57% (post-November 10). This is not a gradual drift—it’s a discrete policy break tied to an identifiable date.
Appeal processing is slowing dramatically. The median processing time for a detained appeal in 2024 was 111 days, but in the first quarter of 2026, that processing time has nearly doubled to 216 days. Clients waiting for bond appeal decisions face months of detention.
Favorable outcomes are rare. Nearly 97% of cases in 2025 were dismissed for procedural or administrative reasons or denied, and favorable outcomes meaning decisions that favored the immigrant were nearly absent.
The November 10 inflection point matters for litigation. Federal judges in the Central District of California (which includes Adelanto) have ordered immigration courts to hold bond hearings under the partial stay on the Board of Immigration Appeals decision — but even when those hearings occur, immigration judges are applying restrictive flight-risk findings. This suggests that legal eligibility under Maldonado Bautista is only the first gate; adjudicative standards have tightened separately.
Way forward
-
File habeas corpus petitions earlier. Federal courts in San Diego and Los Angeles have implemented new protocols to streamline habeas petitions, including requiring government responses within seven days. Habeas is now a common recourse when immigration judges deny bond; front-load this as soon as the immigration judge’s decision is issued.
-
Document community ties and flight-risk mitigation at the outset. Immigration judges are applying flight-risk standards aggressively. Build a record of employment, family, property ownership, and prior compliance with immigration proceedings before the bond hearing, not during it.
-
Monitor your client’s custody classification. The November 10, 2025 shift corresponds to ICE’s reclassification of certain noncitizens as “applicants for admission” ineligible for bond. Confirm whether your client has been placed in that category; if so, challenge it with evidence from Maldonado Bautista (which applies in the Central District of California and elsewhere, depending on jurisdiction).
-
Prepare for extended detention. Processing times have doubled to 216 days. Advise clients and families realistically about the timeline for appeal decisions and contingency plans for voluntary departure or other closure mechanisms.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is a technology and information platform, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and highly fact-specific; the bond outcomes described here are aggregated data and do not predict individual case results. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney about your personal situation.
Immigration policy and adjudication practice can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and current agency guidance at https://www.eoir.justice.gov/ and https://www.ice.gov/ before relying on it for practice decisions.