Bond Hearings After Matter of Yajure Hurtado: Where Mandatory Detention Stands in 2026

For decades, most people arrested inside the United States after entering without inspection could ask an immigration judge for bond. The Board of Immigration Appeals changed that in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, and federal courts have since reached conflicting conclusions. This article explains the competing rules and what detained people and families can do.

Two statutes, two very different results

Immigration detention during removal proceedings is governed mainly by two provisions. Section 236(a) of the INA lets DHS arrest and detain a noncitizen pending a decision on removal and allows release on bond or conditional parole; immigration judges have long held bond hearings under this section. Section 235(b)(2)(A), by contrast, says that an "applicant for admission" who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted "shall be detained" for removal proceedings. For years, the government applied section 235 mainly to people arriving at the border and section 236 to people arrested in the interior, including many who had entered without inspection years earlier.

Our overview of ICE enforcement and detention explains how people end up in custody in the first place.

Matter of Yajure Hurtado

In Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), the Board reconsidered that framework and concluded that noncitizens who entered without inspection and admission remain "applicants for admission" and are therefore subject to mandatory detention under section 235(b)(2)(A). As a result, immigration judges ruled that they lacked authority to hold bond hearings for large numbers of people who had lived in the United States for many years.

Conflicting court decisions

Federal courts have divided sharply:

• Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi). On February 6, 2026, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (consolidated with a second case), a panel opinion by Judge Edith Jones accepted the government's position that people who entered illegally are applicants for admission who "shall be detained." Litigation in that circuit has continued, so the current state of the law there should be checked before any filing.
• Central District of California. In Maldonado Bautista, a district court certified a nationwide class, entered judgment in December 2025 declaring that class members are detained under section 236(a), and on February 18, 2026 vacated Yajure Hurtado under the Administrative Procedure Act. In January 2026 the Chief Immigration Judge had told immigration judges they remained bound by Yajure Hurtado. On March 31, 2026, the Ninth Circuit stayed the nationwide class order and the vacatur while the government's appeal proceeds; according to the ACLU, only people detained in the Central District of California can currently rely on that case to request bond.
• Other district courts. Many detained people have filed individual habeas corpus petitions arguing that they are held under section 236(a) and are entitled to a bond hearing. Results vary by court.

What detained people and families can do

• Find out where the person is held. The governing law can depend on the federal district and circuit. Our guide to finding detainees held by ICE explains how to locate someone.
• Request a bond hearing anyway, when appropriate. A written denial creates a record for further review.
• Consider federal habeas corpus. A habeas petition asks a federal court to review the legality of detention itself. See how habeas corpus works.
• Gather release evidence. Proof of residence, family ties, employment, community support and lack of criminal history helps at any bond or parole hearing.
• Watch for delay inside the court system. When the immigration court itself fails to act, for example by not scheduling hearings or deciding motions, a separate federal remedy may apply; this overview of compelling action by the immigration courts (EOIR) explains how.

This is a rapidly changing area. Any decision about detention strategy should be made with an immigration lawyer who follows the current rulings in the relevant circuit.

What an immigration judge considers at a bond hearing

When a bond hearing is available, the judge decides whether the person poses a danger to the community or a flight risk, and if release is appropriate, the amount of bond. Under Board precedent such as Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), the judge may consider factors such as a fixed address, length of residence, family ties, employment history, record of appearing in court, criminal record and immigration history. Strong documentation on each factor can make the difference between a high bond and an affordable one.

Families preparing for a hearing should gather lease or mortgage records, letters from employers and community members, proof of family relationships, and records of any prior court appearances.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an immigration judge give bond to someone who entered without inspection?

Under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, immigration judges have treated such people as subject to mandatory detention. Federal court rulings differ by region, and some detainees have obtained bond hearings through habeas petitions.

Does the Maldonado Bautista ruling help people outside California?

The Ninth Circuit stayed the nationwide class order on March 31, 2026, so currently it mainly helps people detained in the Central District of California.

What is the difference between bond and parole?

Bond is release after paying a set amount, typically under INA § 236(a). Parole is a discretionary release decision by DHS. Both require showing that the person is not a flight risk or a danger.