The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) limited the extent of authority that Immigration Judges (IJs) possess concerning bond hearings for noncitizens who have entered the United States without inspection or lawful admission. In the landmark decision of Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025), the BIA held that IJs cannot grant such noncitizens bond, based on the language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Case Background
The case involved a respondent from Venezuela who crossed into the U.S. in November 2022, without inspection. Initially granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2024, this status expired on April 2, 2025. Following apprehension by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), he was charged with being inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the U.S. without admission or parole. The respondent sought a bond hearing, but the IJ denied the request, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The court sent the decision to the BIA.
Legal Framework
The BIA examined the parameters of INA § 235 and INA § 236 to address the issue: whether IJs have the authority to conduct bond hearings for aliens present in the U.S. without admission.
- INA § 235(b): Primarily targets non-citizens seeking entry into the U.S., mandating their detention if they are inadmissible and have not demonstrated continuous U.S. presence for two years prior to inadmissibility determination.
- INA § 236: Covers non-citizens within the U.S., allowing those not subject to mandatory detention to seek bond under certain conditions.
The crux of the issue was whether the INA mandates all applicants residing in the U.S. unlawfully qualify for mandatory detention.
Board’s Conclusion
The BIA upheld the IJ’s decision, emphasizing that the respondent, not having been lawfully admitted, is an “applicant for admission” under INA § 235(b)(2)(A). The Board rejected the argument that residing in the U.S. for over two years exempts an individual from mandatory detention. The BIA reiterated that the statutory language is clear: all applicants for admission are subject to mandatory detention, irrespective of their duration of unlawful residence.
The respondent’s arguments regarding legislative intent and historical practice were also dismissed. The BIA noted that changes introduced by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) sought to reduce procedural rights for those entering without inspection. Moreover, the issuance of a DHS arrest warrant does not confer IJ authority to set bond for aliens detained under INA § 235(b)(2)(A).
Implications
This decision underscores a strict interpretation of the INA. It states undocumented individuals aren’t exempt from mandatory detention, regardless of how long they’ve resided in the U.S. It highlights the legislative intent to maintain stringent controls over unlawful entry and reinforces the legal framework governing detention and bond eligibility.
As always, Immigration USA actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, please contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws and policy updates. In an ever-evolving immigration landscape, we’re with you every step of the way.