Guerrero Orellana Ruling Opens Bond Hearings for Immigrants in Yajure Hurtado Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ordered the government to offer custody hearings to certain noncitizens detained in New England, rejecting a policy that denied hearings to people arrested inside the country after entering without inspection.

The court issued its decision on August 13, 2026, in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz. The ruling covers people detained in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire who entered without inspection and were not apprehended at the border.

Eligible detainees may request a bond hearing, also called a custody redetermination hearing, from the Immigration Court. Filings should identify the respondent as a class member and invoke detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The court rejected the government’s position that these interior arrests trigger mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). The dispute grew from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ Matter of Yajure Hurtado decision and a 2025 Department of Homeland Security policy.

Adriana Lafaille, managing attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the decision requires the government to follow federal law and provide hearings to covered detainees.

“This ruling affirms that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally rewrite federal statutes to suit its political agenda. The federal government must follow the law, provide bond hearings to class members, and allow those who pose no danger or flight risk to be released.”

The First Circuit said people arrested in the interior are not “seeking admission” under the mandatory-detention statute. It affirmed a district court order requiring the government to provide hearings under Section 1226(a).

Covered detainees can ask the Immigration Court for a custody review

A detainee or attorney should file a request for a custody redetermination with the Immigration Court. The filing should expressly state that the respondent belongs to the class and qualifies for a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

Counsel should also cite the First Circuit’s August 13 opinion. That citation may address a DHS argument that the person remains subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).

The class is limited by geography and arrest circumstances. It includes people in the four New England states who entered without inspection and were later arrested or detained in the interior, rather than apprehended at the border.

The case also involves long-term residents. Lead plaintiff José Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, a Salvadoran national, had lived in Massachusetts for more than a decade before his detention.

The court’s order gives detainees a second route after a denial

An Immigration Judge may still deny a hearing while relying on the agency’s former interpretation. In that situation, the court’s “Second Notice” advises class members that they may file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the appropriate United States District Court.

That petition seeks immediate relief from a refusal to provide the hearing. A detained person should obtain advice from qualified immigration counsel before choosing that route.

The notice requirement arose after the district court acted on January 29, 2026. It ordered DHS to issue an amended notice in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole.

The order responded to reports that some Immigration Judges were following agency instructions to disregard an earlier declaratory judgment. The revised notice explains class members’ rights under the litigation.

Facilities must provide a phone call within one hour

The court also imposed an access requirement. DHS and facility superintendents must give covered noncitizens access to a telephone to call an attorney within one hour after receiving the formal notice of rights.

That deadline begins after notice. The order ties the call opportunity to delivery of the formal explanation of rights under the ruling.

The requirement gives detained people a direct way to reach counsel while the government implements the decision. Attorneys can then assess eligibility, request the hearing, and respond to continued reliance on mandatory detention.

The decision follows a broader fight over Sections 1225 and 1226

The government’s position developed after DHS issued guidance in July 2025. That guidance treated people who entered without inspection as “applicants for admission,” placing them under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226.

Department of Justice attorneys August Flentje and Katherine Shinners argued in court filings that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires mandatory detention for all “applicants for admission.” Their position included people apprehended years after entering the United States.

The First Circuit disagreed with that application to people arrested in the interior. Its decision requires the government to offer a hearing where the covered respondent may contest detention before an Immigration Judge.

The hearing does not guarantee release. The judge evaluates whether detention should continue, including whether the person presents a danger or flight risk.

The decision is the seventh appellate court ruling described as rejecting the administration’s no-bond policy. It also adds to a widening circuit split over the detention statutes.

That split can produce different litigation positions outside the First Circuit’s territory. The class order described here applies to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire.

The district court’s amended notice remains central to implementation. It must reach class members in four languages, while facilities must preserve access to counsel after formal notice.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.