AI Justice Voices Serious Concern Over BIA Bond Authority Curtailment

(UNITED STATES) The Board of Immigration Appeals on September 5, 2025, issued a sweeping ruling in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that removes immigration judges’ authority to hold bond hearings or grant bond to people who entered the United States without inspection. The BIA decision, effective nationwide, treats detained migrants who crossed between ports of entry as “applicants for admission” under INA § 235(b)(2)(A) and subjects them to mandatory detention for the length of their removal cases. Advocacy groups, including Americans for Immigrant Justice, condemned the ruling, warning it will prolong detention, separate families, and deny individualized review of custody.

The ruling marks a major break from past practice in many courts, where immigration judges could weigh flight risk and public safety and set a bond that allowed release while a case moved forward. As of now, judges cannot even hear a bond request for this group. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the decision closes a critical relief valve in a system already strained by backlogs, with direct consequences for asylum seekers and long‑time residents with strong community ties.

AI Justice, in a statement dated September 9, expressed “serious concern,” calling the decision a stark blow to due process. The group said the BIA’s reading of the statute will force “countless people” to remain behind bars for months or years while they wait for hearings and appeals. More than 100 organizations have joined in denouncing the change and are preparing litigation and policy efforts to restore bond hearings. The detention stakes are personal: a parent stuck in custody cannot return to children, a worker loses income and housing, and an asylum seeker may struggle to collect evidence while confined.

Scope and Immediate Effects

Under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the scope is broad: it applies to all noncitizens who entered without inspection, not only those caught near the border. The BIA emphasizes that the law requires uniform treatment of “applicants for admission,” removing any judge‑by‑judge discretion. The agency’s interpretation is binding on immigration judges and Department of Homeland Security officers unless the Attorney General or a federal court overturns it. That means local practice or past bond policies no longer control.

• Decision date: September 5, 2025
• Key holding: Immigration judges lack jurisdiction to grant or hear bond for entrants without inspection
• Immediate effect: Detained individuals remain in custody through the end of removal proceedings, absent another lawful path to release

Attorneys across the country say they will turn to federal district courts with habeas corpus petitions as the only available route to challenge detention length or conditions for this group. Habeas is a separate civil action that asks a federal judge to review the legality of custody. Lawyers warn that habeas petitions are:

• More complex than bond hearings
• More time‑ and resource‑intensive
• Often in need of expert support

Still, habeas may be the sole option to seek release while the immigration case continues.

The BIA’s logic builds on a trend in 2025 decisions narrowing custody discretion, including Matter of Q Li, which limited bond eligibility for certain arriving immigrants. In Hurtado, the Board extends the mandatory detention framework to a far wider population by relying on the “applicant for admission” label. Government lawyers argue the text of INA § 235 compels this outcome and that uniform detention supports consistent border and interior enforcement. Critics counter that the statute does not require locking up everyone in this category without a hearing.

Legal Path Forward and Community Impact

For people already detained after entering without inspection, the practical steps are stark:

1. No bond hearing: Immigration judges cannot consider release on bond for these cases.
2. File habeas: The remaining path is a habeas petition in federal district court to challenge the legality or duration of detention.
3. Get counsel quickly: Habeas is technical and time‑sensitive; secure skilled legal help as soon as possible.
4. Prepare evidence: Gather proof of identity, community ties, lack of danger, and medical needs to support a habeas request or humanitarian release efforts with DHS.

Immigration advocates say the ruling will drive up detention costs and worsen backlogs. Longer custody often means:

• Slower case preparation
• More continuances and appeals
• Increased strain on resources

Children may face long separations from a detained parent, and people with health issues could see conditions worsen behind bars. These outcomes are especially severe for asylum seekers who fled harm and now must fight their cases while detained.

“Blanket detention without a bond hearing raises serious constitutional questions, including due process,” say AI Justice and allied groups. They also argue it violates international human rights standards protecting liberty.

The legal community is preparing lawsuits that ask federal courts to review the BIA’s reading of the statute and the Constitution. Those cases could bring clarity or limits to the policy in the months ahead. In the meantime, individuals and families will feel the daily impact.

What the BIA Ruling Means Practically

• The BIA decision is binding nationwide. Immigration judges must follow it unless it’s reversed by a federal court or the Attorney General issues a new interpretation.
• Congress could change the law to restore bond hearings for people who entered without inspection.
• Executive‑branch policy choices—such as guidance for parole or supervision—may shape how DHS officers handle humanitarian cases, but they cannot give judges the authority the BIA has removed.

Before Hurtado, many people who had lived in the country for years after an unlawful entry could ask an immigration judge for bond while their cases moved forward. Judges weighed factors like community ties, family support, and criminal history. That individualized approach is now off the table for this group. Lawyers caution families not to expect a bond hearing date in immigration court; instead, they should discuss federal court options right away.

According to AI Justice, this shift will likely push more people to file habeas petitions, increasing caseloads in federal courts and creating new barriers for those who cannot afford counsel. Some nonprofits are trying to fill the gap, but capacity is limited. People with strong community networks may be better positioned to pursue habeas, while isolated detainees could face longer confinement.

Practical Advice from Legal Service Providers

Legal service providers advise detained individuals and their families to:

• Keep detailed records of detention timelines
• Request medical evaluations when needed
• Save all notices and orders
• Reach out promptly to reputable nonprofits for screening and referrals

These documents often matter in federal court. While no single strategy fits every case, early advice can make a real difference when weighing a habeas filing.

Resources

• For official background on the BIA and its role in setting nationwide precedent for immigration courts, visit the U.S. Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (EOIR): https://www.justice.gov/eoir/board-of-immigration-appeals
• For advocacy materials and case updates, Americans for Immigrant Justice maintains a resource page at AI Justice press releases: https://aijustice.org/press-releases

Final Takeaway

The stakes of Matter of Yajure Hurtado are large. Potentially hundreds of thousands of people each year who are picked up after entering without inspection could be swept into extended detention without the possibility of a bond hearing. As litigation moves forward, communities, attorneys, and advocates will track whether courts accept the BIA’s statutory reading and how that affects day‑to‑day custody decisions. For now, the pathway out of detention runs through federal court, not the immigration judge’s courtroom.