Federal ruling doesn’t stop Washington judges from denying bonds

(WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES) A federal ruling in Washington state that appeared to reopen the door to immigration bond hearings has had limited practical effect, as immigration judges in Tacoma continue to deny release under separate, higher-level directives that control detention policy nationwide. The October 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright found that certain people held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center are entitled to request bond. But in day-to-day practice, attorneys say bond is still out of reach because both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have restricted release authority since mid-2025.

Judge Cartwright’s order stems from a case filed in March 2025 on behalf of Roman Rodriguez Vazquez, a longtime Washington resident, and others detained in Tacoma. The court concluded that refusing even to consider bond for eligible detainees violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Historically, Tacoma’s immigration court granted bond in only about 3% of cases where people asked for it — the lowest rate in the country, according to case records and advocacy groups involved in the litigation.

For families in Washington state waiting for loved ones, the ruling briefly raised hopes that bond hearings would resume with meaningful chances of release. Those hopes met a hard stop in the form of two policies that now frame detention decisions: an ICE directive from July 8, 2025, and a BIA precedential decision from September 5, 2025.

Key policy actions that limit bond access

ICE directive — July 8, 2025

• Acting director Todd Lyons issued a memorandum declaring that “all noncitizens who have not been lawfully admitted, including those already present in the United States, will no longer be eligible for release from ICE custody for the duration of their removal proceedings except by discretionary parole.”
• Attorneys describe the memo as a sweeping reinterpretation of 1990s-era detention laws to cover anyone who crossed between ports of entry, regardless of how long ago they arrived.
• Practical effect: Many people in Washington with deep family ties now face mandatory detention unless ICE grants parole — a rare remedy that is not reviewable by immigration judges.

BIA decision — Matter of Yajure Hurtado (September 5, 2025)

• The BIA issued a precedential ruling holding that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings for people “present without admission.”
• This decision removed a long-standing authority immigration judges used to decide bond in many cases and has been cited by judges in Tacoma as a basis to deny bond or decline jurisdiction.
• Note: While district courts can order agencies to follow the Immigration and Nationality Act, the BIA’s nationwide ruling defines what immigration judges can do within the immigration court system.

The combined effect of the July ICE memo and the BIA’s Yajure Hurtado decision has left immigration judges in Tacoma saying they cannot grant bond, even after a district court recognized a right to a hearing for certain detainees.

How the legal stalemate plays out in practice

• People detained at Tacoma can ask for bond hearings based on Judge Cartwright’s order, but immigration judges then point to Matter of Yajure Hurtado and the July ICE policy to deny bond or decline jurisdiction.
• Attorneys report families spend weeks gathering money and paperwork only to be told the judge’s hands are tied.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com finds this clash between federal trial court authority and immigration court limits is pushing more cases into federal habeas corpus petitions — a slower, more complex path that requires private counsel and significant resources.

Geographic and legal scope of the ruling

• The federal court’s ruling is geographically narrow: it applies only to people detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma and does not set nationwide precedent.
• Matt Adams of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has confirmed this limited scope, while noting similar challenges are progressing in California and Massachusetts.
• Without intervention from a circuit court or the Supreme Court, or Congressional clarification, different regions may see a patchwork of outcomes.

Detention numbers and policy context

• As of June 24, 2025, ICE held more than 59,000 people in immigration detention — the highest level recorded in the United States and roughly 140% above federally funded capacity at the time.
• This surge followed stepped-up enforcement at the border and in the interior.
• The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, adds $45 billion over four years to expand capacity to at least 116,000 beds.
• The funding increase signals that the federal government intends to maintain a detention-first approach while legal challenges continue.

Policy changes overview (summary)

Two pillars now shape how bond is handled in Tacoma and beyond:

1. ICE July 2025 Policy
   • Declares people who entered without admission are generally not eligible for release during their cases, except through discretionary parole.
   • Parole can be granted for urgent or humanitarian reasons but is rarely used and cannot be ordered by immigration judges.
   • Lawyers report parole requests are often denied without clear explanation.
2. BIA September 2025 Decision (Matter of Yajure Hurtado)
   • Holds that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to hold bond hearings or grant bond to those present without admission.
   • Has been cited by immigration judges in Tacoma when denying bond, even where a district court recognized a hearing right.
   • For official background on how the immigration courts and the BIA function, see the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/precedent-decisions

These moves significantly narrow what immigration judges can do in bond hearings, even within Washington state. As a result, the district court’s ruling has not produced a noticeable rise in releases.

What this means for people in detention

Under the current framework, many detainees who would have asked an immigration judge for bond must now go straight to federal court with habeas corpus petitions to challenge prolonged detention.

• Habeas corpus is powerful but:
  • Complex
  • Slow
  • Often expensive
• The American Immigration Lawyers Association warns this shift will “clog up the already burdened federal courts,” increasing delays for families seeking reunification.
• For low-income detainees who cannot afford private attorneys, that often means months longer in custody while removal proceedings continue.

Two common scenarios in Tacoma

• Example 1: A father who crossed years ago, has U.S. citizen children and steady work, is arrested after a traffic stop and detained. Before mid-2025, he might have sought bond by showing community ties. Now, the July memo presumes detention and the BIA decision blocks immigration judges from granting bond. His lawyer must try for parole or file habeas in federal court.
• Example 2: A recent border crosser with a pending asylum claim faces the same barriers. Even if the district court suggests a right to ask for bond, the immigration judge may cite Matter of Yajure Hurtado and decline jurisdiction. Without counsel and funds, the case stalls in detention.

Attorneys say these patterns are common and have reshaped how families plan for release. Community groups in Washington now set aside funds not only for possible bond but also for legal fees tied to federal litigation. Meanwhile, ICE detention numbers rise as capacity expands under the new funding law, reducing pressure on the agency to grant parole.

Community and economic impacts

• Employers and local governments face lost workers and disrupted families.
• School districts report children missing class to visit detained parents.
• Health providers in Pierce County note increased demand for counseling and social services.
• The human impact is visible in Tacoma’s neighborhoods, even if it rarely appears in legal briefs.

Advocacy, possible remedies, and likely next steps

Advocates argue the conflict between the district court ruling and the BIA decision requires resolution at a higher level. Potential remedies include:

• Congressional action to clarify immigration judges’ bond authority or set time limits on detention without a bond hearing.
• Appeals to circuit courts or the Supreme Court to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.
• Continued federal habeas filings and regional litigation that could create inconsistent outcomes across circuits.

VisaVerge.com reports similar lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that could produce a patchwork of decisions unless a higher court provides uniform guidance.

Practical steps for detained people and families

For those directly affected, attorneys and advocates recommend practical measures:

• Keep records organized:
  • Identity documents
  • Proof of residence and family ties
  • Work history
  • Medical records
• Ask counsel about parole: Although rare, parole remains one of the few release paths under the July 2025 policy. Letters from family, employers, and faith leaders can be helpful.
• Track and meet deadlines: Missed immigration court dates complicate matters and can worsen detention outcomes.
• Seek trusted legal help: Avoid notarios and scams. Look for licensed attorneys or nonprofit organizations experienced in habeas corpus and parole requests.

The contradiction is stark: a federal judge says certain detainees must have a chance at bond hearings, yet immigration judges say they cannot grant bond because they lack jurisdiction and ICE policy bars release.

Unless policy changes or higher courts intervene, the practical outcome is that most detained people who entered without admission will remain in custody throughout their cases, regardless of family ties or community support.

Conclusion

For now, the Northwest ICE Processing Center functions as a test case for how administrative policies can limit courtroom relief. The Washington ruling may shape legal arguments elsewhere, but Tacoma’s immigration judges remain constrained by national directives pointing the other way.

Families outside the barbed-wire fence feel the difference between an order on paper and a judge’s power in the hearing room — a gap that, day after day, decides who sleeps at home and who remains behind the walls.