Immigration Appeals Court Expands Mandatory Detention for Millions

(UNITED STATES) A sweeping ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals in late August 2025 has sharply expanded mandatory detention for people in deportation proceedings, declaring that anyone who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible for release on bond by an immigration judge. The decision, issued in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), interprets the Immigration and Nationality Act to classify this entire group as “applicants for admission,” placing them under detention rules that do not allow bond. The policy change is already reshaping daily life for immigrant families and straining a detention system running at historic levels.

Under the new interpretation, length of time in the country, family ties, steady work, and a clean record no longer matter in bond decisions for this category. Immigration judges, who previously could hear bond requests from people who proved at least two years of residence, now lack authority to grant release. As of September 2025, judges are routinely denying bond for this group, while U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds record numbers of detainees.

On June 24, 2025, ICE reported more than 59,000 people in custody, a high-water mark and roughly 140% of the federally funded capacity at that time. Nearly half—about 47%—had no criminal record or pending charges, and fewer than 30% had any conviction, with many tied to minor offenses.

Policy shift and scope

The BIA ruling cites INA § 235(b)(2)(A) to find that people who entered without inspection fall into a category that Congress directed be detained while their cases move forward. By making that reading categorical, the decision removes bond hearings for millions of undocumented residents in removal cases, regardless of how long they have lived in the United States. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, this marks a dramatic break from practice that allowed individualized review, including for long-time residents who posed no flight risk or danger.

The effects are immediate. ICE has cut back on discretionary releases, reserving them for narrow situations such as serious medical issues or rare humanitarian parole. Congress’s recent funding boost—through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4, 2025—adds $45 billion over four years to expand beds, including family detention, lifting system capacity to at least 116,000. With more space and a bar on bond for a large group, detention lengths are rising as cases wait for hearings.

This expansion reaches people with deep roots: parents taking children to school, workers with steady jobs, and students waiting on court dates can now be held for months or longer without a chance at bond. Advocates say the rule pushes people to give up their cases to escape confinement and warn of growing family separations and harm to children when caregivers cannot come home.

The surge compounds well-known backlogs. Immigration courts already face long lines; more detention without bond means many will wait inside facilities as their cases crawl forward. Community groups report heightened fear, with families preparing emergency plans, signing power-of-attorney papers, and sharing contact lists in case a parent does not return from a routine ICE check-in.

Legal pushback and community impact

While the Supreme Court has declined to step in so far, several federal courts are examining the new detention landscape. Judges have questioned prolonged custody without bond hearings under statutes such as the Laken Riley Act. In one case noted by advocates, a U.S. District Court ordered the release of an 18-year-old who had spent months in detention without a hearing, calling that practice a due process violation.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are pursuing lawsuits, arguing that indefinite detention without individualized review crosses constitutional lines and punishes people before any final decision on their cases. The administration defends the policy: President Trump and senior ICE officials say equal treatment across cases is fair and necessary for border security and public safety. They argue that clear, uniform rules reduce mixed signals and help officers apply the law.

Lawyers and professors counter that the policy cuts away a basic safeguard—judicial bond review—that has long checked errors, protected families, and kept people who are not a threat out of jail-like settings while their cases proceed.

Key takeaway: advocates argue the new rule removes judicial checks that protected families and non-threatening respondents; the administration says uniformity improves enforcement.

Key facts at a glance

• Who is covered: Anyone in removal proceedings who entered without inspection, no matter how long they have lived here or whether they have a record.
• Bond hearings: Immigration judges have no jurisdiction to grant bond to this group.
• Possible release: Limited and rare, mainly at ICE’s discretion for serious medical or urgent humanitarian reasons.
• Case timelines: Proceedings can last many months or years because of court backlogs, extending detention.

What options remain and common responses

For many, the road ahead runs through appeals and other legal avenues:

1. Seek custody reviews from ICE (administrative discretion).
2. File habeas petitions in federal court after prolonged detention.
3. Raise constitutional challenges tied to due process.
4. Preserve the administrative record for appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Families and attorneys are preparing evidence to support discretionary release requests, despite their rarity. Commonly gathered documents include:

• Proof of identity
• Medical records
• School letters and employment records
• Evidence of community ties (letters from employers, clergy, or community organizations)

Community responses reflect the immediate human impact:

• Shelters near detention centers report increased demand from families who lost a breadwinner to custody.
• School counselors note students acting out or missing class after a parent’s arrest.
• Pastors and local leaders organize rides for detention visits.
• Mutual aid groups deliver groceries to households where income has stopped.
• Mental health providers warn that long detention can worsen depression and anxiety, especially for teenagers and young adults separated from parents.

Legislative and judicial outlook

The legal fight will continue. Some members of Congress have floated bills to restore bond hearings and narrow mandatory detention, but no measure had advanced as of September 2025. If appeals courts split on constitutional questions, the Supreme Court could eventually decide the reach of detention without bond across this category. Until then, the BIA’s reading controls in the immigration courts.

People with pending cases should:

• Track hearing dates through the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
• Seek counsel from qualified immigration attorneys.

Official case information is available through the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review at justice.gov/eoir. Attorneys can explain options like contesting removability, seeking relief, and preserving the record for appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Although bond is off the table for many, a well-prepared case still matters: it can shorten delays, protect rights, and improve outcomes in court.

Conclusion

As the expanded regime sets in, the numbers tell a clear story: more people in custody, for longer, with fewer paths to release. For the millions now swept into mandatory detention during deportation proceedings, the outcome of ongoing litigation—and any future action by Congress—will shape whether detention remains the rule rather than the exception.