Updates on the Law Addressing the Detention of Individuals Who Entered Without Inspection
In September 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) released two new precedential decisions—Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado and Matter of Q. Li —that substantially expand who can be detained without a bond hearing.
Yajure Hurtado Decision
In Yajure Hurtado, the BIA considered whether an immigration judge (“IJ”) had the authority to hold a bond hearing for an individual who was present in the United States who has not been admitted after inspection. Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216, 216 (BIA 2025).
The BIA concluded that Yajure Hurtado must be detained during his proceedings because he had not been admitted to the United States. The BIA reasoned that noncitizens who entered without inspection are “applicants for admission” under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), which means they must be detained mandatorily for the duration of their removal proceedings under INA § 235(b).
In short, an IJ does not have authority to conduct a bond hearing for individuals who were entered the United States without inspection.
Q. Li Decision
In Matter of Q. Li, Ms. Li, a Chinese national, crossed the southern border into the United States without inspection and was apprehended about 100 yards north of the border. Since she didn’t have entry documents, Ms. Li was arrested without a warrant, processed, and then released on “parole” under INA § 212(d)(5)(A).
About two years later, Ms. Li’s parole was revoked, and she was detained. Ms. Li requested a bond hearing in front of an IJ. The IJ denied the request, concluding it lacked jurisdiction. The BIA affirmed, holding that an “applicant for admission” who is arrested while “arriving” in the United States—even if not at a formal port of entry or if arrested shortly after crossing—is subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b). Such persons are ineligible for a bond hearing under INA § 236(a).
Who Is Impacted by These Decisions?
The BIA’s decisions in Yajure Hurtado and Q. Li will impact thousands of individuals in the United States. These people will include those:
Who crossed the United States border at or between ports of entry without inspection and never became legal permanent residents;
Who were apprehended during (or shortly) after crossing into the United States;
Who were placed directly into removal proceedings; and
Who had temporary protected status (“TPS”) or parole but whose status has ended.
This even applies to individuals who may have entered the United States without inspection many years ago but have since established strong community ties or would have otherwise been eligible for release previously.
Unlike before, under these decisions, it doesn’t matter whether someone has been in the United States for 30 years, paid taxes, and had children in the United States. Now the only thing that matters for bond purposes is how someone initially came into the United States.
What Do These Cases Mean for Individuals Who Entered the United States Without Inspection?
Under these decisions, anyone who originally entered the United States without being officially admitted by an immigration officer—also known as entry without inspection (“EWI”)—is an “applicant for admission” under federal law. See NA § 235(b)(2)(A). The classification as an “applicant for admission” means immigration judges no longer have power to give bond hearings to many people who have lived in the U.S. for years, raised families here, and followed every rule since arriving.
In short, individuals who are arrested while “arriving” in the United States are not entitled to a bond hearing.
Do These Decisions Affect DACA Recipients?
These decisions generally do not directly affect DACA recipients so long as their DACA status is active. Since DACA recipients have been granted deferred action—a discretionary protection from removal, they are not considered “applicants for admission” and subject to mandatory detention.
However, under both Yajure Hurtado and Q. Li, if an individual’s DACA status lapses or is otherwise terminated, that person could lose protection and be placed in removal proceedings.
What’s the Overall Impact of These Decisions?
Prior to these decisions, IJ’s had the authority to decide whether a person could be released on bond while in removal proceedings. That authority has now shifted to ICE officers. Now, unless ICE grants an individual parole, that person could remain detained for months or years while their case moves through the immigration system—even if that person isn’t a threat and has deep community roots.
What Can I Do if These Decisions Impact Me or My Family?
If you think these decisions might apply to you, start by gathering documents that show your life in the United States. These might include tax records, work history, children’s birth certificates, school and medical records, community letters. You can use these documents in the future when requesting relief.
Most important, though, don’t lose hope! Our experienced and compassionate team at Shillig Law can help determine whether these decisions apply to you. If they do, we will work with you to come up with the best plan possible to protect you.
No one should face detention alone—especially people who have spent most of their lives in this country and have built families and communities here. With Shillig Law, you won’t have to.