BIA Holds Bond Venue Follows Detainee's Location, Not Where Removal Case Is Pending

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from an immigration judge's decision releasing a respondent on an $8,000 bond, after the respondent had already been transferred from Massachusetts to a detention facility in Texas before the bond hearing took place. The immigration judge in Massachusetts reasoned that venue for the bond request remained proper there because the respondent's removal case was still administratively pending in that court.

The Board held that bond proceedings are separate from removal proceedings, and that the controlling regulation ties bond venue to the respondent's place of detention, not to which immigration court is handling the underlying removal case. Because the respondent had already been transferred to Texas by the time he filed his second custody redetermination request, the Massachusetts immigration court was not the proper venue, and the Board vacated the bond decision without reaching the merits of dangerousness or flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Vizcaino Aybar can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1450581/dl?inline

Tenth Circuit Holds Interior Detention Under Section 1225 Limited to the Border, Requires Bond Eligibility

The Tenth Circuit has reversed the denial of habeas relief for a long-term Oklahoma resident detained for over eight months without a bond hearing after the government reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply to unadmitted noncitizens arrested anywhere in the country, departing from nearly thirty years of contrary practice. The petitioner, married to a lawful permanent resident and stepfather to a U.S. citizen, has no criminal history apart from a single DUI.

Joining the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits and splitting from the Fifth and Eighth, the Court held that the statutory phrase "seeking admission" independently limits § 1225(b)(2)(A) to noncitizens at the border, since a person who has already entered the country can no longer be said to have an ongoing, present request for admission pending. The Court also found that reading § 1225(b)(2)(A) to reach the interior would render portions of § 1226(c) superfluous and would raise serious constitutional concerns under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The petitioner remains detainable under § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing.

The full text of Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111461009.pdf

Fifth Circuit Affirms Habeas Relief for Long-Term Residents Held Without Bond Under Section 1225

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed habeas relief for three long-term undocumented residents of Texas, each detained without a bond hearing after the government reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to mandate detention for unadmitted noncitizens found anywhere in the country's interior, not just at the border. None of the three men had a criminal history or removal order, and each has U.S. citizen children.

The Court held that even under this new statutory interpretation, the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention, since Congress made no individualized or categorical findings that noncitizens like the petitioners pose a danger or flight risk sufficient to justify mandatory, bondless detention.

The full text of Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50219-CV0.pdf

Eight days later, the Fifth Circuit granted en banc rehearing in the matter, vacating the three-judge panel’s decision: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50219-CV1.pdf

BIA Finds Prior UAC Designation and Approved SIJ Petition Do Not Create Bond Jurisdiction

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that neither a prior unaccompanied-child designation nor an approved SIJ petition gives an Immigration Judge authority to redetermine custody for a respondent who has not been admitted to the United States. The respondent had entered as a minor, later aged out of UAC status, and had an approved Form I-360 SIJ petition.

The Board followed Matter of Yajure Hurtado and held that the respondent remained an applicant for admission subject to INA 235(b)(2)(A), rather than INA 236(a). Because section 235(b)(2)(A) does not provide for Immigration Judge bond redetermination, the Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the bond order, and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The full text of Matter of N-A-G-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1443566/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Bond Where Respondent Did Not Show He Was Not a Danger

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a respondent’s false imprisonment conviction and related arrest history showed that he was a danger to the community and did not warrant release on bond. DHS appealed an Immigration Judge’s order releasing the respondent on a $15,000 bond.

The Board sustained DHS’s appeal and vacated the bond order. The Board emphasized that the respondent bore the burden of showing that he was not a danger to the community, that non-conviction conduct may be considered in the bond analysis, and that a dangerousness finding is dispositive without reaching flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Martinez-Rodriguez can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442701/dl?inline

Sixth Circuit Finds Interior Arrests Are Governed by 8 USC 1226(a), Not Mandatory Detention Under 8 USC 1225(b)(2)(A)

The Sixth Circuit has determined that non-citizens arrested in the interior of the United States, years after entering without inspection, are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225(b)(2)(A). Rather, the Court affirmed the district courts' grants of habeas relief and held that the petitioners were detained under 8 USC 1226(a), which permits bond. The Court also concluded that due process required individualized bond hearings for these non-citizens, rejecting the government's position that they could be detained without bond under the mandatory detention statute.

The full text of Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0139p-06.pdf

BIA Finds FBI Letterhead Memorandum Warrants Significant Weight in Bond Proceedings

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating that a respondent is a potential national security risk warrants significant weight in bond proceedings. The Board sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the Immigration Judge’s bond order, and ordered the respondent detained without bond.

The Board explained that dangerousness determinations in bond proceedings may consider national security concerns and need not be limited to evidence of prior criminal conduct. The Board also rejected the respondent’s argument that the FBI memorandum was inherently unreliable because it was unsigned and unsworn, noting that immigration proceedings are not governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and that government records prepared in the ordinary course of official duties carry strong indicia of reliability.

The full text of Matter of Shentu can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1438116/dl?inline

Second Circuit Finds that Individuals who Entered without Inspection Years Ago are Detained under 1226(a)

The Second Circuit has determined that non-citizens who entered the United States without inspection years ago are detained under 8 USC 1226, not 8 USC 1225.

The full text of Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-3141_complete_opn.pdf

BIA Finds Detainee to be Flight Risk Due to Address Inconsistencies

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a non-citizen is a flight risk due to inconsistencies about his address.

“The Immigration Judge did not consider the significant discrepancies in the record regarding the respondent’s residence. According to the Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, DHS agents encountered the respondent living and working at a business that was illegally growing marijuana in Oklahoma. The respondent’s bond request worksheet asserts he was detained by immigration officials “at [his] residence.” However, in the asylum application he filed with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the respondent indicated that he resides in California. The respondent’s purported sponsor also claims to live at the same address in California. The respondent bears the burden of resolving discrepancies in the record, and he has not done so here.”

The full text of Matter of Z-N-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1430911/dl?inline

Fifth Circuit Determines that all Non-citizens who Enter US without Inspection are Subject to Mandatory Detention

The Fifth Circuit has determined that all non-citizens who enter the United States without inspection are subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225.

The full text of Buenrostro- Mendez v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20496-CV0.pdf

BIA Reverses Bond Grant to Non-Citizen Recently Convicted of Statutory Rape

The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the grant of bond to a non-citizen recently convicted of statutory rape and oral copulation with a 14-year-old girl. “The respondent’s behavior reflects a willingness and ability to manipulate vulnerable persons into engaging in unlawful conduct to meet his own desires and to do so at great harm to them.”

The full text of Matter of Cotrufo can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1415166/dl?inline

BIA Finds IJs Lack Jurisdiction to Grant Bond to Non-Citizens who are not Admitted

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that Immigration Judges lack jurisdiction to consider the bond request of a non-citizen who entered the United States without admission and who has been present in the United States for at least two years. “Under section 235, Congress created three different categories of applicants for admission. The first two categories are covered by section 235(b)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A). They include: (1) arriving aliens inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C), (a)(7), and (2) aliens not admitted or paroled into the United States who are inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C), (a)(7), and “who ha[ve] not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that [they] ha[ve] been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of determination of inadmissibility.” “The third category of applicants for admission subject to the inspection, detention, and removal procedures set forth in section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, are those aliens who are seeking admission and who an immigration officer has determined are ‘not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.’ INA § 235(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). This category is a ‘catchall provision that applies to all applicants for admission not covered by [section 235(b)(1)].’”

“The respondent provides no legal authority for the proposition that after some undefined period of time residing in the interior of the United States without lawful status, the INA provides that an applicant for admission is no longer ‘seeking admission,’ and has somehow converted to a status that renders him or her eligible for a bond hearing under section 236(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(a).”

“Aliens, like the respondent, who surreptitiously cross into the United States remain applicants for admission until and unless they are lawfully inspected and admitted by an immigration officer. Remaining in the United States for a lengthy period of time following entry without inspection, by itself, does not constitute an ‘admission.’ Likewise, being arrested pursuant to a warrant and placed into removal proceedings does not constitute an admission. Therefore, just as Immigration Judges have no authority to redetermine the custody of arriving aliens who present themselves at a port of entry, they likewise have no authority to redetermine the custody conditions of an alien who crossed the border unlawfully without inspection, even if that alien has avoided apprehension for more than 2 years.”

The full text of Matter of Yajure Hurtado can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1413311/dl?inline

BIA Denies Bond due to Absence of Letter from Sponsor

The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that the Department of Homeland Security met its burden of proving a non-citizen was a flight risk because the non-citizen submitted contradictory proof of the residence of his sponsor and did not submit a statement from the sponsor. “The Immigration Judge also clearly erred in finding that the proposed sponsor has a fixed address in Hallandale, Florida. The documents provide three different addresses for the sponsor, two in Hallandale, Florida, and another in Hopatcong, New Jersey. The documentation for a residential lease in Hallandale, Florida, provides a different address than the bill for electric services in the same location. There is no explanation from either the respondent or the sponsor as to which of the multiple addresses, if any, is Mr. G-’s fixed address, and whether the respondent will be residing with him at the address upon release from custody. Further complicating this factual analysis is the submission of a different address in New Jersey, without clarification by the respondent or Mr. G-. Thus, the Immigration Judge clearly erred in finding that the sponsorship documents reflected that the sponsor has a fixed address in Hallandale, Florida, and that the respondent would reside with him there.”

The full text of Matter of Dobrotvorskii can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1413266/dl?inline

BIA Finds Inconsistent Address Information to Support Flight Risk Finding

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a non-citizen who provides inconsistent address information to immigration officers is a flight risk.

The full text of Matter of Akhmedov can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410181/dl?inline

BIA Overturns Bond Grant to Respondent with Pending Drug Trafficking Charges

The Board of Immigration Appeals has overturned a bond grant to an individual facing pending drug trafficking charges, finding the person to be a danger to the community.

The full text of Matter of Salas Pena can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1411216/dl?inline

BIA Reverses Bond Grant to Applicant Convicted of Aggravated Assault

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reversed the grant of bond to a non-citizen recently convicted of aggravated assault, noting that the conviction involved “the applicant’s decision to engage in violent behavior against her partner by pouring alcohol on his back and setting him on fire using a cigarette. The victim sustained burns on his head, face, and torso and had to be placed in a medically-induced coma.”

The full text of Matter of C-M-M- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1407986/dl?inline

BIA Finds that Grant of Withholding that is Pending Review does not Justify Release on Bond

The Board of Immigration Appeals has found that a grant of withholding of removal that is pending appellate review by the Board does not justify release on bond when there are significant adverse factors present. In this case, those factors included “the respondent entered the United States unlawfully on September 6, 2023, does not have work history in this country, was arrested for petty theft on October 22, 2023, removed her court ordered GPS ankle monitor, and assisted her son in fleeing from law enforcement after shooting at a police officer.”

The full text of Matter of E-Y-F-G- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1403191/dl?inline

BIA Subjects Applicants for Admission to Mandatory Detention

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an applicant for admission who is arrested and detained without a warrant while arriving in the United States, whether or not at a port of entry, and subsequently placed in removal proceedings is detained under section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and is ineligible for any subsequent release on bond under section 236(a) of the INA.

“An ‘applicant for admission; is defined, in relevant part, as an alien ‘who arrives in the United States whether or not at a designated port of arrival.’ An alien, like the respondent, ‘who tries to enter the country illegally is treated as an ‘applicant for admission.’” The Board further noted that the only exception to mandatory detention of applicants for admission is parole, which suggests that anyone who meets the definition of an applicant for admission who is not detained is actually paroled in the United States. However, the parole is terminated by the service of a Notice to Appear, which in turn, permits later detention under section 235(b) of the non-citizen.

The full text of Matter of Q. Li is found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1400431/dl?inline

BIA Addresses Role of State Court Bail Decision in Immigration Bond Determination

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge may consider a State court’s decision as to dangerousness and the amount of bail that was set in criminal proceedings, but that the Immigration Judge does not owe a State court custody order deference in immigration bond proceedings. “The legal standards for bail in State court may be different than in Immigration Court and there may be a variety of reasons why an Immigration Judge may or should reach a different determination than a State court judge. It is for the Immigration Judge to make his or her own determination as to dangerousness under the custody redetermination provisions of the INA and applicable precedent.”

The full text of Matter of Choc-Tut can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-05/4092.pdf

Ninth Circuit Issues Amended Decision on Reviewability of Bond Denial

The Ninth Circuit has issued an amended decision in Martinez v. Clark, finding that it has jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that a non-citizen is a danger to the community under an abuse of discretion standard. The court concluded that the dangerousness determination is a mixed question of fact and law.

The full text of Martinez v. Clark can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/27/21-35023.pdf