BIA’s Decision in Yajure Hurtado: What It Means for You
On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a deeply consequential decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that changes long-standing practice around bond hearings in immigration court. At Patrie Law Associates, we believe it’s essential for immigrants, families, and advocates to understand what has changed, what is at stake, and what your options are. Below is an overview in plain terms — followed by what you can do.
What Changed?
In Yajure Hurtado, the BIA held that Immigration Judges no longer have the authority to hear or grant bond requests for noncitizens who entered the U.S. without being "admitted" by an immigration officer (inspection (Entry Without Inspection, or “EWI”).
This applies even if the person has been in the U.S. for many years, has established community ties, employment, or other strong stabilizing connections.
This reverses a previous DHS regulation, which stated that individuals who entered the country without inspection were not considered “seeking admission” and therefore eligible for bond, if they met the requirements (not a flight risk, not a danger to the community).
The decision is precedential, meaning it binds immigration judges across the country until changed by a higher court or reversed by the Attorney General.
At the same time, because the Supreme Court ended Chevron deference under the case Loper Bright, it also means that higher courts need not defer to this or any other BIA decision to interpret laws passed by Congress where those laws are ambiguous.
Yajure Hurtado will likely be appealed to a higher court.
Practitioners are now trying to get their clients released from detention via habeas petitions. These are challenging because while immigration law is federal and anyone who is licensed to practice law in a state in the United States can practice immigration law anywhere in the United States, this is not true for habeas petitions.
In Hawaii, where our firm is based, for example, the state bar does not recognize bar admission in other states. Most immigration lawyers in the state are barred elsewhere. We therefore cannot file habeas petitions without the assistance of a lawyer barred in Hawaii.
How This Departs from Decades of Precedent
Prior to Yajure Hurtado, it was common and accepted under case law, regulation and practice that individuals detained and in removal proceedings, including those who entered unlawfully, could request bond, particularly if they had been in the U.S. for substantial time or had factors showing low risk of flight or dangerousness. These bond hearings allowed judges to evaluate whether it's fair or humane to release someone pending the outcome of their immigration case.
Under Yajure Hurtado, much of that practice was curtailed. The decision rejects the idea that long presence, good conduct, or strong ties can factor in when someone entered without inspection — at least in terms of obtaining bond before removal proceedings are concluded.
What Are the Implications?
Mandatory detention in many more cases. Individuals who previously could be released under bond may now remain detained throughout entire removal proceedings, which can take months or more. Therefore, if you or someone you know is arrested for an alleged violation of immigration law, it may be in your interest to demonstrate that you did not enter without inspection; that is, show your expired visa even if it is expired. This may avoid detention and give you the chance to seek and obtain a bond hearing.
Impact on families and communities. Detention can separate people from jobs, families, medical care, and community support. It can also make it much more difficult to prepare a defense or gather evidence.
Higher costs and longer time in detention. Detained individuals are at a disadvantage in many respects, from legal representation to access to resources.
Potential constitutional challenges. Some argue that the decision may violate due process, equal protection, or other constitutional guarantees, particularly where detention is prolonged and the person has strong community ties.
What Are Your Options?
If this affects you or someone you know, here are some things to consider:
Check whether you truly fall under the new ruling. The decision hinges on whether you entered without admission. If your case falls under another category, the older bond authority could still apply.
Seek legal advice as soon as possible. Because these rules are changing, having experienced counsel may help identify if there are arguments to preserve bond rights, challenge the ruling, or possibly raise constitutional claims.
File in court if needed. For some, federal court challenges may still be an avenue, although these are complex, expensive, and uncertain.
Work with community organizations. Advocacy groups might bring lawsuits, provide know-your-rights resources, or help coordinate efforts to push for legislative or executive changes.
At Patrie Law Associates, we are closely monitoring how Yajure Hurtado is being applied in immigration courts across the country and potential challenges to the decision. We will:
Review current clients’ cases to see whether this decision affects their rights to bond.
Where possible, explore whether constitutional or statutory challenges may preserve release options.
Keep clients updated about new developments, including any court rulings that may reverse or limit the effect of Yajure Hurtado.
If you or someone you care about may be impacted by this decision, Patrie Law Associates is here to help. Contact us for a consultation — we can go over whether your case is affected, your possible legal options, and what strategies make the most sense in light of this new precedent.