La Junta de Apelaciones de Inmigración (BIA) emitió una decisión fundamental en Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA, 5 de septiembre de 2025), estableciendo que los jueces de inmigración no tienen autoridad para otorgar audiencias de fianza a personas que nunca fueron admitidas formalmente en EE. UU., aunque hayan residido dentro del país durante años.

Why This Matters?

Cambios importantes en la práctica de inmigración: La BIA cierra la puerta a un recurso que antes existía para quienes habían vivido por años sin admisión legal: ya no hay audiencias de fianza bajo la sección 236(a) de la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad (INA) para personas que entraron sin documentos.

Bond Hearings Restricted to the Admitted: Only those formally admitted—such as visa overstays or lawful entrants—can request bond hearings.

Only DHS Parole Remains: For non-admitted individuals, release may only occur through discretionary parole from DHS—not via bond.

Legal Takeaways
¿Tengo derecho a fianza si entré sin papeles? La ley, como la interpreta este nuevo caso, exige detención obligatoria de los “solicitantes de admisión” —esto incluye a cualquiera presente sin admisión legal, sin importar los años en EE. UU.

"Ill-Gotten Residence” Doesn’t Confer Bond Eligibility
Despite a practice of granting bond hearings after long interior residence, the BIA holds that such individuals remain “applicants for admission” and therefore are ineligible.

Precedent Strengthened by Q Li
Matter of Q Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025), already limited bond eligibility for those detained during arrival, and Yajure Hurtado extends that to interior non-admitted persons.

Yajure Hurtado entró sin inspección en 2022, recibió TPS en 2024 y lo perdió en 2025. Al expirar su TPS, no puede pedir fianza, según la decisión de la BIA.

Examples of Cases that could be affected by this decision

1. TPS Recipient Who Lost Status

Maria entered the U.S. without inspection in 2019. She later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which gave her work authorization and stability for a few years. When her TPS designation expired in 2025, DHS placed her in removal proceedings. Maria assumed she could request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. After the Yajure Hurtado decision, however, that option is no longer available—because she was never formally admitted into the U.S., the Immigration Court lacks authority to grant her bond. For Maria, the only possible path to release is through DHS discretionary parole.

2. Long-Term Resident With U.S. Citizen Children

Jose crossed the border without inspection in 2012 and has lived in the U.S. for over a decade. He married and has two U.S. citizen children. When he was arrested during a traffic stop, ICE detained him. His family was shocked to learn that—even after 13 years in the country—he is still considered an "applicant for admission." Under the new ruling, Jose cannot request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. Instead, his attorney must fight for parole from ICE and explore other relief options in court, such as cancellation of removal.

3. Difference between overstay and entry without inspection

Ana and Carla were both detained by ICE. Ana entered on a tourist visa and overstayed. Carla entered without inspection. Before the Yajure Hurtado ruling, both might have expected a bond hearing. Now, Ana (visa overstay) remains eligible for bond because she was lawfully admitted. Carla (entry without inspection), however, cannot request bond from an Immigration Judge. The difference comes down to whether the person was ever formally admitted at entry.

Are you or a loved one facing mandatory detention after unlawful entry or an expired TPS? Do not wait. Contact us today for a personalized assessment of your case, alternative relief and defense strategies. Contact us today para una consulta personalizada sobre su caso, alivio disponible y estrategias de defensa.