<\/p>\n\n\n\n
La Junta de Apelaciones de Inmigraci\u00f3n (BIA) emiti\u00f3 una decisi\u00f3n fundamental en Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA, 5 de septiembre de 2025), estableciendo que los jueces de inmigraci\u00f3n no tienen autoridad para otorgar audiencias de fianza a personas que nunca fueron admitidas formalmente en EE. UU., aunque hayan residido dentro del pa\u00eds durante a\u00f1os.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cambios importantes en la pr\u00e1ctica de inmigraci\u00f3n: La BIA cierra la puerta a un recurso que antes exist\u00eda para quienes hab\u00edan vivido por a\u00f1os sin admisi\u00f3n legal: ya no hay audiencias de fianza bajo la secci\u00f3n 236(a) de la Ley de Inmigraci\u00f3n y Nacionalidad (INA) para personas que entraron sin documentos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bond Hearings Restricted to the Admitted: Only those formally admitted\u2014such as visa overstays or lawful entrants\u2014can request bond hearings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only DHS Parole Remains: For non-admitted individuals, release may only occur through discretionary parole from DHS\u2014not via bond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal Takeaways<\/strong> \"Ill-Gotten Residence\u201d Doesn\u2019t Confer Bond Eligibility Precedent Strengthened by Q Li<\/strong> Yajure Hurtado entr\u00f3 sin inspecci\u00f3n en 2022, recibi\u00f3 TPS en 2024 y lo perdi\u00f3 en 2025. Al expirar su TPS, no puede pedir fianza, seg\u00fan la decisi\u00f3n de la BIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Examples of Cases that could be affected by this decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2014because 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2014even after 13 years in the country\u2014he 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00bfTengo derecho a fianza si entr\u00e9 sin papeles? La ley, como la interpreta este nuevo caso, exige detenci\u00f3n obligatoria de los \u201csolicitantes de admisi\u00f3n\u201d \u2014esto incluye a cualquiera presente sin admisi\u00f3n legal, sin importar los a\u00f1os en EE. UU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite a practice of granting bond hearings after long interior residence, the BIA holds that such individuals remain \u201capplicants for admission\u201d and therefore are ineligible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n