Nationwide Class Certified: Federal Court Strikes Down Yajure Hurtado and Restores Bond Eligibility for Thousands of Immigrants
In a landmark decision with sweeping national implications, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has certified a nationwide class of noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, were not apprehended at entry, and are not subject to mandatory detention under any statutory provision. This newly certified “Bond Eligible Class” is now entitled to individualized bond hearings under INA § 236, following the Court’s rejection of both the recent DHS detention policy and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. The Court’s orders, the Order Granting Class Certification and the Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, together represent one of the most significant immigration detention rulings in years.
The decisions arise from Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, a case filed in response to large-scale immigration raids in Southern California and a new DHS policy that reclassified virtually all noncitizens arrested inside the United States as “applicants for admission,” making them subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A). Petitioners alleged that the agency’s position was contrary to the text, structure, and purpose of the Immigration and Nationality Act—and the Court agreed.
The DHS Policy and the Shift to Mandatory Detention
At the center of the lawsuit was DHS’s July 8, 2025 “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.” Under this guidance, DHS instructed ICE to treat people arrested inside the United States, often years after their arrival, as if they were “arriving noncitizens” seeking admission at the border. This classification triggered § 235(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme, effectively eliminating the right to seek release on bond.
As a result, Petitioners, individuals with no criminal history who had lived in the United States for years, were denied bond hearings by immigration judges who concluded that they lacked jurisdiction. Each of the Petitioners remained detained until the Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order, compelling ICE to provide bond hearings or release them.
Partial Summary Judgment: Statutory Interpretation and the End of Yajure Hurtado
On November 20, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, concluding that DHS’s interpretation of the INA was unlawful. The Court held that:
§ 236, not § 235, governs detention of noncitizens who are already inside the United States and were never inspected by immigration officers.
Individuals present in the United States without admission are not “applicants for admission” under § 235 unless inspected by an immigration officer.
DHS’s interpretation, if accepted, would swallow § 236 entirely and contradict decades of statutory structure distinguishing inspection from interior arrest.
The Court’s reasoning is clear: Congress created two distinct detention schemes: one for people encountered at or near the border during inspection, and one for individuals arrested within the United States. DHS may not collapse those categories through administrative guidance. This ruling directly rejects the BIA’s July 2025 decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which had adopted DHS’s interpretation and concluded that immigration judges lacked jurisdiction to hold bond hearings for noncitizens charged under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). With the District Court’s decision, Yajure Hurtado has been effectively struck down for all class members.
Nationwide Class Certification
Five days later, on November 25, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Class Certification, formally extending the relief granted to the named Petitioners to the entire Bond Eligible Class. The class consists of:
All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be detained under § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time DHS makes an initial custody determination.
In certifying the class, the Court found:
Numerosity: Thousands of individuals nationwide, including those arrested in large-scale enforcement operations, satisfy the definition.
Commonality: All class members suffer the same injury—being denied bond hearings due to DHS’s unlawful reclassification of them as § 235 detainees.
Typicality & Adequacy: The named petitioners’ experiences mirror those of the class, and counsel from USC, NWIRP, and ACLU possess deep expertise in immigration litigation.
Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements: DHS’s policy is systemwide, and declaratory relief applies uniformly to the entire class.
Crucially, the Court expressly connected the two orders, stating:
“When considering this determination with the MSJ Order, the Court extends the same declaratory relief granted to Petitioners to the Bond Eligible Class as a whole.”
This means the relief is not limited to California. It is nationwide.
What the Ruling Means for Class Members
The Court has now declared that all class members:
Are detained under INA § 236, not § 235.
Are entitled to individualized custody determinations, including the ability to seek release on bond.
May use the Court’s orders in their bond request packets before the Immigration Court.
Immigration judges across the country must now recognize their jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings for class members who previously would have been denied access to custody review.
Importantly, the decision does not guarantee release. It guarantees the right to request release and to receive a fair hearing before a neutral judge—rights long embedded in § 236(a)’s statutory and regulatory framework.
Broader Implications for Immigration Enforcement
The decision significantly constrains DHS’s recent attempt to expand the use of mandatory detention. It also reaffirms the foundational statutory distinction between:
Noncitizens seeking entry, who may be subject to expedited removal and mandatory detention, and
Noncitizens already inside the United States, who are entitled to greater procedural protections.
By rejecting Yajure Hurtado, the Court restores a critical procedural safeguard for a large subset of the undocumented population—one that protects families, limits overbroad enforcement, and ensures access to individualized review. The Court has set a status conference for January 16, 2026, suggesting that additional proceedings may address implementation, compliance, or potential government appeals.
But as of now, the ruling stands as binding nationwide declaratory relief.