Nationwide Class Certified: Federal Court Strikes Down Yajure Hurtado and Restores Bond Eligibility for Thousands of Immigrants (Updated Jan. 2026)

Nov 25

Update, August 29, 2026: The relief described below is currently limited. On March 31, 2026 the Ninth Circuit stayed the nationwide class order and the vacatur of Matter of Yajure Hurtado while the government's appeal (No. 25-7958) is pending, so the district court's bond-hearing order now applies only inside the Central District of California. For Pennsylvania and New Jersey the controlling authority is now the Third Circuit: In Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, Nos. 26-1150 and 26-1454 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026) (precedential), the Third Circuit held that a person who entered without inspection and was later arrested inside the United States is detained under INA 236(a), not INA 235(b)(2)(A), and may ask an immigration judge for bond. The Second Circuit reached the same result for New York in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden (Apr. 28, 2026), while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree and petitions for certiorari are pending at the Supreme Court, so this area can change again.

Update (Jan. 2026): A federal court has overturned the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado and restored the right of thousands of noncitizens to seek bond hearings nationwide. In Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a nationwide class of immigrants who were previously denied bond eligibility under the old framework, ruling that individuals who entered without inspection but were later apprehended must be detained under INA § 236, not INA § 235(b)(2)(A), and are therefore entitled to individualized bond hearings before an immigration judge. This decision marks a major return of due process protections for detained immigrants and could change how bond hearings are handled across the country.

* * *

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.

Was your loved one denied a bond hearing?

Who can ask for bond now depends on where the person is held, and the rule has changed several times since 2025. We review eligibility and file bond motions and habeas petitions for families across the Lehigh Valley.

Talk to a Removal Defense Attorney

Or call (484) 763-4984

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the nationwide class order in Maldonado Bautista still in effect?

Not nationwide. The district court entered final judgment on December 18, 2025 and vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado on February 18, 2026, but the Ninth Circuit granted the government a stay pending appeal on March 31, 2026 (No. 25-7958). While the appeal is pending, the bond-hearing order applies only to people detained in the Central District of California. Outside that district, class members must rely on the law of the circuit where they are held.

Is Matter of Yajure Hurtado still good law?

It depends on where the person is detained. The BIA decision, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), remains on the books because the district court's vacatur is stayed. But courts of appeals are not bound by it. On August 28, 2026 the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania and New Jersey, rejected its reading in Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, and the Second Circuit did the same for New York in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden on April 28, 2026. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits agree with the BIA.

Who is eligible for immigration bond in 2026?

Under INA 236(a), a person held on ICE's general detention authority may ask an immigration judge for bond unless INA 236(c) requires mandatory detention for certain criminal or terrorism grounds. The dispute since 2025 is over people who entered without inspection and were arrested in the interior. As of August 2026, the Third Circuit (PA, NJ) and Second Circuit (NY) hold those people are bond eligible; the Fifth and Eighth Circuits do not. Eligibility still turns on the facts and no result can be promised.

Does a bond-eligible ruling mean my relative will be released?

No. It guarantees a hearing, not release. Under Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), the detained person must show they are not a danger to the community and not a flight risk, using proof of address, family ties, work history, and any pending application for relief. If ICE set no bond or a bond of $10,000 or more, DHS can invoke an automatic stay under 8 CFR 1003.19(i)(2) after a judge orders release.

What if an immigration judge refuses to hold a bond hearing?

Two routes exist. A bond appeal goes to the BIA on Form EOIR-26 within 30 days. A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 goes to the federal district court where the person is held, which is how Buele Morocho and the Maldonado Bautista class reached the courts. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the Third Circuit's August 2026 decision is the authority to cite. Forum depends on the detention location, so involve counsel before any transfer.

If you or someone you love is facing detention or removal, our removal defense attorney in the Lehigh Valley team can help you understand your options and act quickly.

Alex Short http://www.lehighvalleyimmigrationlawyers.com/