The Battle Over Immigration Bond: The Fifth Circuit’s Expansion of Mandatory Detention and the Fall of Matter of Yajure Hurtado
In early February 2026, a sharply divided federal judiciary delivered two dramatically different rulings on immigration detention and bond eligibility that underscore the fractured state of U.S. immigration law. In the Fifth Circuit, a split panel upheld the Trump administration’s expanded interpretation of mandatory immigration detention, effectively denying bond hearings to a vast class of noncitizens arrested anywhere in the United States. In contrast, a federal district court in California vacated a controversial Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent (Matter of Yajure Hurtado) that had stripped immigration judges of bond authority for similar detainees, thereby reaffirming bond eligibility for class members under federal district court oversight. These decisions reflect divergent judicial philosophies about statutory interpretation, due process, and the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement.
The Fifth Circuit Expands Mandatory Detention Nationwide
On February 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (consolidated with Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara), marking a significant victory for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. In a 2–1 decision, the Fifth Circuit majority ruled that noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection and were placed into removal proceedings fall within the statutory definition of “applicants for admission” and are therefore subject to mandatory detention as outlined in INA § 235(b)(2)(A)—with no opportunity for a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Under this interpretation, the court concluded that the phrase “seeking admission” applies to anyone in removal proceedings who lacks lawful admission, regardless of how long they have been in the country or their lack of criminal history. The majority embraced the government’s novel theory that extending mandatory detention to this broad class is a permissible reading of the statute, even though it overturns decades of longstanding practice and interpretation by prior administrations.
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling has staggering implications. Traditionally, individuals apprehended in the interior of the United States—especially long-term residents with strong community ties, citizen family members, or pending relief applications—could request a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge, where they might prove they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. By collapsing the distinction between “applicants for admission” and those subject to interior detention statutes, the Fifth Circuit’s decision places millions of noncitizens at risk of indefinite detention without judicial review of custody. This outcome flies in the face of a vast majority of district court decisions across the country—hundreds of rulings have rejected the government’s mandatory detention theory and upheld bond eligibility under traditional statutory interpretations.
The Fifth Circuit’s embrace of this expansive view was far from unanimous. In dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas criticized the majority for effectively rewriting statutory text and ignoring historical practice. Critics argue that the government’s position transforms civil immigration detention into “indefinite incarceration” absent individualized custody reviews, eroding due process protections that have existed for decades. The dissent warned that the ruling could rupture core principles of fairness embedded in the immigration system, particularly for vulnerable populations who have lived in the U.S. for years and pose no legitimate public safety concerns.
The Vacatur of Matter of Yajure Hurtado in California
Just days after the Fifth Circuit ruling, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order that cut in the opposite direction. On February 18, 2026, Judge Sykes granted plaintiffs’ motion in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem to enforce a prior federal judgment and vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the BIA decision that had served as the administrative backbone for the government’s expanded mandatory detention regime. Yajure Hurtado had held that noncitizens “present in the United States without admission” are categorically ineligible for bond hearings before immigration judges under INA § 236(a), as the BIA recast them as similarly subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2).
Judge Sykes’s order effectively nullifies Yajure Hurtado within her district and, by extension, for the defined nationwide Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista. The practical effect for class members is clear: they retain the ability to request bond hearings before immigration judges unless and until this district court’s order is stayed or reversed on appeal. The ruling sends a powerful message that the BIA’s attempt to curtail bond eligibility lacked legal justification and offended long-established procedures for custody redetermination.
However, the California ruling does not entirely resolve the larger conflict—immigration judges and EOIR leadership have issued guidance suggesting that Maldonado Bautista is a declaratory judgment and not a binding nationwide injunction that automatically invalidates Yajure Hurtado across all circuits, creating confusion at the practitioner level. The AILA practice alert accompanying the district court’s order encourages attorneys to submit copies of the decision in bond hearings and to document how judges respond, signaling ongoing litigation and advocacy ahead.
Taken together, these contrasting decisions illustrate the fractured state of immigration bond law in 2026. In the Fifth Circuit, the government secured appellate endorsement for a sweeping mandatory detention policy that eliminates customary bond hearings for millions. In California, a district court reaffirmed bond eligibility and struck down the administrative precedent used to justify that very policy. At stake are fundamental questions about statutory interpretation, separation of powers, due process rights, and the role of courts in checking executive authority.
For practitioners, advocates, and detained individuals, the legal landscape remains unsettled. The Fifth Circuit’s decision creates a binding rule within its jurisdiction (covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi), whereas Maldonado Bautista continues to guide bond practice in the Ninth Circuit under district court supervision. The Supreme Court may ultimately be called upon to resolve this circuit split, but until then, immigration detention and bond eligibility will continue to be litigated at the intersection of statute, policy, and principle.