What is a bond hearing, and how does it relate to my removal case?
After an arrest, DHS makes the first custody decision and may set a bond. Where the law allows, the detained person can then ask an immigration judge to redetermine custody, which is what practitioners call a bond hearing. It is separate from the removal case: it has its own record, and evidence filed there does not automatically count in the removal case. It is also less formal, generally not recorded, and usually based on documents and offers of proof, though the judge may hear sworn witnesses. The statute allows release on a bond of at least $1,500 or on conditional parole. A person released on bond can ask for a redetermination within seven days of release. Bond does not end the removal case.
Who is ineligible regardless of the 2025-2026 litigation?
Several groups have long been outside an immigration judge's bond authority. Regulations exclude people in exclusion proceedings, arriving aliens in removal proceedings, including those paroled after arrival, people described in the security-related deportation ground, and people subject to mandatory detention under INA § 236(c). That section covers listed criminal and terrorism-related grounds. Since January 2025, the Laken Riley Act also covers certain people inadmissible for being present without admission, for fraud or for lacking documents who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or a crime causing death or serious bodily injury. Expedited removal has its own mandatory detention, and in August 2026 the Board said judges generally lack custody authority after a final order. You may ask a judge to decide whether you are properly placed in the security-ground or § 236(c) category, but that regulation does not extend to exclusion cases or arriving aliens.
What changed for people who entered without inspection?
For decades, people arrested inside the country after entering without inspection were generally treated as bond-eligible under INA § 236(a). On September 5, 2025, in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the Board held that immigration judges lack authority to hear bond requests from people present without admission, because such people fall under INA § 235(b)(2)(A). The Board followed that ruling in June 2026 in Matter of N-A-G-C-, even for someone with a prior unaccompanied child designation and an approved special immigrant juvenile petition. People then turned to federal courts through habeas corpus. This guide states the law as of October 30, 2026. It is changing quickly, so check it against the latest rulings.
Where do the federal courts stand as of October 30, 2026?
The federal appeals courts are divided. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have rejected the government's reading, generally holding that § 235(b)(2)(A) does not reach people already living here who are not actually seeking admission, so § 236(a) and its bond process apply. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits agreed with the government. On October 1, 2026, the Supreme Court granted review in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, on whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention of people present without admission. The Court extended the briefing schedule on October 28, 2026: the petitioner's brief is due November 30, 2026, and the respondent's brief is due January 13, 2027. The docket lists no argument date, and no decision has been issued.
What does this mean where I am held?
Location can decide the case. Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are in the Fifth Circuit, which applied mandatory detention in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. On October 23, 2026, the full court held in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara that due process did not entitle those petitioners to hearings on danger or flight risk, and that detention with a definite end point is lawful while removal remains a viable prospect. It left room for other challenges, such as detention that no longer serves an immigration purpose or removal that becomes only a remote possibility. Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and the Dakotas are in the Eighth Circuit. Florida, Georgia and Alabama are in the Eleventh Circuit, where Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden went the other way. A judge there withheld the mandate on May 13, 2026, according to a docket copy on Habeas Dockets, and the government sought full-court rehearing; we could not confirm the outcome. California and New York fall under the Ninth and Second Circuits, which also rejected the government's reading.
How do I request a bond hearing?
A request can be oral or written, though it is ordinarily written, and the EOIR Policy Manual says there is no filing fee to request a bond hearing. It should give the full name, A-number, the bond amount DHS set, if any, and the place of detention, with the Notice to Appear if available. A detained person files with the immigration court covering the place of detention. A transfer can change that court: in 2026 the Board vacated a bond granted by the original court because the respondent had already been moved to Texas when he filed the request. No Notice to Appear needs to be on file first. The court usually sets the earliest possible date. File evidence with the request under a cover page marked for bond proceedings. EOIR's online case tool does not show bond details, so call the court. After a ruling, a new request must be written and show materially changed circumstances.
What does the judge weigh?
Under § 236(a) the Board places the burden on the detained person to show that release would not endanger people or property and that he or she is likely to appear, although circuit law can differ; the Board has noted First Circuit precedent describing a DHS burden. The judge considers danger, national security and flight risk. Factors include a fixed address, length of residence, family ties that may lead to lawful status, manner of entry, and more. A credible sponsor is relevant. In 2026 the Board said a pending asylum application alone does not mitigate flight risk, that speculative future relief does not materially reduce it, and that flight risk includes likely compliance with future orders. Evidence must be reliable and specific.
What happens after the judge rules?
Either side may appeal to the Board on its own Notice of Appeal, Form EOIR-26, within 30 days, and there is no fee. Do not combine it with a removal appeal. The published regulation still prints a 10-day period, so rely on EOIR Policy Manual, Part III, and Policy Memorandum 26-02, and confirm your deadline with counsel. A judge's bond decision generally stays in effect during appeal, with one major exception. If DHS denied release or set a bond of $10,000 or more, and the judge ordered otherwise, DHS can automatically stay the release by filing Form EOIR-43 within one business day, then appealing within 10 business days. That stay generally lasts until the Board rules or 90 days pass, but a pending DHS stay motion or a referral to the Attorney General can extend custody further.
What is habeas corpus, and when should I talk to a lawyer?
Habeas corpus is a federal court case challenging detention as unlawful, and most of the appeals decisions above arose this way. It is different from a bond request and is decided by a federal judge, not an immigration judge. The Supreme Court says a core habeas challenge to present confinement belongs in the district of confinement, so a petition generally follows the place of detention. Whether it is available, and what it can achieve, depends on that place and on current circuit law. Talk to a lawyer at once when someone is detained: the location, entry history and any criminal record decide which arguments exist, and detention cases move fast. Have the A-number and facility name ready. No lawyer can promise release. Ace Immigration's attorney, Anna Tsibel, is a Russian-speaking immigration attorney licensed by the California bar whose practice is immigration law, with a focus on asylum and deportation defense.