A Dramatic Decline in Immigration Bond Grants Since 2025: New Judges, “No-Bond” Policies, and Legal Pushback

Introduction

In recent years, detained immigrants have found it increasingly difficult to secure release on bond. Immigration court bond grant rates have plummeted to record lows nationwide since 2025, driven by a combination of factors: a wave of new immigration judges, many with enforcement backgrounds, and sweeping policy changes by immigration authorities that, in effect, eliminate bond eligibility for broad categories of noncitizens.

This article examines the national data on the decline in bond grants, the impact of new Immigration Judge appointments, key policy shifts by the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security, and recent federal court decisions that are pushing back against these changes. It also highlights strategic takeaways for practitioners navigating this rapidly evolving landscape.

Bond Grant Rates Over Time: An Unprecedented Plunge

For decades, immigration judges typically granted bond in a substantial share of cases, allowing many detained immigrants to reunite with their families while awaiting their day in court. However, that pattern has changed. Starting in the late 2010s and accelerating through the mid-2020s, bond approval rates have declined to unprecedented levels.

The table below summarizes bond grant rates at key points in time:

Immigration Court Bond Grant Rates: Selected Periods

As shown above, only about one-quarter of detained immigrants were winning bond by late 2024, compared to nearly half just a few years prior. This downward trend marks the lowest bond grant rates in modern immigration court history.

Two primary factors help explain this shift:

1. A transformation in the immigration court bench, as a surge of newly hired judges and the removal of many more experienced judges has shifted the judicial philosophy on bond.
2. New policies from EOIR and DHS in 2025 that drastically curtailed who is even eligible for bond.

New Judges, New Perspectives: How a Hiring Wave Affected Bond Decisions

From 2017 through 2023, the Department of Justice undertook a historic expansion of the immigration judiciary. The number of immigration judges nearly tripled, from approximately 250 judges in 2015 to over 730 judges by 2023, in an effort to reduce a massive case backlog.

Many of these judges were appointed during the Trump administration and the early Biden years. Importantly, a large proportion of the new Immigration Judges came from law enforcement backgrounds, including former prosecutors, ICE attorneys, or military lawyers, with relatively few former immigration defenders or nonprofit attorneys among their ranks.

The mass hiring of new judges has coincided with a notable tightening of bond grant practices. While many factors influence bond outcomes, immigration lawyers have observed that newer judges often take a more restrictive approach to bond, emphasizing enforcement priorities such as flight risk and public safety.

In contrast, some veteran Immigration Judges had been more inclined to consider community ties, humanitarian factors, and ability to pay when setting bond. The infusion of new judges may therefore have contributed to the overall decline in bond approvals, as reflected in the national statistics.

Compounding this trend, 2025 brought a major “rebalancing” of the immigration bench. When the presidential administration changed in January 2025, the Department of Justice under new leadership began an unprecedented removal of sitting Immigration Judges. By December 2025, at least 98 immigration judges, roughly 14% of the nationwide total, had been removed or forced into early retirement.

Many of those ousted were experienced jurists, including some with reputations for granting relief in asylum and bond cases. This led to concerns that the purge targeted judges perceived as too lenient. To fill the vacancies, EOIR accelerated new Immigration Judge appointments in late 2025, even loosening experience requirements to recruit temporary judges.

This dramatic turnover and hiring spree has likely reinforced the trend toward more risk-averse, government-leaning decisions in custody determinations.

For example, at the ICE detention center in Tacoma, Washington, where several new judges began hearing cases, the bond grant rate in FY 2023 was reportedly as low as 3% to 6%, essentially a near-automatic denial of release in that court. That extreme disparity, compared to a 45% grant rate at Florida’s Krome court during the same period, highlights how much judicial assignment can determine a detainee’s fate.

Bottom line: the shift in who is sitting on the bench, and under what institutional priorities, has made immigration courts far less hospitable to bond requests. But an even more direct cause for the recent plunge in bond releases is the set of policy changes discussed below.

The “No-Bond” Policy Shift: EOIR and DHS Changes in 2025

In mid-2025, U.S. immigration authorities effectively rewrote the rules on detention, sharply limiting when an immigrant can even ask an Immigration Judge for bond. Two developments in particular stand out.

1. DHS’s July 2025 “Interim Guidance”

On July 8, 2025, DHS issued a memo from ICE leadership instructing officers to reinterpret immigration law so that any noncitizen who entered the country without inspection would be treated as an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b).

Under this policy, immigrants arrested within the U.S. interior, even those who have lived in the country for years, are classified the same as people caught at the border.

This was a radical departure from prior practice. Previously, only recent border crossers or “arriving aliens” were systematically detained under strict INA § 235(b), which offers no bond hearings. Most other detainees fell under INA § 236(a), which gives Immigration Judges discretion to hold bond hearings and release individuals deemed not dangerous or likely to flee.

The new guidance sought to collapse these categories, making virtually all undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings ineligible for bond. Immigration Judges around the country began to announce that they lacked jurisdiction to even consider bond for people who had entered without inspection.

2. BIA’s Precedent in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado

The DHS policy was soon tested in the Board of Immigration Appeals, which issued a far-reaching precedential decision that solidified the “no-bond” framework.

In Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), the Board held that immigration judges have no authority to grant bond to a noncitizen “who entered the United States without inspection and admission,” regardless of how long they have been in the country.

This decision directly overruled decades of prior BIA precedent that allowed bond for such individuals and amounted to an official removal of bond jurisdiction from Immigration Judges in a vast number of cases.

Under Yajure-Hurtado’s reasoning, any immigrant who entered unlawfully in the past remains an “applicant for admission” in current removal proceedings and is subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), with no bond hearing, even if they were arrested in the interior United States long after entry.

Related BIA Decisions in 2025

The Yajure-Hurtado ruling was the capstone of a trilogy of 2025 BIA decisions curtailing bond.

Earlier in the year, Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025), held that a noncitizen apprehended without a warrant near the border, in an area deemed “arriving,” is detained under INA § 235(b) and is not eligible for an Immigration Judge bond hearing.

Another case, Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2025), made it easier for the government to keep even bond-eligible detainees detained by tightening the standards for proving lack of flight risk.

Together, these decisions signaled a clear mandate from the BIA: fewer people should be released on bond, and many should not even get a bond hearing.

Impact of the “No-Bond” Policies

The effect of these changes was immediate and severe. By late 2025, an ever-growing share of detainees were simply ineligible to request bond at all, no matter their individual circumstances.

The overall number of bond hearings plummeted, since thousands who would have sought bond in 2024 could no longer get in front of a judge in 2025. Even when bond hearings occurred, the new guidance pushed judges to adopt a more restrictive view of their authority.

As a result, the nationwide bond grant rate likely fell well below 25% by early 2026. Although official statistics for FY 2025–2026 are not yet published, the consensus is that the immigration system is seeing historic lows in bond access and bond grants.

In short, the year 2025 ushered in a de facto “no-bond” era for many immigration detainees.

Federal Court Pushback: Habeas Petitions and Recent Case Law

While the executive branch, through EOIR and DHS, moved to curtail bond, the judicial branch has increasingly become a critical check, with detainees turning to federal courts for relief.

Habeas corpus petitions in federal district courts have met with significant success, although outcomes vary by jurisdiction. These lawsuits argue that DHS and the BIA exceeded their authority and violated statutory and constitutional law by applying INA § 235(b)’s mandatory detention to people who had long been inside the United States, and by preventing Immigration Judges from granting bond.

Lopez Benitez v. Francis

In Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 25-cv-5937 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025), a federal judge in New York granted a detainee’s habeas petition and ordered his immediate return from an out-of-state facility and release.

The petitioner, Mr. Lopez Benitez, was an asylum seeker who entered without inspection in 2023 and had been living in the United States for two years without incident. In July 2025, following the new DHS policy, he was re-detained by ICE after a routine immigration court appearance and denied a bond hearing under Yajure-Hurtado.

The court found the detention unlawful, ruling that because Mr. Lopez Benitez was already in the country, his custody fell under INA § 236(a), the discretionary detention statute, and that he was entitled to individualized bond consideration by an Immigration Judge.

The decision in Lopez Benitez was one of the first signs that courts outside the West Coast would push back on the “no-bond” policy.

Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz

The most significant challenge to the no-bond policy came through Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873 (C.D. Cal. 2025 & 2026), a class-action lawsuit in the Central District of California.

In a series of orders culminating in early 2026, Judge Sunshine S. Sykes delivered a sweeping rebuke to the government’s position.

In November 2025, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff class, expressly rejecting the BIA’s interpretation in Yajure-Hurtado. The court held that noncitizens who entered without inspection but were later arrested in the interior are detained under INA § 236, not INA § 235, and therefore remain eligible for bond.

On November 25, 2025, the court certified a nationwide class of similarly situated detainees and extended the ruling’s protections to all of them. The immediate effect was to restore the possibility of bond hearings for thousands of immigrants who had been barred by Yajure-Hurtado.

To ensure compliance, on February 18, 2026, Judge Sykes went further, invoking administrative law principles, vacating the Matter of Yajure-Hurtado decision itself as improperly issued, and enjoining its application.

Calderon Lopez v. Lyons

Not all courts have sided with detainees. In Calderon Lopez v. Lyons, No. 3:25-cv-01224 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2025), a federal judge in Texas acknowledged the ongoing nationwide class action but held that broad challenges to DHS’s “no-bond” policy had to be funneled through a specific provision of immigration law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3), which requires certain systemic challenges to be filed in the District of Columbia.

This ruling suggested that some courts, particularly in more conservative jurisdictions, may be reluctant to grant relief to detainee classes on a nationwide basis.

Habeas Litigation as a Critical Tool

The upshot is that habeas litigation has become a critical tool to combat overreaching detention policies.

By late 2025, advocacy groups observed dozens of district court decisions across multiple circuits in which judges granted relief to immigrants affected by Yajure-Hurtado, often ordering bond hearings or outright release.

This trend holds especially in jurisdictions such as California and New York, where courts have been more receptive to due process arguments. Thanks to these court interventions, many immigrants who would have been detained without recourse are now winning a chance to seek bond again.

However, outcomes can vary widely by region. The issue is far from settled, and government appeals are ongoing.

Strategic Takeaways for Practitioners

1. Know Your Client’s Bond Eligibility Post-Yajure

Determine at the outset whether your detained client is categorized under INA § 236(a), which is generally bond-eligible, or under INA § 235(b), which involves mandatory detention.

If the client entered without inspection and has no lawful status, assume that Immigration Judges may currently claim no bond jurisdiction absent further guidance or court intervention. Be prepared to argue eligibility, but also be ready with alternative strategies if the Immigration Judge rejects a bond request as unauthorized.

2. Leverage Federal Habeas Relief

In light of the restrictive BIA rulings, filing a habeas corpus petition in federal court is often one of the most effective ways to secure a bond hearing or release for clients detained under Yajure-Hurtado or similar precedents.

Recent decisions such as Lopez Benitez and Maldonado Bautista demonstrate that many courts will grant relief, especially in jurisdictions that have shown skepticism toward the DHS and BIA’s expansive view of mandatory detention.

Practitioners should monitor the latest case law in their circuit and neighboring circuits to cite favorable rulings and identify viable forums for filing.

3. Coordinate with Ongoing Class Actions

Be aware of class litigation such as Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, which, as of early 2026, has secured nationwide relief for certain detained immigrants formerly subject to Yajure-Hurtado.

If your client falls within a defined class, for example someone who entered without inspection, was not caught at entry, and is not in mandatory criminal detention, they may be entitled to a bond hearing now.

Practitioners should utilize the class judgment and court-ordered notice in arguments to Immigration Judges and be prepared to assert a client’s class membership and right to custody redetermination.

4. Build a Strong Factual Record for Bond

The BIA’s recent decisions, including Matter of Dobrotvorskii and Matter of Akhmedov, emphasize technical compliance and robust evidence in bond proceedings.

While these precedents make bond harder, they also offer a roadmap for practitioners. Attorneys should meticulously document a client’s ties and mitigating factors, including:

• Proof of address;
• Length of residence in the United States;
• Family and community support letters;
• Employment history;
• Lack of criminal record;
• A detailed release plan;
• A sponsor letter affirming support and commitment to help the immigrant attend all hearings.

Missing paperwork can be used as a basis to deny bond, so practitioners should ensure the evidentiary record is complete before requesting a bond hearing.

5. Stay Informed and Be Ready to Litigate

The legal environment for immigration bonds is in flux. EOIR and DHS policies may continue to evolve, and appellate courts may eventually weigh in on the legality of the no-bond rules.

Practitioners should subscribe to practice advisories from organizations such as the American Immigration Council, AILA, and the National Immigration Litigation Alliance for the latest updates and strategies.

If an attorney has not litigated in federal court before, partnering with experienced colleagues or organizations may be essential when pursuing habeas relief. With the stakes so high, creative lawyering and inter-attorney collaboration are more important than ever.

Conclusion

The decline in immigration bond grants since 2025 is a stark reminder of how policy and personnel changes can dramatically alter the fate of thousands of detained immigrants.

New Immigration Judge appointments and internal directives have tilted the playing field against detained immigrants, making release on bond an increasingly rare outcome. At the same time, federal judges have emerged as crucial arbiters, stepping in to correct what they view as unlawful overreach by immigration agencies.

This tug-of-war between agencies and the courts is ongoing, and the ultimate resolution, whether through higher court decisions or legislative action, remains to be seen.

For now, practitioners must navigate a system where the presumption is often against release, and many deserving individuals are finding that their only recourse is to turn to Article III courts for relief.

By understanding the new rules, preparing thoroughly, and leveraging litigation when necessary, advocates can continue to fight for the due process rights of detained immigrants in this challenging era.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on information and developments as of April 2026. Immigration law is complex and rapidly evolving. Individuals facing detention or removal proceedings should consult with a qualified immigration attorney regarding their specific circumstances.

References

• TRAC Immigration, “Detained Immigrants Seeking Release on Bond Have Widely Different Outcomes – Overall Bond Grant Rates Have Dropped,” July 19, 2023.
• Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
• Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025).
• Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2025).
• Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025).
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission,” July 8, 2025.
• Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 25-cv-5937 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025).
• Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873, 2025 WL 7552633 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).
• Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Order Granting Class Certification, 2025 WL 7882964 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025).
• Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Enforcement Order, 2026 WL 877183 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026).
• Calderon Lopez v. Lyons, No. 3:25-cv-01224, 2025 WL 8139674 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2025).
• Emily Ngo, “Immigration Courts Thrown Into Chaos as Trump Administration Purges Dozens of Judges,” POLITICO, Dec. 6, 2025.