I was recently quoted in the Times of India regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. This decision represents one of the most consequential shifts in immigration detention in recent memory, and its implications are deeply troubling.
The BIA held that immigration judges lack the authority to grant bond to individuals in removal proceedings who entered the United States without inspection. These individuals are now classified as “applicants for admission” under INA §235(b)(2)(A), and must remain in custody unless DHS (the very agency prosecuting their removal) chooses to parole them. In practical terms, this eliminates independent judicial oversight over custody for a significant category of noncitizens.
The ruling effectively creates a two-tier system of justice for those in immigration proceedings:
- Noncitizens who arrived lawfully, such as those on H-1B, F-1, or B-1/B-2 visas, retain the ability to seek judicial bond review even if their status lapses later.
- Noncitizens who crossed the border without papers now face mandatory detention, potentially for months or years, with no independent judicial review of their custody.
The consequences are severe. Prolonged detention isolates individuals from their families, legal support, and the evidence needed to mount a defense. It pressures even those with meritorious claims to abandon them, simply to escape confinement. In this context, detention shifts from a security measure to a tool of attrition: used to grind down individuals until self-deportation feels like the only way out.
As I noted to the Times of India:
“The new precedent…falls squarely on those who crossed without inspection, a category that includes tens of thousands of Indians who arrived during recent border surges (during 2021–2024). Any such individuals finding themselves in immigration court proceedings now face the harsh reality of litigating perhaps the most consequential case of their lives from behind bars.”
Yajure Hurtado erodes the most basic guarantee of due process by removing independent judicial review and placing liberty entirely in the hands of DHS. Detention, once intended as a narrowly drawn exception, would harden into the default condition for an entire class of people, as the system pivots to prioritize the manner of one’s arrival over the substance of one’s claims. The consequences are predictable: bloated dockets, strained detention facilities, rushed calendars, and an increase in continuances/abandoned cases.
Read the full Times of India article here.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Due Process Concerns Raised in the BIA’s Matter of Yajure Hurtado
I was recently quoted in the Times of India regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. This decision represents one of the most consequential shifts in immigration detention in recent memory, and its implications are deeply troubling.
The BIA held that immigration judges lack the authority to grant bond to individuals in removal proceedings who entered the United States without inspection. These individuals are now classified as “applicants for admission” under INA §235(b)(2)(A), and must remain in custody unless DHS (the very agency prosecuting their removal) chooses to parole them. In practical terms, this eliminates independent judicial oversight over custody for a significant category of noncitizens.
The ruling effectively creates a two-tier system of justice for those in immigration proceedings:
The consequences are severe. Prolonged detention isolates individuals from their families, legal support, and the evidence needed to mount a defense. It pressures even those with meritorious claims to abandon them, simply to escape confinement. In this context, detention shifts from a security measure to a tool of attrition: used to grind down individuals until self-deportation feels like the only way out.
As I noted to the Times of India:
Yajure Hurtado erodes the most basic guarantee of due process by removing independent judicial review and placing liberty entirely in the hands of DHS. Detention, once intended as a narrowly drawn exception, would harden into the default condition for an entire class of people, as the system pivots to prioritize the manner of one’s arrival over the substance of one’s claims. The consequences are predictable: bloated dockets, strained detention facilities, rushed calendars, and an increase in continuances/abandoned cases.
Read the full Times of India article here.