US Immigration Bond Grants Have Plummeted Since 2025

For decades, most immigrants detained in the United States could ask an immigration judge to set a bond and wait out their case in freedom, alongside their family. Since 2025, that logic has flipped. Bond grant rates have plummeted to historic lows, driven by a sweeping overhaul of the immigration judge corps and by policy changes that, in practice, have stripped entire categories of immigrants of the right to a custody hearing.

The phenomenon affects people of every background: Venezuelan, Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Brazilian, and dozens of other nationalities within the US immigration system. Understanding what changed, why, and how the federal courts are responding is essential for anyone following global mobility, due process, and immigration detention in the US.

The Decline in Bond Grants

Historically, immigration judges granted bond in a good share of requests. Public data compiled by organizations such as TRAC shows a downward trajectory that accelerated through the 2020s and turned into a collapse starting in mid-2025.

PeriodApproximate Grant RateNoteEarly 2000sabout 50%Half of requests grantedMid-2010sabout 55%Peak of the periodFiscal year 2020about 46%Still close to halfFiscal year 2023about 31%Sharp declineLate 2024about 25%Lowest rate recorded up to that point2025 and early 2026well below 25%Many detainees cannot even request bond

In April 2026, according to court data reviews, only a few dozen people obtained bond nationwide, a drop of more than 90% compared to the start of the year. Two factors explain most of this reversal: who sits on the bench, and which rules determine who can even ask.

A New Composition on the Bench

Between 2017 and 2023, the Department of Justice carried out the largest expansion of the immigration judiciary in history: the number of judges nearly tripled, jumping from about 250 to more than 730, in an effort to reduce a massive case backlog. Many of the new appointees came from law enforcement backgrounds (former prosecutors, attorneys from border agencies, and military officers), with few immigrant advocates among them.

That background showed in practice: newer judges tend to emphasize flight risk and public safety, while veteran judges used to weigh community ties, humanitarian factors, and ability to pay. In 2025, an even sharper reshuffling accelerated the trend. Over the course of the year, the administration removed dozens of sitting judges (close to a hundred, or roughly 14% of the national total), many of them experienced and with a track record of granting bond and asylum. Independent reporting indicates that, combining removals and departures, the number of judges ended up roughly a quarter lower than a year earlier.

To fill the vacancies, EOIR fast-tracked appointments in late 2025, even loosening experience requirements to recruit temporary judges. The combined result was a bench structurally more averse to releasing detainees.

The 2025 ‘No Bond’ Policy

The most direct shift, however, came from a reinterpretation of the law. On July 8, 2025, DHS issued interim guidance instructing officers to treat any noncitizen who entered without inspection as an applicant for admission, subject to mandatory detention under INA section 235(b). In practice, immigrants arrested inland (even those who had lived in the country for years) began to be classified as though they had just crossed the border.

The distinction is technical but decisive. Under section 236(a), the immigration judge has discretion to hold a custody hearing and release anyone who poses no danger or flight risk. Under section 235(b), there is no bond hearing at all. The new reading collapsed the two categories, pushing nearly every undocumented immigrant into the no-bond regime.

The BIA Trilogy

The policy was quickly endorsed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in a trilogy of precedential 2025 decisions. In Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), the board held that immigration judges lack authority to grant bond to anyone who entered without inspection and admission, regardless of how long that person has lived in the country. Before that, Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025), had already treated a noncitizen detained shortly after crossing the border as subject to 235(b); and Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2025), tightened the factors a detainee must prove to obtain release when bond is still available.

The Federal Courts Push Back

While the executive branch restricted bond, the judiciary became the main counterweight. Habeas corpus petitions in federal courts began to succeed at a significant rate, though results varied by region. The central argument is that DHS and the BIA exceeded their authority by applying 235(b) mandatory detention to people who had already been living in the country for some time.

The strongest blow came from Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, a class action in the Central District of California brought by civil rights organizations. In November 2025, the court certified a nationwide class of detainees who had been barred from bond hearings and found that they remain eligible for bond under section 236. On February 18, 2026, the presiding judge went further, formally vacating the Yajure-Hurtado decision itself, finding it contrary to law under administrative law principles.

Not every court has followed the same path. In more conservative jurisdictions, some judges have held that systemic challenges to the policy must be brought through a specific provision of the law, INA section 242(e)(3), which channels certain claims to Washington, D.C. As a result, the outcome of each case still depends heavily on where it is filed, and government appeals remain pending.

What This Means in Practice

For anyone following a detention case, the first step is understanding which rule the person has been classified under: section 236(a), generally bond-eligible, or section 235(b), mandatory detention. Anyone who entered without inspection and has not adjusted status should assume that, depending on the jurisdiction and timing, the judge may claim to lack authority to set bond, and should prepare alternative strategies.

When a bond hearing does happen, the evidentiary record makes a difference. A well-prepared request typically includes:

• proof of address and length of residence in the US;
• letters of support from family and community members;
• work history and absence of a criminal record;
• a detailed release plan;
• a sponsor letter committing to ensure attendance at all hearings.

Incomplete documentation can be used as grounds to deny bond, so the file should be complete before filing. Given the BIA’s rulings, federal habeas corpus has become one of the most effective tools for obtaining a hearing or release, especially in circuits that have shown skepticism toward the expansive reading of mandatory detention. Tracking case law in one’s own circuit and neighboring circuits has become an essential part of any strategy.

The overall picture remains an open dispute between agencies and courts, and the final word may come from higher courts or new legislation. Until then, the presumption tends to run against release, and for thousands of immigrants of every nationality, the path to freedom increasingly runs through the federal courts.

About the author

Victoria Harper

Editor-in-Chief

Meet the author

As a journalist and lead editor at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps ensure that immigration topics are covered in a clear, trustworthy, and easy-to-understand way. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.