For months, many immigrants arrested by ICE inside the United States after entering without inspection were routinely denied bond hearings and held in mandatory detention under INA § 235(b). That may now change in the Eleventh Circuit.
In a major published decision issued on May 6, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that immigrants who entered the United States without inspection but were later arrested in the interior of the country are generally entitled to bond hearings under INA § 236(a), rather than mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A).
This groundbreaking decision applies throughout:
- Georgia
- Florida
- Alabama
For families with loved ones detained at facilities such as Stewart Detention Center, this case could significantly impact whether a person has the right to request release on bond while fighting their immigration case.
What Was the Case About?
The case involved two Mexican nationals who entered the United States without inspection years earlier and had been living in the country with their families. Both were arrested by immigration authorities after traffic stops and placed in removal proceedings. ICE detained them without bond, arguing they were subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b).
The immigrants filed habeas corpus petitions in federal court arguing that they should instead be detained under INA § 236(a), which allows for bond hearings before an immigration judge.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the immigrants.
The Court Rejected DHS’s New Interpretation
The government argued that anyone who entered the United States without inspection is automatically considered an “applicant for admission” who is still “seeking admission,” even years after entering the country. Under that theory, ICE claimed these individuals must remain detained without bond.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected that interpretation. The Court explained that simply being present in the United States without lawful admission does not mean a person is actively “seeking admission” under the immigration statute.
The Court emphasized that the immigrants in this case were not arriving at the border asking to enter the country. Instead, they had already been living inside the United States for years when ICE arrested them following traffic stops.
Why This Decision Matters
This decision is extremely important because it restores the possibility of bond hearings for many immigrants detained inside the United States after entering without inspection.
Under INA § 236(a), immigrants may request a bond hearing before an immigration judge to argue:
- they are not a danger to the community,
- they are not a flight risk,
- they have family ties,
- they have employment history,
- and they deserve release while their immigration case continues.
Without a bond hearing, individuals can remain detained for months or even years while their cases proceed.
The Court Also Rejected the BIA’s Position
The decision directly undermines the Board of Immigration Appeals’ recent decision in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, which had been used to deny bond hearings to many detained immigrants.
Because of that BIA decision, many immigration judges believed they lacked authority to conduct bond hearings for immigrants who entered without inspection. The Eleventh Circuit now makes clear that these individuals generally fall under INA § 236(a), not mandatory detention under INA § 235(b).
Important Limitations
The Court did not say that every detained immigrant must be released. Instead, the Court held only that many immigrants are entitled to a bond hearing where an immigration judge can decide whether release is appropriate.
The Court also did not decide whether Congress could change the law in the future to authorize broader mandatory detention.
What Should Families Do?
If your loved one:
- entered the United States without inspection,
- was arrested inside the United States rather than at the border,
- does not have a final removal order,
- and has been denied bond based on INA § 235(b),
this new Eleventh Circuit decision may provide a pathway to request a bond hearing or challenge the detention in federal court.
Every case is different, and some individuals may still be subject to mandatory detention based on criminal convictions or other factors. However, this decision creates powerful new legal arguments for detained immigrants throughout Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.
Contact Zambrano Law
At Zambrano Law, we regularly represent immigrants in detention and federal habeas corpus litigation. Our firm fights for bond hearings, release from detention, and protection of our clients’ constitutional rights.
If your loved one is detained and may qualify for a bond hearing under this new Eleventh Circuit decision, contact our office today to schedule a consultation.