Your husband was picked up on his way to work in Long Beach, and at his first hearing the government told the immigration judge there is no bond in his case — that he sits in Adelanto until his removal case is finished, however many months that takes. On July 30, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that the government is wrong about that, and if he is detained anywhere in California, that ruling is now the law that governs his case.
The decision is Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). It is published, which means it binds every immigration judge and every district court in the circuit. If someone in your family has been told for the last year that mandatory detention applies and no bond hearing is available, that instruction is no longer good law here.
What the court actually held
There are two detention statutes doing the work in these cases.
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — INA § 236(a) — is the ordinary detention provision. A person detained under it may be released on bond by an immigration judge. This is the statute under which bond hearings have been held for as long as anyone practicing today has been practicing.
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) — INA § 235(b)(2)(A) — requires detention, with no bond, of an “applicant for admission” who is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” For thirty years, everyone understood that provision to reach people arriving at the border or a port of entry.
In July 2025, the government changed position. It read § 1225(a)(1) — which “deems” any noncitizen present without admission to be an “applicant for admission” — as sweeping every person who entered without inspection, no matter how long ago and no matter how far from the border they now live, into § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s no-bond regime. The BIA endorsed that reading in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Immigration judges started telling people they had no jurisdiction to set bond. Thousands of habeas petitions followed.
The Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s reading. Judge Bress, writing for the panel, held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) is best read to apply to people engaged in the affirmative act of seeking entry — at the border or a port of entry — and not to people apprehended in the interior. A person present without admission who is picked up in Los Angeles is detained under § 1226(a) and is entitled to a custody redetermination before an immigration judge.
The reasoning matters, because it is the reasoning that will decide whether this holding survives. The panel found the government’s reading created surplusage across § 1226; noted that § 1226(c) expressly carves inadmissible noncitizens out of bond eligibility, which makes no sense if inadmissible people were never covered by § 1226(a) in the first place; and observed that Congress’s 2025 amendment in the Laken Riley Act, Pub. L. No. 119-1, § 2, 139 Stat. 3, would be pointless under the government’s theory. And it made the practical point that carries the most weight: no administration in thirty years found a mandatory-detention duty in this statute. That is strong evidence the duty was never there.
Judge Bea dissented.
What this changes procedurally
If your family member is detained in the Ninth Circuit — California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii — and the only basis for denying bond was that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies, the path forward is a bond hearing.
Request a custody redetermination. File with the immigration court that has jurisdiction over the place of detention. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19, 1236.1(d). It can be made orally on the record or in writing. There is no filing fee and no waiting period.
Understand what the hearing decides. A bond hearing is not the removal case. The immigration judge decides two things: whether the person is a danger to the community, and whether the person is a flight risk. Under § 1226(a) the burden is on the detained person. Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), sets out the factors — family ties, length of residence, employment history, immigration history, criminal record, manner of entry, and whether there is relief available in the removal case that gives a reason to keep appearing. The statutory floor is $1,500. 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8).
Know what the ruling does not do. The panel was explicit. Anyone who falls within § 1226(c) — the criminal and security grounds — is still subject to mandatory detention, and the Laken Riley Act expanded that list. And a person eligible for bond can still be denied bond on danger or flight risk. What changed is that the immigration judge now has to make that decision instead of refusing to reach it.
If bond is denied, the appeal deadline is 30 days. A bond decision is appealable to the BIA on Form EOIR-26 within 30 calendar days. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b). Thirty calendar days, not thirty business days, and not thirty days from when someone gets around to telling you.
The window may not stay open. The government has 45 days from July 30 to petition for rehearing en banc, because the United States is a party. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1)(B). That runs to mid-September 2026. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have gone the government’s way; the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh have gone the other way; the Seventh fractured. A split this deep usually ends at the Supreme Court. Nobody should assume the current rule is permanent.
The mistakes that cost people their release
Waiting for the removal case to “get sorted out” first. Detention and the merits are separate tracks. Every week in custody is a week of lost wages the family cannot recover, and detained dockets move fast enough that people lose relief they would have won from the outside with time to gather documents.
Going to the bond hearing with nothing. I have seen this go wrong more often than any other single thing. The burden is on the detained person, and the judge is making a judgment about whether this is someone who comes back to court. Letters from employers, proof of years of residence, tax returns, children’s school records, medical records, evidence of the relief application that is coming — that is what moves a bond number. Showing up and saying “he is a good person” does not.
Signing something at the facility. Stipulated removal orders and requests for voluntary departure get presented as a way to end the detention. They are a way to end the case. Nobody in custody should sign anything without talking to a lawyer first.
Assuming a prior denial is final. If bond was denied in the last year solely because the judge found no jurisdiction under § 1225(b)(2)(A), that is now a changed circumstance. A detained person may seek a new custody determination on changed circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).
What to do this week
Find out where the person is detained and under which statute — the custody paperwork will say. Get the A-number. Pull together the residence, employment, and family-tie documentation now, before a hearing date, because the hearing gets set faster than people expect. If a bond request was denied on the § 1225(b)(2)(A) theory, move to have custody reconsidered on the strength of Rodriguez Vazquez.
If your family member is detained, the timeline is short and it starts now. Consultations on detention and removal matters are free. Call (562) 495-0554 or book at blerner.timetap.com.
Related reading on this site: The Immigration Bond, Deportation (Removal) 101: What Happens and How to Fight It, and The Ultimate Guide to Cancellation of Removal and Deportation Defense (2026 Edition).
This article is general information about United States immigration law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, A Professional Corporation, 3233 E. Broadway, Long Beach, CA 90803. Brian D. Lerner is a Certified Specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.