“In September the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the Department of Homeland Security's interpretation that noncitizens already in the U.S. qualify as 'applicants for admission' and are therefore subject to mandatory detention and ineligible for bond hearings.”
Attributed to Fox News (reporting on BIA action and DHS interpretation)
Article states the DHS claimed noncitizens in the U.S. qualify as 'applicants for admission' and that the Board of Immigration Appeals in September adopted that interpretation, leading immigration judges to order mandatory detention.
What the proof shows
The core factual claim is correct: DHS issued a July 8, 2025 interim guidance taking the position that many noncitizens present in the U.S. who were never admitted are ‘applicants for admission’ under INA § 235, and the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential decision on September 5, 2025 (Matter of Yajure Hurtado) adopting that interpretation and concluding immigration judges lack authority to hold bond hearings for such persons. However, that portrayal omits important, ongoing legal context: multiple federal courts have subsequently disagreed, producing a circuit split and widespread litigation over whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to long‑term interior residents. The BIA and DHS positions are therefore now contested and not the settled law nationwide.
Corrected version
In September 2025 the Board of Immigration Appeals (in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, decided Sept. 5, 2025) issued a precedential decision adopting the Department of Homeland Security’s July 8, 2025 interpretation that certain noncitizens who entered without inspection can be treated as “applicants for admission” under INA § 235 and, under that reading, are mandatorily detained and ineligible for bond hearings. That interpretation is the subject of active litigation and has been adopted by some appellate courts and rejected by others.
Automated evidence confidence: 0%
References and proof
Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.
Matter of YAJURE HURTADO, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) ↗
Executive Office for Immigration Review / Board of Immigration Appeals (DOJ)Decided September 5, 2025 ... The Immigration Judge properly held that he lacked authority to hear the respondent’s request for a bond as the respondent is an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under section 235(b)(2)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
ICE Memo: Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applications for Admission ↗
American Immigration Lawyers Association (hosting ICE interim guidance)On July 8, 2025, ICE issued interim guidance regarding detention authority for applicants for admission. (AILA Doc. No. 25071607.)
Appeals court blocks Trump admin from holding migrants without bond for over 90 days ↗
Fox NewsDespite a long-standing interpretation of immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security claimed last year that non-citizens who are already in the U.S. qualify as "applicants for admission" subject to mandatory detention, rather than only people arriving at the border. The Board of Immigration Appeals... announced in September that it had adopted the Department of Homeland Security's interpretation.
Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (opinion PDF) ↗
United States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitSection 1225(b)(2)(A) ... does not apply to Petitioner. Although he is 'deemed' an applicant for admission under § 1225(a)(1), he is not 'seeking admission' and therefore § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs his detention.
Discussion
Disagreement is welcome. Spam and abuse are not.
No published comments yet. Add evidence or challenge the reasoning.
Members can comment for free
Create a free membership or sign in.