Arrested by ICE After Years in the U.S. Without Inspection: Can You Get a Bond Hearing in California?

By and

A green Bond Hearing book beside an evidence folder with Residence and Court Records tabs and a blank envelope.

If you entered without inspection, lived here for years and were arrested inside the country, the Ninth Circuit has held that you are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute that allows release on bond. But the ruling does not reach people held under the criminal-custody rule, expedited removal or a final order, and as of Nov. 9, 2026, the ruling’s mandate is stayed while the Supreme Court takes up the same question, so an immigration judge may still refuse to hold a hearing.

Where the law stands on Nov. 9, 2026

In Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), the court concluded that “aliens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” The plaintiff had entered in 2009 and was arrested on a warrant in 2025. The certified class covered only people held at the Tacoma, Washington, detention center, so a person detained in California relies on the published opinion, not on that class judgment.

The immigration court’s own precedent points the other way. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216, 225 (BIA 2025), holds that immigration judges “lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond” to people present without admission. On March 31, 2026, the Ninth Circuit stayed the Central District of California order vacating that decision but left the Maldonado Bautista class judgment “in place as to the Central District of California.” Under that stay order, the judgment does not reach people held in another California district, and a refusal may have to go to federal court. Maldonado Bautista v. EOIR, Nos. 25-7958, 26-1044, ECF 14.1, at 4 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026). Our Camacho Chopin analysis shows a federal court enforcing it.

On Oct. 6, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its en banc briefing order and stayed its mandate “pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104,” where certiorari was granted Oct. 1. The government’s Oct. 28 petition in Quinones v. Rodriguez Vazquez, No. 26-568, asks the Court to hold this case until then. It is a request, not a ruling.

First, rule out the mandatory-detention categories

The opinion addressed people not in expedited removal and not held under the criminal-custody provision. Check three things:

Documents that show entry, residence and custody

A hearing is not release. In an ordinary § 1226(a) hearing, under Ninth Circuit and BIA precedent the court cited, the detained person must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or danger. The factors judges weigh come from Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006), quoted in the dissent, including fixed address, length of residence, family ties, employment, court appearances, criminal record and manner of entry.

Request a bond hearing; federal court may be needed

The usual route is a custody redetermination request to the immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1236.1(d) and 1003.19. A federal court may excuse that first request in a particular case. In Robledo-Ramirez v. Semaia, No. 5:26-cv-06068-JDE, ECF 10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2026), a man who entered in 2003 was arrested in Oxnard on Oct. 8. The government’s answer, filed after the mandate stay, said he “would be entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), upon request.” The court excused an initial request to the immigration judge because the government conceded that a hearing was available and further delay would put form over substance. It denied immediate release but ordered a hearing within seven days or release. That is one case, not a promise about every case.

If the judge refuses under Yajure Hurtado, the next step is a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In its Maldonado Bautista stay order, the Ninth Circuit said such claims belong in “the appropriate district of confinement.” Our transfer and venue guide explains why the facility, not your home, decides the court. In the Central District, General Order 26-05 ordinarily gives the government seven calendar days after the clerk’s scheduling notice to answer. A represented petitioner has three calendar days after the answer is filed to reply; a petitioner without counsel has fourteen days after service. The judge may change those deadlines. The order also requires two court days’ notice before ICE moves a petitioner out of the district.

If a judge held the hearing and denied bond, that decision normally goes to the Board of Immigration Appeals first, as Rodriguez-Gonzalez explains.

Keep every custody order, hearing notice and bond receipt; our release-preparation checklist helps families organize the rest.

Call (949) 343-9735 or email office@mishrax.com.

Sources