Executive Overview
In 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado, restricting Immigration Judge bond jurisdiction for certain individuals who entered the United States without inspection.
In response, a federal class action — Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz — challenged the government’s detention framework. On December 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered Final Judgment holding that covered individuals are detained under INA § 236(a) and are entitled to bond hearings. On February 18, 2026, the court issued an enforcement order vacating Hurtado under the Administrative Procedure Act in the class context.
For ICE detainees in Ohio — especially those held in Youngstown — this shift has major implications.
This guide explains:
- What Hurtado did
- What the federal court changed
- What the February 18, 2026 ruling means
- What to do at every procedural stage
- What ICE lawyers are likely to argue
- How to litigate effectively in Ohio federal court
Part I – The Legal Background
1. Matter of Yajure Hurtado (BIA 2025)
The official EOIR precedent decision page is available at:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/precedent-decisions
Hurtado interpreted INA § 235(b)(2) (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) to classify certain noncitizens who entered without inspection as “applicants for admission,” thereby eliminating Immigration Judge bond jurisdiction in those cases.
Relevant statutes:
INA § 235(b)(2) – 8 U.S.C. § 1225
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1225
INA § 236(a) – 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1226
Under Hurtado, many detainees were denied bond hearings entirely.
2. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz (C.D. California)
Public docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70895584/lazaro-maldonado-bautista-v-ernesto-santacruz-jr/
On December 18, 2025, the federal court:
- Certified a nationwide class.
- Held class members are detained under § 1226(a).
- Confirmed entitlement to bond hearings.
- Vacated DHS’s categorical no-bond framework.
On February 18, 2026, the court:
- Granted enforcement relief.
- Vacated Hurtado as inconsistent with federal law in the class context.
- Required corrective action to ensure bond hearings.
For detainees, this means the categorical “no jurisdiction” argument is no longer secure.
Part II – Why This Matters in Ohio
Ohio detainees are often held at the Youngstown detention facility and litigate before immigration courts within the Sixth Circuit.
Important reality:
- Maldonado Bautista is binding for certified class members.
- It is persuasive authority in Ohio.
- Hurtado’s reasoning has been directly challenged in federal court.
- Federal habeas jurisdiction remains available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Federal habeas statute:
28 U.S.C. § 2241
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2241
Part III – Constitutional Framework
Even when detention is authorized by statute, constitutional limits apply.
Key Supreme Court decisions:
Zadvydas v. Davis
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/678/
Demore v. Kim
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/510/
Jennings v. Rodriguez
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/583/17-382/
These cases establish:
- Civil detention implicates liberty interests.
- Congress may authorize detention, but constitutional review remains available.
- Habeas jurisdiction is not extinguished.
In Ohio federal court, constitutional framing is essential.
Part IV – What To Do Depending on Your Case Stage
A. If the Case Is Currently Before the Immigration Judge
If bond has not yet been denied:
- File a written custody brief.
- Cite § 1226(a).
- Reference the December 18, 2025 Final Judgment.
- Reference the February 18, 2026 enforcement order.
- Demand a written ruling if jurisdiction is denied.
Build the federal record early.
Ohio-specific detention guidance:
B. If the IJ Already Denied Bond Under Hurtado
You have three options:
- Motion to Reconsider (if timely)
- Appeal to the BIA (within 30 days)
- Federal Habeas Petition
Practical Ohio bond strategy:
Do not wait indefinitely. Deadlines matter.
C. If the Case Is on Appeal at the BIA
File a Supplemental Authority Letter:
- Attach the federal decisions.
- Preserve statutory and constitutional arguments.
- Establish class membership if applicable.
The BIA may not reverse immediately, but preservation is critical for federal court.
D. If Habeas Is Already Pending
File a Notice of Supplemental Authority.
Request:
- Immediate release; OR
- Bond hearing within a defined timeframe.
Expect ICE to argue:
- Exhaustion failure.
- Mootness.
- Statutory bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Statute frequently cited:
8 U.S.C. § 1252
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1252
Counter:
- Constitutional claims remain reviewable.
- Ongoing detention is a continuing injury.
- Structural defects cannot be cured retroactively.
Part V – What ICE Lawyers Are Likely to Argue
After February 18, ICE’s strategy has shifted.
Expect:
- Narrow reading of class definition.
- Argument that detainee is not covered.
- Assertion that Hurtado still controls outside class context.
- Reclassification under mandatory detention (INA § 236(c)).
Mandatory detention statute:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1226
- Scheduling bond hearings to moot habeas petitions.
- Raising exhaustion aggressively.
ICE’s goal: procedural containment.
Your goal: constitutional framing and record preservation.
Part VI – Alternative IJ Findings
Many IJs wrote:
“Even if I had jurisdiction, I would deny bond.”
This does not automatically cure the defect.
If the IJ believed jurisdiction was lacking:
- The record may be underdeveloped.
- Burden allocation may be flawed.
- The proceeding may be structurally compromised.
In federal court, emphasize structural error.
Part VII – Ohio Federal Court Strategy
Because Ohio is within the Sixth Circuit:
- Maldonado Bautista is persuasive authority.
- It is not automatically binding unless class membership applies.
- Lead with constitutional due process.
- Emphasize prolonged detention.
- Argue individualized review requirement.
Youngstown detainees should focus on federal habeas leverage where appropriate.
Related HLG resource:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/youngstown-ice-detention-lawyer/
Part VIII – Practical Action Checklist for Ohio Detainees
If bond was denied:
- Obtain written IJ decision.
- Identify statutory detention basis.
- Determine appeal deadlines.
- Gather equities documentation:
- Employment verification
- Lease/mortgage
- Family documentation
- Medical records
- Consult detention and habeas counsel immediately.
Timing determines leverage.
Part IX – The February 18, 2026 Reality
The enforcement order did not create automatic release.
It did:
- Vacate Hurtado in the class context.
- Reinforce § 1226(a) bond eligibility.
- Undermine categorical denial logic.
- Strengthen constitutional arguments.
But ICE will litigate aggressively.
This is strategic litigation, not automatic relief.
Part X – Related Herman Legal Group Resources
- Hurtado & Maldonado Bautista Strategy
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/maldonado-bautista-bond-hearings-yajure-hurtado-vacated/ - Youngstown ICE Detention Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/10-steps-to-navigate-ice-detention-youngstown-ice-detention-lawyer/ - Ohio Bond First 72 Hours
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-bond-in-ohio-what-to-do-in-the-first-72-hours-after-an-ice-arrest/
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – Bond After Hurtado and Maldonado Bautista (Ohio Focus)
1. What was Matter of Yajure Hurtado?
Matter of Yajure Hurtado was a 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that restricted Immigration Judge bond jurisdiction for certain individuals who entered the United States without inspection.
The BIA treated some detainees as “applicants for admission” under INA § 235(b)(2), which it interpreted as eliminating bond authority under INA § 236(a).
Official BIA precedent decisions page:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/precedent-decisions
2. What is Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz?
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz is a federal class action filed in the Central District of California challenging the government’s no-bond framework.
The federal court:
- Certified a nationwide class.
- Held that class members are detained under INA § 236(a).
- Confirmed their right to bond hearings.
- Issued an enforcement order on February 18, 2026 vacating Hurtado in the class context.
Public docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70895584/lazaro-maldonado-bautista-v-ernesto-santacruz-jr/
3. Does the February 18, 2026 ruling automatically get me released?
No.
The February 18 enforcement order:
- Vacated Hurtado in the class context.
- Reinforced bond eligibility.
- Required corrective action.
But it does not automatically release detainees. You must request relief, either in immigration court or federal court.
4. Does this apply to detainees in Ohio?
Yes — but with nuance.
- The federal ruling is binding on certified class members.
- It is persuasive authority in Ohio (Sixth Circuit).
- It strengthens constitutional and statutory arguments nationwide.
- Ohio detainees may still need to litigate in immigration court or federal court to obtain relief.
Youngstown-focused detention strategy:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/10-steps-to-navigate-ice-detention-youngstown-ice-detention-lawyer/
5. How do I know if I am part of the certified class?
Class eligibility depends on:
- How you were arrested (interior arrest vs. border processing).
- Whether you are detained under INA § 236(a).
- Whether mandatory detention under INA § 236(c) applies.
- Whether you were denied bond based on Hurtado reasoning.
This requires case-specific legal review.
6. What if the Immigration Judge says they still do not have jurisdiction?
You should:
- Request a written decision.
- Ask the IJ to cite the statutory basis.
- Preserve the issue for appeal or habeas.
- Consider filing a motion to reconsider or federal habeas petition.
Federal habeas statute:
28 U.S.C. § 2241
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2241
7. What if my bond was already denied?
If bond was denied under Hurtado reasoning:
Options include:
- Motion to Reconsider (if timely).
- Appeal to the BIA (within 30 days).
- Federal habeas petition.
Ohio bond strategy guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-bond-in-ohio-what-to-do-in-the-first-72-hours-after-an-ice-arrest/
Deadlines are critical.
8. What arguments will ICE lawyers make now?
Expect ICE attorneys to argue:
- You are not a certified class member.
- The federal ruling only applies in California.
- Hurtado still controls outside the class.
- You are subject to mandatory detention under INA § 236(c).
- You failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Your case is moot if a bond hearing is scheduled.
Their strategy is procedural containment.
9. What if ICE schedules a bond hearing after I file habeas?
ICE may attempt to moot the habeas petition by scheduling a hearing.
In that situation:
- The issue becomes whether the hearing cures the constitutional defect.
- Structural or prolonged detention arguments may still remain.
- The federal court may retain jurisdiction depending on circumstances.
10. What if the IJ said, “Even if I had jurisdiction, I would deny bond”?
This does not automatically cure the defect.
If the IJ believed jurisdiction was lacking:
- The evidentiary record may be incomplete.
- The burden of proof may not have been properly applied.
- The hearing may not have been fully adversarial.
Structural due process arguments may still exist in federal court.
11. Does this affect people detained under mandatory detention (INA § 236(c))?
Mandatory detention cases are governed by INA § 236(c):
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1226
If you are properly classified under § 236(c), different arguments apply. However:
- Misclassification is common.
- Prolonged detention may raise constitutional concerns.
Case-specific analysis is essential.
12. Can federal court order my release?
Yes, under certain circumstances.
Federal courts may order:
- Immediate release.
- A bond hearing within a set timeframe.
- Declaratory relief.
Constitutional detention principles come from:
Zadvydas v. Davis
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/678/
Jennings v. Rodriguez
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/583/17-382/
13. How long do I have to appeal a bond denial?
You generally have 30 days to appeal a custody decision to the BIA.
Missing the deadline significantly reduces options.
14. What documents should my family gather immediately?
- Employment verification letter
- Lease or mortgage documents
- Proof of family ties
- Medical records (if applicable)
- Tax records
- Community support letters
For practical guidance:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-bond-in-ohio-what-to-do-in-the-first-72-hours-after-an-ice-arrest/
15. What is the most important thing for Ohio detainees to understand right now?
The February 18, 2026 enforcement order did not create automatic release.
It did:
- Undermine categorical bond denial.
- Strengthen § 1226(a) bond eligibility arguments.
- Reinforce constitutional detention limits.
- Shift litigation leverage to federal court in many cases.
Your procedural posture determines your strategy.
Time matters.
If you would like next, I can generate:
- A structured FAQPage JSON schema for RankMath
- A conversion-focused consultation CTA tailored to Ohio detainees
- A downloadable “Bond Litigation Checklist” section
- A federal habeas filing outline
Which asset should we build next?
Final Takeaway for Ohio ICE Detainees
If your bond was denied under Hurtado:
- The legal foundation for categorical denial has been directly challenged.
- Federal courts have vacated the underlying framework in the class context.
- Constitutional arguments remain strong nationwide.
- Procedural posture determines your leverage.
- Federal habeas remains a powerful tool.
Do not assume relief is automatic.
Do not ignore deadlines.
Do not rely solely on administrative appeals if detention continues.
Strategic action — tailored to your procedural stage — is essential.
