Despite the February 18, 2026 federal district court ruling in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz (C.D. Cal.) rejecting the BIA’s reasoning in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, immigration courts outside California — including Cleveland such as a proceeding on 2/26/2026 — are still issuing orders stating:

“Denied, because the Court does not have the authority to redetermine bond in this case.”

This reflects a deliberate legal position by DHS/ICE and EOIR — not confusion.

Below is what is happening, the legal theory ICE is advancing, and the strategic path forward for detained EWI respondents.

I. The Legal Conflict: § 1225 vs. § 1226

The dispute centers on which detention statute governs EWIs arrested in the interior.

A. The Hurtado Framework (BIA 2026)

In Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that certain individuals who entered without inspection (EWI) are properly treated as:

• “Applicants for admission”
• Detained under INA § 235(b)(2)(A) (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A))
• Subject to mandatory detention
• Not eligible for bond before an Immigration Judge

The BIA reasoned that because EWIs were never “admitted,” they remain applicants for admission regardless of how long they lived inside the United States.

The decision is available here:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1413311/dl

Under this framework, IJs lack bond jurisdiction.

B. The Bautista Decision (C.D. Cal. – Feb. 18, 2026)

In Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected the BIA’s interpretation.

The court concluded that:

• DHS cannot treat long-resident EWIs arrested in the interior as subject to § 1225 mandatory detention.
• Interior arrests are governed by § 1226.
• § 1226(a) detention includes bond eligibility before an IJ.

The February 18, 2026 order vacated the agency’s application of Hurtado within the scope of that litigation.

II. Why Cleveland Immigration Court Is Still Denying Bond

There are three principal reasons.

1. EOIR Internal Guidance: Not Nationwide

EOIR leadership has taken the position that Bautista:

• Is not a nationwide injunction
• Does not vacate the BIA precedent nationwide
• Therefore does not bind IJs outside the Central District of California

In January 2026, EOIR issued internal guidance stating that Hurtado remains binding BIA precedent unless reversed by:

• The Attorney General,
• A circuit court of appeals, or
• The Supreme Court.

Immigration Judges are administrative adjudicators within DOJ. They are bound by BIA precedent unless:

• A controlling circuit court has ruled otherwise, or
• The precedent has been vacated nationwide.

Cleveland sits in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit has not yet addressed this precise post-Hurtado question.

Therefore, Cleveland IJs are continuing to apply Hurtado.

2. ICE’s Legal Argument: “Bautista Does Not Change Jurisdiction”

ICE is advancing several arguments:

A. Limited Geographic Scope

ICE argues:

• The Central District of California decision binds only the parties before that court.
• It does not operate as a nationwide vacatur of BIA precedent.
• EOIR is not required to treat it as binding in Ohio.

B. No Formal Vacatur of BIA Decision

ICE maintains:

• Only the Attorney General or a court of appeals can formally overturn BIA precedent.
• A district court decision does not erase BIA precedent nationwide.

C. Distinction Between APA Relief and Immigration Jurisdiction

ICE argues that:

• Even if DHS detention classification was unlawful under APA standards,
• The IJ’s jurisdiction is determined by the statute and binding BIA precedent,
• Therefore the IJ still lacks authority to conduct bond hearings under Hurtado.

In short:

ICE’s position is that until the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court says otherwise, § 1225 detention continues to apply.

3. Institutional Incentives

There is also a structural reality:

• Recognizing bond eligibility would significantly increase bond hearings.
• DHS would face mass bond litigation.
• EOIR prefers uniform application of BIA precedent.

Thus, absent circuit-level direction, IJs are defaulting to “no jurisdiction.”

III. What This Means Legally

We are now in a three-layer conflict:

1. District Court: Bautista rejects § 1225 detention for interior EWIs.
2. BIA: Hurtado says § 1225 applies.
3. EOIR: Instructs IJs to follow BIA precedent outside California.

This creates a classic federalism and administrative law tension.

IV. Strategic Options for Detained EWI Respondents

If you are detained in Ohio (or outside California) and receive a “no jurisdiction” bond denial, the strategy must be multi-track.

Strategy 1: Appeal to the BIA (Preserve the Record)

Even if the BIA previously issued Hurtado, you must:

• File a timely EOIR-26 appeal.
• Argue that Bautista undermines the legal foundation of Hurtado.
• Preserve constitutional due process arguments.

This is critical for exhaustion before federal habeas review.

Strategy 2: Federal Habeas Petition (28 U.S.C. § 2241)

In the Sixth Circuit (including Cleveland), habeas remains the most powerful tool.

Key arguments:

A. Statutory Misclassification

Argue that:

• Interior arrest = § 1226 detention.
• § 1225 applies to arriving aliens and border arrests.
• Long-resident EWIs are not properly detained under § 1225.

B. Due Process

Mandatory detention without individualized bond hearing violates:

• Fifth Amendment procedural due process.
• Especially for long-term residents.
• Especially where detention becomes prolonged.

C. APA / Arbitrary Agency Action

If DHS mechanically applies Hurtado despite Bautista, argue:

• Arbitrary and capricious application.
• Failure to follow persuasive federal authority.

Strategy 3: Mootness and Alternative IJ Rulings

In cases where the IJ says:

“Even if I had jurisdiction, I would deny bond.”

Government counsel often moves to dismiss habeas on mootness grounds.

Your counterarguments:

• No full evidentiary bond hearing was held.
• No burden shifting occurred.
• No meaningful individualized analysis was conducted.
• An advisory alternative ruling is not a substitute for a real hearing.

Federal courts recognize that jurisdictional error cannot be cured by hypothetical alternative findings.

Strategy 4: Seek Immediate Release in Habeas

Where detention is prolonged and jurisdiction clearly misapplied, you can argue:

• The district court should order release.
• Or remand with instructions for an immediate bond hearing.
• Particularly if detention exceeds 6 months.

Courts in similar statutory misclassification cases have granted conditional release.

V. What ICE Is Likely to Do

Expect:

• Continued opposition to bond eligibility.
• Motions to dismiss habeas based on alternative IJ findings.
• Argument that Bautista is geographically limited.
• Possible push for appellate review in multiple circuits.

DHS will likely litigate this issue to circuit level before conceding nationwide bond eligibility.

VI. Broader Implications

If circuit courts reject Hurtado, we could see:

• Restoration of § 1226 bond hearings for interior EWIs.
• Significant increase in bond grants.
• Major detention population reductions.

If circuits split, this issue may reach the Supreme Court.

VII. Practical Takeaways for Ohio Detainees

If detained as an EWI in Cleveland:

1. Do not assume bond is permanently unavailable.
2. Appeal IJ jurisdictional denial.
3. File habeas promptly.
4. Emphasize:
   • Length of residence
   • Family ties
   • Criminal history (or lack thereof)
   • Community support
   • Medical conditions
5. Challenge any “alternative” bond denial as procedurally defective.

Conclusion

What you are seeing in Cleveland is not defiance — it is administrative hierarchy.

• IJs follow BIA precedent.
• EOIR says Hurtado remains binding.
• ICE argues Bautista is geographically limited.
• Federal district courts are beginning to disagree.

This issue is now moving from district courts toward the circuit courts.

For detained EWIs, the bond fight has shifted from immigration court to federal court.

The next major development will likely come from a circuit-level ruling — and that will determine whether Hurtado survives nationally or collapses under appellate review.