A new decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals makes clear: for many immigrants apprehended near the U.S. border, release on bond is no longer an option.
On May 15, 2025, the BIA issued a precedential decision in Matter of Q. Li, 28 I&N Dec. 728 (BIA 2025), holding that certain noncitizens arrested shortly after entering the United States are subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)—and are therefore ineligible for bond hearings under § 236(a).
The implications are large. Noncitizens who enter without inspection and are later placed into full removal proceedings—even if they were initially released on parole—can now be re-detained without access to an immigration judge for bond.
What Happened in Matter of Q. Li?
Ms. Q. Li, a Chinese national, crossed into the United States between ports of entry in 2022. She was arrested by Border Patrol approximately 100 yards from the southern border and released on humanitarian parole the following day.
Two years later, in 2024, ICE revoked her parole after discovering a Red Notice from INTERPOL. She was taken back into custody during a routine check-in and served with a Notice to Appear, placing her in full removal proceedings. She asked for a bond hearing so she could be released while fighting her case. The immigration judge refused, citing lack of jurisdiction.
The BIA affirmed, finding that she remained an “alien who arrives in the United States” (even if not necessarily an “arriving alien” and thus subject to mandatory custody.
The BIA’s Reasoning: Caught at Border and Processed for Credible Fear = No Bond
Under the INA, noncitizens who are treated as “applicants for admission” under § 235(b) must be detained during removal proceedings unless DHS grants parole.
The BIA concluded that:
- A person who enters the U.S. without inspection—whether at or between ports of entry—is still treated as “an alien who arrives in the United States” for purposes of section 235, if they are apprehended soon after crossing.
- This classification does not change even if the person is released on parole and later re-detained.
- Immigration judges have no authority to release these individuals on bond because their detention falls under § 235(b), not § 236(a).
In short: the moment of arrest determines classification. And to get there, the court relied on some sloppy dicta from the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 299 (2018).
Who Is Affected?
Matter of Q. Li affects a broad group of individuals, including:
- Noncitizens who were arrested at or shortly after crossing the border without permission (even if they’re now seeking bond many years later);
- Those who are placed directly into full (non-expedited) removal proceedings;
- Individuals who were released on parole but later re-detained;
- People with no criminal history and strong community ties, but who were never formally admitted to the U.S.
Once parole is revoked, immigration judges lack authority to release them. Only DHS—through its discretionary parole process—can authorize release.
Consequences: Indefinite Detention, Little Recourse
The practical effects of Matter of Q. Li are harsh:
What This Means in Practice
For many people arrested near the border, Matter of Q. Li effectively eliminates any chance of asking an immigration judge for release—even if they’ve passed a credible fear screening or have strong ties to the community. Judges have no authority to hold a bond hearing in these cases. The only path to release is through parole, a discretionary process controlled entirely by ICE or DHS.
That makes release far less predictable. Whether someone is let out of detention often depends more on which ICE field office is handling the case than on the strength of the person’s situation. Some offices have historically granted parole while others almost never do. There are no meaningful standards, and decisions are rarely explained.
As a result, individuals may spend months or even years in detention while their immigration cases play out—especially if they seek appeals or other forms of relief. During that time, their ability to prepare a defense is severely limited. It’s harder to gather documents, speak with witnesses, or even find a lawyer when you’re behind bars. Many people are forced to fight complex legal battles while isolated, scared, and unrepresented.
Matter of Q. Li doesn’t just limit access to release. It raises the stakes of detention itself—making it longer, more uncertain, and more punishing for those caught in the system.
Are There Any Legal Avenues Left?
In limited situations, detained individuals may still have options:
- Humanitarian parole: They can request release from ICE based on urgent medical needs or compelling public interest factors.
- Challenging classification: If the timing or location of the arrest is unclear or disputed, it may be possible to argue that § 236(a) should apply.
- Federal habeas corpus: Courts may review prolonged detention under constitutional or statutory grounds—though outcomes are unpredictable. TheJennings decision that I mentioned above only dealt with mandatory detention under a different section, INA § 236(c). It’s left to be determined whether the BIA is right in its interpretation of INA § 235.
But in most cases, Q. Li closes the door on bond hearings for noncitizens who have ever been processed under § 235(b).
Why This Decision Matters
Matter of Q. Li illustrates how small distinctions—where and when someone is arrested—can have enormous consequences for due process and liberty. It also leaves open one big question: what does it mean to be “just inside” the United States? Ms. Q. Li was just 100 yards inside the US. But how far does that net extend? What about a person arrested 10 miles inside the U.S.?
Two people with identical backgrounds may be treated very differently:
- One arrested at or near the border is subject to mandatory detention and denied bond.
- Another arrested weeks later inside the U.S. may qualify for a bond hearing.
The ruling reinforces a central theme of immigration enforcement: classification controls everything. And now, for thousands of people arriving at the border (or who arrived even many years ago), that classification all but guarantees detention.
If you or someone you know has been detained by immigration, it is essential to speak with an immigration attorney immediately. The law in this area is complex—and fast-changing. Knowing your legal options can make all the difference.
For more updates on immigration detention and bond eligibility, follow our blog or schedule a consultation.