On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a published decision in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, holding that many noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection and were later arrested in the interior are not automatically subject to mandatory detention. Instead, they may be eligible to seek release on immigration bond.
The decision rejects the government’s 2025 position that this broad group of detained individuals must be subject to mandatory detention without the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
For more information on the court decisions preceding this Tenth Circuit decision, see Matter of Q Li; Court Ruling Restores Immigration Bond Hearings for Many Detainees; and Federal Court Ends the No Bond Immigration Detention Practice.
The dispute: mandatory detention or bond eligibility?
The Immigration and Nationality Act contains several detention provisions. INA § 235(b)(2)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), requires detention of certain noncitizens who are seeking admission. By contrast, INA § 236(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), permits detention during removal proceedings while authorizing an immigration judge to consider release on bond.
For decades, the government generally treated noncitizens who entered without inspection and were later arrested inside the United States as detained under § 1226. In July 2025, however, the government adopted the position that because these individuals had never been formally admitted, they remained “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), even after living in the United States for years.
That interpretation prevented many detained individuals from obtaining bond hearings before immigration judges over the course of the past year.
What the Tenth Circuit decided
Mr. Santillan Quiroz entered the United States without inspection in 2006 and lived here for nearly two decades before ICE detained him following a traffic stop. The government argued that he was subject to mandatory detention and could not request bond.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed. Although a person present without admission may fall within the statutory definition of an “applicant for admission,” the court explained that § 1225(b)(2)(A) also requires the person to be “seeking admission.”
The court held that a noncitizen who entered the United States, remained in the interior, and had no pending request for lawful entry was not “seeking admission” within the meaning of that provision. It concluded that Mr. Santillan Quiroz’s detention was governed by § 1226(a), making him eligible for a bond hearing.
The court reversed the denial of his habeas petition and directed the government, after issuance of the appellate mandate and entry of the district court’s order, to provide him a bond hearing or release him within seven days. That deadline applied to his individual case, but the court’s broader holding has precedential value for individuals detained within the Tenth Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
The issue also remains subject to a circuit split, so the rule is not uniform nationwide and could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Santillan Quiroz provides significant procedural protection. Within the Tenth Circuit, entry without inspection alone should no longer prevent an otherwise eligible person detained in the interior from asking an immigration judge for bond
Why the decision changes the bond process
For many months, people affected by the government’s mandatory-detention position often had to file federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to obtain a bond hearing. That required separate litigation in federal district court while the individual remained detained.
Following Quiroz, immigration judges within the Tenth Circuit should generally have authority to consider bond under § 236(a) for people who entered without inspection, were later detained in the interior, and are not independently subject to another mandatory-detention provision.
The ruling does not guarantee release. At a bond hearing, the immigration judge will evaluate danger, flight risk, and other relevant factors under the applicable bond rules. People covered by § 236(c) or another mandatory-detention provision—including certain individuals falling within specified criminal or inadmissibility categories—may remain ineligible for ordinary § 236(a) bond.
To confirm bond eligibility or seek representation at a bond hearing, schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys at Joseph & Hall.
