A federal appeals court in the United States upheld on Friday the mandatory detention without individual bail hearings for certain immigrants who entered the country without authorization, even if they have been living in the U.S. for many years and are facing deportation proceedings.
The decision was made this Friday by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, in the case Sosnava Rodríguez v. Vergara, as recorded in the official ruling and in the coverage from Bloomberg Law.
The ruling reverses three decisions from lower courts that had ordered the release of detained immigrants while their immigration processes were underway and prohibited their re-detention without first holding individual bond hearings.
The resolution supports the stance of the Donald Trump administration, which asserts that certain foreigners who entered the United States without inspection or legal admission are subject to mandatory detention and do not have the right to a standard bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The time that has passed since entering the country alone does not eliminate that classification.
Thus, a person who has been living in the United States for over a decade may face mandatory detention if they fall under the legal framework examined by the court.
The ruling is particularly significant in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the three states under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, and it deepens the divide among federal courts that have reached different conclusions regarding immigration policy.
For Cubans, this issue is particularly sensitive due to cases of individuals who entered through the border, received documents such as the I-220A form, and were subsequently detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
However, the decision does not mean that all Cubans with I-220A have automatically lost the opportunity to request bond.
The situation depends on the circumstances of admission, the legal basis for the detention, the jurisdiction where the case is examined, and the relevant judicial resolutions.
Three immigrants with years of residency in the United States
The legal controversy originated in the cases of Ignacio Sosnava Rodríguez, Alejandro Villegas Ángel, and Miguel Ángel Gómez Alvarado, who were detained by immigration authorities after having lived in the United States for years.
According to the background information gathered in the ruling, the three had entered the country without inspection or legal admission and were detained after traffic stops.
Sosnava Rodríguez, a Mexican citizen, had been living in the United States for over 22 years when he was detained by ICE in December 2025.
Villegas Ángel, also a Mexican and father of two U.S. citizens, had been residing in the country since 2011. He was arrested in February 2026 after the police stopped him for driving without a license.
Gómez Alvarado, a Honduran citizen and father of an American citizen, had been living in the United States since 2012. He was detained by ICE in November 2025, also following a traffic stop.
The three filed habeas corpus petitions, a legal procedure that allows for questioning the lawfulness of a detention, and sought protection against the possibility of remaining in custody without an individual bail hearing.
The federal district courts that initially examined their cases concluded that their detention without that review violated the constitutional guarantees of due process and ordered their release.
Those decisions also prevented federal authorities from arresting them again without first holding a hearing aimed at examining, among other factors, whether they posed a danger to the community or a flight risk.
A panel of three judges from the Fifth Circuit upheld those protections in July, stating that, under the examined circumstances, an individual hearing must be offered within a maximum of 90 days of detention.
However, the court decided to reconsider the case in full and suspended the rulings of the lower courts while it reexamined the controversy.
The ruling this Friday overturns those decisions and nullifies the three habeas corpus grants, concluding that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right to the individual hearings they demanded before being held during their deportation proceedings.
The court also considered that the duration of the examined detentions did not justify granting the requested constitutional remedies.
This does not equate to declaring that the plaintiffs must be deported nor does it, by itself, constitute an explicit order to detain them again. The litigation concerned the legality of holding them in custody without an individual bail hearing.
Why can an immigrant remain detained without bail?
The controversy relates to the interpretation of two provisions of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.
The first, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, governs the inspection and admission of foreign nationals and establishes grounds for mandatory detention while certain immigration proceedings are underway.
The second, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), provides for detention during deportation proceedings and allows, under certain circumstances, for the request of release on bail.
For years, numerous immigrants who had entered without inspection and were later detained within the United States were able to access procedures for requesting an individual review of their custody.
The Trump administration changed that interpretation in July 2025 and began to assert that individuals who had never been formally admitted could still be considered applicants for admission for the purposes of detention, even after many years of living in the country.
The government's argument is based on the fact that the legislation considers certain foreigners present in U.S. territory who have not been legally admitted as applicants for admission.
The lawyers challenging that policy argue, however, that applying mandatory detention to individuals who have been settled in the United States for years overlooks the legal differences between those seeking to enter at the border and those who are arrested later within the territory.
They also argue that the absence of an individual hearing may undermine the constitutional guarantees of due process, especially when the detention is prolonged.
The Fifth Circuit had previously supported the government’s interpretation of immigration legislation. The new ruling also examines the argument that the Constitution would require individual bond hearings for individuals falling within that classification.
The majority of the court rejected that argument in the three cases examined and concluded that the detentions did not violate the guarantees of due process under the circumstances analyzed.
However, the decision does not make all immigration detention situations identical.
There are different legal regimes for individuals with final deportation orders, certain criminal records, pending admission processes, and other immigration circumstances.
Therefore, a person detained by ICE cannot determine if they are entitled to a bail hearing solely based on the number of years they have been living in the United States.
What does I-220A mean for Cubans?
The I-220A form, known as Order of Release on Recognizance, has been issued to numerous Cubans who entered the United States through the border and are subject to immigration proceedings.
This document establishes conditions for a person to remain free while continuing their process, but does not itself constitute a legal admission nor does it provide a parole for immigration purposes under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Some of its holders have been detained again by ICE during immigration appointments, operations, or encounters with authorities, even after having lived in the United States for several years.
The new ruling may have significant consequences for Cubans whose detention cases are examined within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, particularly when their legal situation aligns with the court's interpretation of mandatory detention.
A particularly relevant case is that of those who remain detained in Texas and request a bail hearing, arguing that they had already been residing in the United States for years when they were arrested.
The ruling weakens that argument within the Fifth Circuit, but does not automatically resolve all constitutional appeals or other potential legal avenues to challenge a detention.
It also does not establish that having an I-220A is, by itself, sufficient reason to deny a bond hearing. It must first be determined which provision of immigration law regulates the custody of each individual.
The ruling also does not resolve the controversy over whether certain Cubans with I-220A meet the requirements to obtain permanent residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Both disputes can affect the same person, but they are legally distinct: one concerns the conditions for obtaining residency, while the other relates to the options for challenging detention while an immigration file is being processed.
Therefore, Cubans in ICE custody must distinguish between the type of document received upon entry, the legal authority used to detain them, the existence of a deportation order, and the jurisdiction where their case is being reviewed.
Does it also affect the Cubans detained in Florida?
The Fifth Circuit ruling does not automatically change the rules applicable in Florida, because that state belongs to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, along with Georgia and Alabama.
On May 6, 2026, that court issued a ruling in the case Hernández Álvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami, in which it rejected the Government's interpretation that aimed to apply mandatory detention under section 1225 to certain immigrants who had never been formally admitted and were subsequently arrested within the United States.
In the cases examined, the court concluded that it was appropriate to apply section 1226, which allows for a custody review request and, when legal requirements are met, a bond hearing.
The scope of that ruling was explained in a report on the recognition of bail hearings for certain immigrants detained by ICE in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
Therefore, there is a significant difference between the judicial interpretations of both circuits.
This does not mean that any immigrant detained in Florida is guaranteed their release. Access to a bail hearing and the decision to grant it are two different matters.
A judge can examine the individual situation and deny freedom if there are legal grounds to maintain the detention, including certain flight risks or dangers to the community.
Additionally, some categories of detainees remain subject to special provisions for mandatory detention.
The jurisdiction where an appeal is filed or processed also requires attention. It is not always enough to know the state where the immigrant resided before being detained, especially when they are transferred between custody centers.
Cubans who have already faced bail-less detentions
The legal controversy has specific precedents among Cuban immigrants who have spent months in ICE custody.
In May, a young Cuban with I-220A shared his experience after spending five months detained by ICE in Miami.
The man, identified in that report as Cristian Michel García Gil, had been arrested during a traffic stop in December 2025, despite having a valid driver's license and work permit.
Their release occurred after a federal judge granted a habeas corpus petition, a procedure that allows for a judicial review of the legality of a detention.
The case illustrates that, even when a person cannot access a standard bail hearing before an immigration judge, there may be other legal avenues to challenge custody, although their chances of success depend on the circumstances and applicable case law.
Another background relates to a 63-year-old Cuban who had been detained by ICE for six months, whose case raised concerns among her family regarding the conditions of her confinement and the difficulties in securing her release.
In that information, immigration lawyer Haim Vásquez explained that the interpretation applied in Texas prevented certain immigrants who had entered through the border without being formally admitted from requesting bail.
The case of a Cuban with an I-220A who remained detained in Texas after an attempted voluntary departure to Cuba has also been documented, a situation publicly analyzed by lawyer Willy Allen.
In that last case, there were also circumstances related to the process of leaving the country, so it cannot be automatically considered equivalent to the three cases examined by the Fifth Circuit.
These cases are independent precedents and do not form part of the ruling issued this Friday. However, they illustrate the practical consequences that different interpretations of immigration detention have for Cuban families.
The Supreme Court will review the national controversy
The division between federal circuits brought the discussion to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On October 1, 2026, the highest court agreed to review the case Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, related to the interpretation of the mandatory detention of immigrants who entered without legal admission.
As explained in a report on the case review by the Supreme Court and its potential consequences for detained Cubans, the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the controversy.
The decision by the Fifth Circuit on Friday supports one of the disputed interpretations, but does not replace a future ruling by the Supreme Court that could establish a rule applicable nationwide.
Until there is a national resolution or new judicial decisions, significant differences may remain in the ability to request bail in different states.
For detained Cubans, especially those with I-220A or pending deportation cases, it is important to seek legal advice that examines the legal basis for their custody and the current resolutions in the relevant jurisdiction.
Related videos:
Filed under: