The Expanding Web of Mandatory Detention: *Matter of Q. Li*

As an immigration attorney deeply committed to navigating the intricate landscape of U.S. immigration law, I have seen how even minor shifts in Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent can have far-reaching and dire consequences for individuals and families. The recent landmark decision from the BIA, Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (2025), issued on May 15, 2025, is a striking example. This ruling carries significant implications for individuals apprehended at or near the border, as well as for many who have been living in the U.S. for years. This decision transcends simple administrative interpretation; it is a clarion call to action for federal courts nationwide, with its ramifications already reverberating through habeas petitions and civil rights litigation.

Revisiting the Definition of "Applicant for Admission”

Historically, there has been a well-understood distinction regarding eligibility for detention. Those apprehended at a port of entry without proper documentation were typically deemed “applicants for admission” under INA § 235(b) and were subject to mandatory detention. This meant that an Immigration Judge (IJ) often lacked the ability to grant bond, effectively holding them without a hearing until their case was resolved. Conversely, individuals who entered without inspection and were later caught within the U.S. were often classified differently, potentially qualifying for bond hearings under INA § 236(a), which allows IJs discretion in setting bond based on factors such as flight risk and community safety.

However, Matter of Q. Li dramatically reshapes this paradigm. The BIA has made it clear that individuals apprehended shortly after entering the U.S. without inspection—even if they are caught several miles away from a designated port of entry—are still classified as “applicants for admission” under INA § 235(b). The respondent in *Q. Li* was apprehended by DHS officers approximately 5.4 miles from a port of entry, yet the BIA ruled that she remained an “applicant for admission.” This classification subjects her to mandatory detention, stripping Immigration Judges of the authority to set her bond. Even if she was initially granted parole, as was the case with Ms. Li, her detention status reverts to mandatory upon the termination of that parole.

Profound Implications: A Paradigm Shift in Detention Practices

The implications of Matter of Q. Li are not just significant; they are deeply concerning:

1. Expanded Mandatory Detention: This ruling fundamentally broadens the scope of individuals who fall under mandatory detention, capturing many who entered without inspection and were previously considered bond eligible. This includes those who traveled considerable distances after crossing the border before being apprehended.

2. Elimination of Bond Hearings for Many: Those newly categorized as “applicants for admission” face the grim reality of losing any opportunity to seek release on bond from an Immigration Judge. This can result in prolonged and even indefinite detention while their immigration cases are being processed, regardless of their lack of criminal history, strong community ties, or even if they have a compelling case for relief from removal. 

3. Uncertainty with DHS Parole: With Immigration Judges stripped of their bond authority, the only path to release is through discretionary parole from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This process is notoriously opaque, inconsistent, and heavily influenced by the agency's fluctuating priorities. Moreover, if DHS rescinds parole, individuals are immediately returned to mandatory detention without any opportunity for judicial review.

4. Challenges for Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) Applicants: This ruling is particularly alarming for Cuban nationals who entered without inspection and were subsequently released under an I-220A (Order of Release on Recognizance). While some have argued that such a release should qualify as parole under CAA guidelines, Matter of Q. Li reinforces that without formal parole under INA § 212(d)(5)(A), these individuals are classified as "applicants for admission." Thus, if re-detained, they fall entirely within the mandatory detention framework of § 235(b) and are denied bond, which complicates their ability to adjust their status and potentially subjects them to extended detention.

A New Battleground: Federal Court Challenges Emerge

The BIA's interpretation in Matter of Q. Li does not occur in isolation; it critically reshapes the already contentious immigration detention landscape and is sparking an upsurge of federal court challenges throughout the United States. These challenges predominantly take the form of habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, providing individuals with the avenue to challenge their detention in court.

• As we grapple with the ramifications of this pivotal decision, it’s clear that the time for action is now. The stakes are high, and the fight for justice in immigration detention has never been more urgent. We must confront this troubling development head-on and advocate for the rights of those caught in this expanding net of mandatory detention.

Federal Court Challenges: The Impact of Matter of Q. Li

The BIA’s decision in Matter of Q. Li is significantly influencing the current landscape of immigration detention in the United States, leading to a surge in federal court challenges across the country. These challenges often take the form of habeas corpus petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, allowing individuals to contest the legality of their detention.

Historically, federal courts have stepped in to address immigration detention cases where the duration of detention is deemed "prolonged" or "unreasonable." The Supreme Court's ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), affirmed the government's authority for mandatory detention in certain scenarios but did not clarify whether constitutional limits exist regarding the length of such detention. This uncertainty has enabled certain due process challenges to be raised in federal court.

In the wake of the Q. Li decision, several potential legal challenges are anticipated:

1. As-Applied Due Process Challenges for Prolonged Detention: One predominant argument is that while Q. Li may allow for initial mandatory detention under § 235(b), continued and indefinite detention without the option for a bond hearing is in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Legal representatives may argue that due process mandates individualized bond hearings after a specified period of detention, particularly for individuals with no criminal history or those actively pursuing their immigration cases. Courts in various circuits have established different “triggers” indicating when detention becomes prolonged enough to necessitate a bond hearing, and the Q. Li ruling will likely prompt a reassessment of these precedents.

2. Statutory Interpretation Challenges to "Applicant for Admission": While the BIA in Q. Li explained its interpretation of "applicant for admission" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 235(b), federal courts retain the authority for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Challenges may focus on whether the BIA's interpretation is unreasonable or impermissible, especially regarding individuals encountered far from the immediate border or those previously granted parole.

3. Challenges to Parole Revocation Practices: With increased reliance on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) parole as the sole path to release for Q. Li detainees, it is likely that federal courts will confront challenges related to the arbitrary or retaliatory revocation of parole. Advocates may demand due process protections during parole revocation processes, emphasizing the need for clear procedures and opportunities for individuals to contest the termination of their parole, preventing their return to mandatory detention.

4. Equal Protection Challenges: Legal arguments could arise suggesting that the Q. Li ruling, by making distinctions based on the circumstances of apprehension (whether at a port of entry versus shortly after crossing between ports), imposes an arbitrary classification that contravenes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

5. Impact on Class Action Litigation: The Matter of Q. Li could pave the way for new class action lawsuits or expand existing ones that challenge the systemic practices of mandatory detention affecting this newly defined group of individuals. Such lawsuits aim to secure broad injunctive relief to address widespread issues rather than focusing solely on individual cases.

The Path Forward: Advocacy and Vigilance

The landscape following Matter of Q. Li is characterized by increased uncertainty and vulnerability for many individuals affected by this decision. The expansion of mandatory detention adds further challenges for immigrants and their advocates. While the BIA has made its determination, the ultimate authority often lies with the federal courts, which function as critical checks on administrative interpretations that influence fundamental rights.

For those impacted by this ruling, obtaining immediate legal counsel is crucial. Understanding specific individual circumstances, the nuances of the apprehension process, and identifying any factual grounds to challenge the "applicant for admission" classification is vital. Additionally, exploring all possible avenues for discretionary parole with DHS and preparing for potential federal habeas litigation will be essential strategies in this evolving legal context.

Immigration attorneys like me remain committed to addressing these restrictive interpretations, advocating for clients' rights in immigration court, and pursuing all available avenues in federal courts to protect due process and fundamental fairness in the face of expanding mandatory detention policies. The pursuit of justice and liberty continues.

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is essential to consult with an experienced attorney for personalized guidance relevant to your specific circumstances.