The first question in any immigration bond hearing San Antonio case is not how much. It is whether a judge may set bond at all. Immigration judges hold no general power over custody. Their authority runs through one statute, and several large groups of people sit outside it.
That threshold question shifted hard in 2026. A published Fifth Circuit decision now governs Texas. It moves a great many people out of the bond system before any factor gets weighed.
Where the Authority Comes From
Section 1226(a) of Title 8 is the source. The government may detain someone pending a removal decision. Or it may release that person on conditional parole, or on bond of at least $1,500.
Note the phrasing. That $1,500 is a statutory floor. Nothing in the statute suggests real bonds cluster anywhere near it.
Regulation Section 1003.19 lets an immigration judge revisit the agency’s decision. A first request can come orally, in writing, or by phone if the judge allows. Bond runs “separate and apart” from the removal case. The judge may weigh information the removal hearing would never touch.
Who Cannot Get an Immigration Bond Hearing in San Antonio at All
Section 1003.19(h)(2)(i) strips judges of bond jurisdiction over four groups. People in exclusion proceedings. Arriving aliens, including those paroled after arrival. People described in the security and terrorism provisions. And people subject to mandatory detention.
A fifth exclusion now dwarfs those four. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), held that judges lack authority over bond requests from people present without admission. The Fifth Circuit adopted that framework on February 6, 2026, in a published decision, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. Under it, people who entered without inspection fall under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). They cannot be released on bond.
San Antonio sits in the Fifth Circuit. For anyone who entered without inspection, that holding is not a wrinkle. It is the answer.
Mandatory Detention, and the Category Added in 2025
Section 1226(c) requires custody for four conviction-based groups. They cover most controlled-substance and moral-turpitude grounds. Certain firearms and aggravated felony offenses appear too, along with terrorism grounds.
Custody attaches “when the alien is released” from criminal custody. In Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392 (2019), the Supreme Court read that phrase broadly. A long gap between criminal release and immigration arrest does not defeat it.
The Laken Riley Act, Public Law 119-1, took effect January 29, 2025. It added a fifth category at Section 1226(c)(1)(E). That category reaches anyone charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admitting burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer. Any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury also counts.
Read those verbs again. Unlike the four older groups, this one needs no conviction. An arrest does it.
What a Judge Weighs When an Immigration Bond Hearing San Antonio Case Proceeds
For people still inside Section 1226(a), the burden sits on the detained person. Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999), sets it out. They must show release poses no danger, and that they are likely to appear.
Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), supplies the factors. Judges hold wide discretion in choosing among them. Nine appear in the decision: a fixed address, length of residence, family ties, employment history, record of court appearances, criminal record, immigration violations, attempts to flee, and manner of entry.
Pause on that last one. Manner of entry was already a discretionary consideration. In this circuit it is now, frequently, a jurisdictional one instead.
Guerra also lets judges weigh criminal charges that never produced a conviction. Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2018), added two surprises. Family and community ties generally do not offset dangerousness. And driving under the influence counts as a significant adverse consideration.
Second Requests, and the Government’s Automatic Stay
One bond hearing is the norm. Section 1003.19(e) permits a later request only on a written showing of materially changed circumstances. New evidence about old circumstances is a different thing.
One tool has no mirror image on the other side. Say DHS ordered detention, or set bond of $10,000 or more. Its notice of intent to appeal, filed within one business day, automatically stays a judge’s release order. That stay lapses if DHS misses its ten-business-day window at the Board. Otherwise it runs 90 days from the notice of appeal.
Detention Facilities Around Bexar County
The Pearsall Immigration Court, not San Antonio, hears most detained cases in this region. Pearsall covers the South Texas Detention Facility, the family residential center in Dilley, and the LaSalle facility in Cotulla. It also runs hearing locations at the South Texas ICE Processing Center and the Karnes County Immigration Processing Center.
Karnes sits at 409 FM 1144 in Karnes City. The San Antonio ICE field office manages it. Visitation splits by day. Legal representatives may visit weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and weekends until noon. Virtual attorney visits run in 60-minute blocks, up to two hours a day.
How an Immigration Bond Hearing San Antonio Family Wins Gets Paid
Posting has moved online. Citizens, lawful permanent residents, law firms, and non-profit organizations post through the CeBONDS system. Payment goes by Fedwire or ACH only. Bond hours run 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., in the time zone where the person sits.
Older guidance describes a cashier’s check handed across a counter. That guidance is out of date, and following it can cost a day. Form I-352 is the bond contract itself. Our guide to how custody decisions actually work covers the same federal framework from an Arizona vantage point.
How Long Detention Can Last
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), addressed detention after a removal order became final. It did not address detention during proceedings. The Court treated six months as presumptively reasonable. After that, someone who shows no significant likelihood of removal shifts the burden to the government. Call it a presumption about reasonableness, not a release date.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), closed off a different hope. These statutes require no periodic bond hearings at six-month intervals. Constitutional questions went unanswered there, and they stay unanswered. A Supreme Court case raising prolonged mandatory detention was dismissed in September 2026, before argument.
The Bottom Line
Most published explanations describe a hearing where a judge weighs ties against risk. That description still fits people admitted or paroled who avoid mandatory detention. For much of the detained population in South Texas, it now describes a hearing they cannot get. A circuit decision from February 2026 and a statute from January 2025 did that, the second by making an arrest enough where a conviction used to be required. Which side of that line a person falls on is the first thing worth establishing, and it is rarely the thing people ask about first.
Frequently asked questions
Not in Texas. The Fifth Circuit held in February 2026 that people who entered without inspection are detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and are ineligible for release on bond, adopting the Board’s reasoning in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
No. The category it added at Section 1226(c)(1)(E) reaches people charged with or arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
Matter of Guerra lists nine factors, including a fixed address, length of residence, family ties, employment history, record of court appearances, criminal record, immigration violations, attempts to flee, and manner of entry.
Through the CeBONDS system by Fedwire or ACH, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. in the detainee’s time zone. Citizens, lawful permanent residents, law firms, and non-profit organizations may post.
Ready to meet your legal match?
Right case, right lawyer, zero awkward first dates. Tell us what happened and we’ll introduce you to attorneys who actually fit.
Get MatchedKeep reading: Immigration Bond Hearing: How Custody Decisions Actually Work · Criminal Conviction Immigration Consequences: What Actually Triggers Removal
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration detention law changed substantially in 2025 and 2026, and the availability of a bond hearing depends on facts specific to each case. Anyone with a detained family member should consult a licensed immigration attorney or an accredited representative promptly.
More guides on Immigration
- U Visa Lawyer San Antonio: What Qualifies and Who Signs
- Removal Defense Lawyer San Antonio: What Happens at Each Hearing
- Employment Based Green Card San Antonio: The PERM Process
- Naturalization Attorney San Antonio: The N-400 Residency Math
- Family Based Green Card Austin: Four Events That Move Your Case
- Family Based Green Card San Antonio: Who Qualifies