U.S. Court Upholds Detention Without Bail for Longtime Immigrants: Implications for Cubans with I-220A

A U.S. federal appeals court has endorsed the mandatory detention of certain immigrants without individual bail hearings, even if they have lived in the country for many years and are facing deportation. This decision could have significant consequences for Cubans with the I-220A form.

On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, issued this ruling in the case of Sosnava Rodríguez vs. Ortega, as reported by Bloomberg Law. The court's decision overturns three lower court rulings that had favored the release of detained immigrants during their immigration proceedings.

This outcome aligns with the Trump administration's stance that certain foreign nationals who entered the U.S. without inspection are subject to mandatory detention without the right to a standard bail hearing before an immigration judge. The mere passage of time since entering the country doesn't alter this classification.

As a result, even individuals who have resided in the U.S. for over a decade may face mandatory detention if they fall under the legal framework examined by the court. This ruling holds particular significance in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the three states under the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, deepening the divide among federal courts on this immigration policy.

The Impact on Cuban Immigrants

The situation is especially sensitive for Cubans who entered through the border and received documents like the I-220A form, only to be later detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, the decision doesn't mean that all Cubans with I-220A have automatically lost the ability to request bail.

The circumstances of their entry, legal classification of detention, the state where the case is processed, and applicable judicial rulings all play a role. For instance, those detained in Texas and seeking a bail hearing, arguing their long-standing residence, may find this argument more challenging under the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction.

Legal Background and Implications

The legal dispute centers on interpreting two provisions of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 8 U.S.C. § 1225 governs the inspection of individuals seeking admission and allows for mandatory detention during immigration proceedings. In contrast, Section 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits requesting bail under certain circumstances during deportation processes.

For years, many immigrants without inspection could request individual custody reviews. However, the Trump administration changed this interpretation in 2025, maintaining that those never formally admitted should be seen as applicants for admission, subject to detention even after years of residence.

The government's argument hinges on the law's classification of certain foreign nationals present in the U.S. as applicants for admission if not legally admitted. Opposing attorneys argue that applying mandatory detention to long-settled residents ignores legal differences between those arriving at the border and those arrested within the country, potentially violating due process rights.

The Fifth Circuit's decision supports the government's interpretation but doesn't unify detention scenarios. Distinct legal regimes exist for people with final deportation orders, specific criminal backgrounds, pending admission processes, and other immigration circumstances.

What Does This Mean for Cubans with I-220A?

The I-220A form, known as an order of release on recognizance, has been issued to numerous Cubans entering through the border and subject to immigration procedures. While it outlines certain release or supervision conditions, it doesn't equate to legal admission or guarantee eligibility for permanent residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act.

Some I-220A holders have been re-detained by ICE during immigration appointments or encounters with authorities, even after years in the U.S. The new ruling could significantly impact those detained within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, aligning with the court's interpretation of mandatory detention.

However, this decision doesn't resolve all constitutional resources or other possible legal challenges against detention. It also doesn't determine whether certain Cubans with I-220A meet residency requirements under the Cuban Adjustment Act. These issues, though potentially affecting the same person, are legally distinct. One concerns residency eligibility, and the other pertains to detention conditions during immigration proceedings.

Cubans under ICE custody should consider the type of document received upon entry, the legal authority for detention, any deportation orders, and the judicial jurisdiction of their case.

Differences in Jurisdiction

The Fifth Circuit's ruling doesn't automatically alter Florida's applicable rules, as Florida is part of the Eleventh Circuit, along with Georgia and Alabama. On May 6, 2026, this court rejected the government's interpretation that sought to apply Section 1225's mandatory detention to all immigrants in the U.S. who hadn't been formally admitted.

That decision allowed certain detained individuals to request bail hearings under relevant legal provisions. An explanation of this ruling's scope was provided regarding bail hearings for immigrants detained by ICE in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Thus, a significant judicial interpretation difference exists between these circuits.

This doesn't guarantee any Florida detainee's release. Bail hearing access and bail decisions are distinct matters. A judge can evaluate individual circumstances and deny release based on legal grounds, such as flight risk or community danger. Additionally, some detainee categories remain subject to special mandatory detention provisions.

Previous Cases of Cuban Detainees

The legal controversy has specific precedents among Cuban immigrants who have spent months in ICE custody. In May, a young Cuban with an I-220A shared his experience after five months detained by ICE in Miami. Identified as Cristian Michel García Gil, he was arrested during a traffic stop in December 2025, despite having a valid driver's license and work permit.

His release followed a federal judge granting a habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention's legality. This case shows that lacking an ordinary bail hearing doesn't always prevent federal court proceedings, although the outcome depends on circumstances and applicable legal interpretation.

Another case involved a 63-year-old Cuban woman detained by ICE for six months, raising family concerns over detention conditions and release difficulties. Immigration attorney Haim Vásquez noted that Texas' interpretation prevented certain immigrants who entered the border without formal admission from requesting bail.

Similarly, a Cuban with an I-220A remained detained in Texas after a voluntary departure attempt to Cuba, as publicly analyzed by attorney Willy Allen. These cases, while independent, illustrate practical consequences of differing interpretations of immigration detention for Cuban families.

The Supreme Court's Role in the National Debate

The division among federal circuits has taken the debate to the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 1, 2026, the highest court agreed to review Rhoney vs. Barbosa da Cunha, related to the interpretation of mandatory detention for immigrants entering without legal admission.

This review, as explained in a report on the Supreme Court case and its potential impact on detained Cubans, hasn't yet resolved the controversy's core. The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling strengthens one interpretation in dispute but doesn't replace a future Supreme Court decision that might establish a nationwide rule.

Until a national decision or new judicial orders emerge, significant differences may persist in bail request opportunities across states. For detained Cubans, especially those with I-220A or pending deportation cases, legal advice is recommended to examine custody's legal basis and prevailing resolutions in the relevant jurisdiction.