Parole Poison: How a Promise Turned into a Trap for Thousands
A new court decision clears the way for detention—even for those who followed the rules
By James K. Larsen, Managing Attorney - June 2025
A recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Q. LI (May 15, 2025), exposes the dangerous policy whiplash affecting hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers who were previously granted parole under the Biden administration — and now face arrest and mandatory detention under Trump-era rules.
The decision confirms that individuals who entered the U.S. without inspection and were later granted parole under INA § 212(d)(5)(A) remain legally classified as “applicants for admission.”
If that parole is later revoked, they fall back under INA § 235(b) — a section that mandates detention without the possibility of a bond hearing.
This ruling is more than a technical interpretation of the law. It has devastating human consequences.
A Quick Recap of the Facts:
- The respondent crossed the U.S.–Mexico border in 2022.
- She was arrested without a warrant just north of the border, detained briefly, and then paroled into the U.S. under Biden-era policies.
- She complied with DHS check-ins, applied for asylum, and lived and worked legally with a Social Security card and valid work permit.
- ,DHS revoked her parole, detained her again, and placed her in removal proceedings.
- She requested a bond hearing, but the BIA ruled she wasn’t eligible because she was still considered an applicant for admission under § 235(b).
The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded:
(1) An applicant for admission who is arrested and detained without a warrant while arriving in the United States, whether or not at a port of entry, and subsequently placed in removal proceedings is detained under section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (2018), and is ineligible for any subsequent release on bond under section 236(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (2018).
(2) An alien detained under section 235(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), who is released from detention pursuant to a grant of parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (2018), and whose grant of parole is subsequently terminated, is returned to custody under section 235(b) pending the completion of removal proceedings.
The Bigger Picture: A Shift in How We Treat Paroled Migrants
Under the Biden administration, parole was used as a humanitarian and logistical tool — especially to manage high border crossings and humanitarian crises (e.g., Haitians, Venezuelans, Cubans, and others). Migrants were paroled in, encouraged to apply for asylum, and often received Social Security cards, work permits, and long-term check-in schedules.
The implicit message was: Follow the rules, apply for asylum, and you can build a future here.
But the Trump administration’s return to power has shifted the landscape dramatically. The administration has revoked parole for hundreds of thousands of individuals. And thanks to Matter of Q. LI, it is clear that many of these people could now be detained and face mandatory detention without the possibility of bond, even if they have no criminal record.
Why This Feels Like a Setup
This policy reversal sends a troubling message:
We gave you parole, asked you to settle in, encouraged you to apply for asylum — but now that political winds have changed, you’re back in detention and no judge can even consider your release.
The vast majority of individuals previously paroled into the United States are not criminals. Many were invited to come to the United States under the CBP One program, have complied with ICE check-ins, built stable lives, and filed asylum claims in good faith. But now, a single policy change — or the termination of parole — sends them straight back into jail-like detention centers with no chance of bond.
What Can Be Done?
Immigration attorneys must prepare for a new reality in representing clients who entered under parole. These individuals:
- May face mandatory detention if parole is revoked.
- Cannot request bond hearings under Matter of Q. LI.
- May need to file habeas petitions in federal court for any hope of release.
More broadly, this case highlights the need for legislative reform — not just executive discretion — to provide stability for those who entered under government invitation and followed the rules.
Final Thoughts
Matter of Q. LI underscores a deeper truth about our immigration system: policies made in good faith can collapse when they depend solely on the administration in power.
Immigrants granted parole, given work authorization, and led to believe they could safely apply for asylum are now caught in a legal trap — one that strips them of basic due process rights like a bond hearing, and condemns the the possibility of arrest and mandatory detention.
Immigration law changes rapidly. This article is for informational purposes only, reflects the law as of its publication date, and may be superseded by later changes in the law, regulations or agency policy. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.La ley de inmigración cambia rápidamente. Este artículo es solo para fines informativos, refleja la ley a la fecha de su publicación y puede quedar superado por cambios posteriores en la ley, las regulaciones o las políticas de las agencias. No es asesoría legal, y leerlo no crea una relación abogado-cliente.