Form I-220A: what it is, what it is not, and what changed

What an I-220A actually is

It is a release order, not a status. The ICE form carries the title “Order of Release on Recognizance” in its own header, and its opening line tells the person that they have been arrested and placed in removal proceedings and are being released “in accordance with section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the applicable provisions of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

The conditions are printed on the same page: report for any hearing or interview as directed by ICE or EOIR, surrender for removal if so ordered, report to the named officer, and do not change address without written permission. In many cases enrollment in an Alternatives to Detention program is added, which may include GPS monitoring.

None of that confers status, and none of it closes the case. The removal proceeding stays open while the person is out.

What has changed, and when

Form I-220A itself has not changed. What has moved is how people are detained and released, and what authority an immigration judge has over that. These are the dates that matter, each with its source:

• September 11, 2023: Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 747. The Board holds that release on conditional parole under section 236(a)(2)(B) is legally distinct from parole under section 212(d)(5)(A), and that a person released that way has not been “inspected and admitted or paroled” for Cuban Adjustment Act purposes.
• June 20, 2025: Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106. The Board reaffirms that analysis and holds that termination of proceedings is not warranted to pursue adjustment before USCIS based on speculation that USCIS will grant parole. The same decision confirms that an immigration judge does have jurisdiction to adjudicate an adjustment application.
• September 5, 2025: Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216. The Board holds that, on the plain language of section 235(b)(2)(A), “Immigration Judges lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond to aliens who are present in the United States without admission.”
• February 23, 2026: Labrada-Hechavarria and Castillo-Casanova. The Eleventh Circuit vacates two BIA orders and remands. The opinion is marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” and does not decide whether those releases were parole.
• May 6, 2026: Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, FDC Miami and Cerro Perez. The Eleventh Circuit, in a published 2-1 decision, rejects the government’s reading and holds that no-bond detention “generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here.”

Can an immigration judge consider bond?

That is an open question, and the answer turns on which statute governs the detention. The May 6, 2026 decision places unadmitted people found in the interior of the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which is the provision under which an immigration judge may consider bond. Both cases came out of South Florida: one from the Federal Detention Center in Miami, one from Krome.

It is worth reading closely what that decision did not do. The court wrote that it was not holding Congress powerless to authorize such detention, only that Congress has not done so in the current statute, and added: “Nor do we decide whether either Petitioner is a flight risk or would pose a danger to the community if he were released on bond. That, too, is not before us.” Flight risk and dangerousness are exactly what a bond hearing decides. Whether the authority to consider bond exists, and whether any particular person is granted bond, are two different things.

This page also does not say whether that decision is controlling today. A petition for rehearing en banc was reported filed, and the status of that petition is on the docket rather than in any public source. This office checks it before telling anyone what the decision means for their situation.

Why bond and residence are not the same question

They are two separate questions under two separate provisions, and conflating them is the most common error in coverage of this topic. The bond question is which section governs the detention, 235 or 236. The Cuban Adjustment Act question is a different one: whether the person was admitted, or was paroled under section 212(d)(5)(A).

The May 6, 2026 decision is about detention authority. It resolved nothing about the Cuban Adjustment Act, it does not mention Form I-220A, and it did not disturb the Board’s decisions on parole. Those remain the controlling precedent nationwide.

Put in one line: the court did not hold that an I-220A is parole.

What to check in an actual case

Almost everything here turns on facts written in a particular person’s record rather than on anything general about “I-220A cases.” What is worth having in hand before speaking with any lawyer:

• The form signed on release, with its date and file number.
• Where the arrest happened and how long after entry: the border and the interior sit on opposite sides of the bond dispute.
• Whether an I-94 record exists and, if so, exactly what it says.
• Immigration court hearing notices and ICE check-in appointments, with dates.
• Whether a removal order has already been entered, and whether it was entered with the person present or in absentia.