Related videos:
A favorable ruling in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases discussed this Friday—regarding individuals released with I-220A—could open a legal pathway to argue that these releases were processed incorrectly and that, under the court's interpretation, they should have been treated as a parole (or its legal equivalent).
This would have direct implications for the possibility of adjusting status, especially for Cubans under the Cuban Adjustment Act, as explained by attorney José Guerrero in an interview with journalist Javier Díaz.
In the hearing, the argument from the appellant —presented by lawyer Mark Prada— focused on the fact that these individuals were given “the wrong paperwork” and that, if they were detained under section 235, the correct mechanism for their release was a parole 212(d)(5), not an I-220A.
In words attributed to a judge, the Government would have given "the wrong role" to those affected.
If that criterion prevails in the ruling, it would mean that the court establishes that the release of those individuals "represented a parole" or should be treated as such, and then it would be necessary to see how the Government adopts and implements that decision.
Who would benefit?
The lawyer Ismael Labrador, interviewed by journalist Mario J. Pentón, specified that only three states would benefit and Cubans living in this Eleventh Circuit of Atlanta.
!Those who live in other states, of course, can use this argument as a persuasive point to make their case in front of immigration judges, trying to close courts, but these three individuals, these three states, and the people living here, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, will directly benefit," he commented.
For Cubans living in other states, he recommended staying well informed. "This decision will help you, but it will not be a decision that will directly impact you and it will not weigh 100% on your case."
Why would it be particularly important for Cubans?
José Guerrero explained that a positive outcome could benefit other nationalities released with I-220A, but emphasized that Cubans would be the ones who benefit the most because they have the Cuban Adjustment Act, which allows them to apply for residency after one year and one day of physical presence if there is admission or parole.
In that sense, what it would "mean" for the I-220A (particularly Cubans) would be to strengthen the legal argument that they currently lack: having a recognized parole to meet the requirement that enables adjustment.
The interview emphasizes that there is still no decision and "nothing has changed" for the moment: what occurred was the oral hearing.
Additionally, Guerrero warned that, even with a favorable ruling, the Government could appeal to the Supreme Court and request a stay to halt the implementation while the appeal is being litigated.
Therefore, according to that explanation, the impact on the community may not be immediate: it would depend on (1) the exact content of the ruling, (2) whether there is an appeal, and (3) whether a "stay" is granted during the proceedings.
When could the ruling be known?
Guerrero indicated that the court could decide "as soon as Monday" or take three to six months (and generally "weeks or months"), without a fixed deadline, so while there is expectation, the date remains uncertain.
According to the lawyer, the judges pressured the Government with questions based on the logic that the "hard" part of the process (detention under a specific section, as illustrated in the example presented) cannot be imposed while simultaneously denying the legal mechanism that would correspond for release, something the lawyer illustrated with an example cited in the interview.
He also stated that the Prada exhibition was “masterful” and that, due to the tone of the questioning, he saw “a glimmer of hope,” although he insisted that it cannot be presented as a decision already made.
According to what was explained in the interview, a favorable ruling could mean:
- A judicial backing for the thesis that there was improper processing in the issuance of I-220A in these cases.
- The possibility that the court determines that the release is equivalent to parole (or should be treated as such), which would be crucial for the adjustment.
- A potential benefit for other nationalities with I-220A, but a stronger impact on Cubans due to the Cuban Adjustment Act.
- A scenario in which the Government appeals and requests to temporarily halt the implementation of the ruling, prolonging the uncertainty.
Filed under: