The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) confirmed this Thursday that immigrants who enter the United States without authorization and are released should have been legally granted a temporary stay (parole).
In the Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025) regarding a Chinese immigrant, the resolution does not directly mention Cuba, but its implications could affect thousands of Cubans who crossed the border and were released without receiving formal parole.
What did the BIA resolve in this case?
It reaffirms that those who entered the U.S. without being admitted or paroled, even outside an official port of entry, are considered "applicants for admission" under section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
It establishes that those migrants are subject to mandatory detention and do not have the right to a bond hearing under section 236(a) of the INA.
If parole is granted and then revoked, they must be returned to custody without the right to bail.
What does this mean for Cubans with I-220A?
Many Cubans with I-220A were released by DHS after crossing the border, without having been admitted or having received formal parole, and were then placed in deportation processes (NTA).
Possible effects for them:
Legal window (indirect but important): The decision clarifies that eligibility for bond depends on the type of entry and detention, not simply on the I-220A form.
If the migrant was released without formal parole, as is the case for many with I-220A, it could be argued that they are NOT under section 235(b) but rather under 236(a), and therefore could request bail or reopen immigration cases.
But it also reinforces limitations: If the government manages to classify Cubans with I-220A as “applicants for admission” under 235(b), they would be rendered ineligible for bail, even if they have been free for some time.
It also opens the door for DHS to attempt to reclassify its status and withdraw benefits, such as the parole or applications for immigration adjustment.
Conclusion
The decision does not directly grant benefits to Cubans with I-220A, but it reopens the legal debate over whether they were actually "paroled" or simply released under supervision.
Whether your original detention allows you access to certain rights (such as bail, adjustment of status or asylum).
This could be used to their advantage by attorneys arguing that the I-220A does not equate to detention under 235(b) and that, therefore, their clients are entitled to broader legal options.
Filed under:
