The recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has generated significant anticipation among the Cuban immigrant community in the U.S., particularly among those who were released with the controversial I-220A form after crossing the southern border.
Although the ruling is based on an individual case, the legal arguments that support it could establish a significant precedent.
The ruling analyzes the case of a migrant who, instead of being processed under section 235 of the Immigration Act —which allows for legal entry through parole— was given a Form I-220A, a type of supervised release that does not grant immigration status.
The Board concluded that this procedure was incorrect, as the admission applicants, like this migrant, should have been processed under the aforementioned section, which implies that their legal release was only valid if a parole was granted.
Rosaly Chaviano, immigration attorney based in Miami, told journalist Alexis Boentes from Telemundo that this decision changes the game: “This argument is no longer just our interpretation as attorneys, but is now supported by the interpretation of a federal court.”
Parole —a status that allows a migrant to enter and remain legally for humanitarian or public interest reasons— is an essential requirement to apply for the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Those who entered with an I-220A have traditionally been excluded for not having that status. However, with this new precedent, lawyers could argue that their clients should have been granted parole from the beginning.
The lawyer indicates that they now have several legal strategies underway as the judicial interpretation allows the defenders:
- Solicitar correcciones en los registros de entrada.
- Apelar rechazos de residencia anteriores.
- Fortalecer entrevistas ante USCIS.
- Presentar mociones nuevas ante los tribunales de inmigración.
“This decision opens a door in court to tell a judge: ‘my client should have received a parole and therefore qualifies for residency’”, the attorney notes.
However, it explains that the ruling also highlights a concerning aspect: migrants with an I-220A do not have an automatic right to bail if detained by ICE, leaving them vulnerable to any legal incident, even if it involves attending a scheduled appointment.
"Definitely, if a person commits a crime, they can be arrested and would not be entitled to bail. But we have also seen cases where ICE decides to detain someone at the moment they go to an appointment," he warned.
Find the original ruling of the court here.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Court Ruling and Its Impact on Cubans with I-220A
What is the impact of the Immigration Appeals Board ruling for Cubans with I-220A?
The ruling allows for the argument that Cubans with I-220A should have received a parole, which would open the door for them to take advantage of the Cuban Adjustment Act. However, it does not automatically guarantee their right to bail, leaving them vulnerable to detention without this benefit.
What is Form I-220A and what does it imply for Cuban migrants?
The I-220A form is a supervised release order that does not confer legal immigration status. This leaves Cubans in a legal limbo, making it difficult for them to access immigration benefits such as status adjustment.
Can Cubans with I-220A apply for residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act?
Traditionally, Cubans with I-220A have been excluded from this possibility, as they do not have parole status. With the new court ruling, there is a legal argument to request corrections in their entry records and potentially claim eligibility under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
What risks do Cubans with I-220A face in the U.S.?
Cubans with I-220A do not have an automatic right to bail if they are detained by ICE, which leaves them vulnerable to prolonged detentions, even if they attend scheduled appointments. Additionally, they remain in a migratory limbo without clear legal protections.
Filed under:
