Related videos:
An appeals court in the United States is considering whether President Donald Trump has the legal authority to massively cancel humanitarian parole, the program that has allowed the orderly and temporary entry of over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua.
The hearing held this week in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts, was crucial in determining the future of this immigration benefit.
What was discussed in the hearing?
The Trump administration argues that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted within her authority by revoking humanitarian parole in a general manner, without reviewing each case individually.
The program had been implemented by former President Joe Biden to provide a legal pathway for certain migrants who met security checks and had a sponsor in the U.S.
During the hearing, the attorney for the Department of Justice, Drew Ensign, defended this position and cited the recent intervention of the Supreme Court, which allowed the cancellations to take effect while the appeal is being resolved.
"As the Supreme Court has already implicitly acknowledged through a unanimous vote, it is likely that the government will prevail on appeal," Ensign stated.
"This court should reject the shameless request from the plaintiffs to challenge the Supreme Court," he added, according to the agency Reuters.
The judge who initially blocked the cancellation of the parole
On April 14, federal judge Indira Talwani -appointed by Barack Obama- , concluding that Noem could only act on a case-by-case basis and not categorically.
This decision provided a relief to the more than half a million beneficiaries of the program.
But in May, the Supreme Court suspended that order, allowing the government to reactivate the cancellations while the case continued through the judicial process.
Although the decision was unanimous, the high court did not explain its reasons, which has led to uncertainty regarding the true scope of that measure.
What did the appellate judges say this Tuesday?
The three judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents, which created favorable expectations for migrants.
Nevertheless, they did not offer clear signals about which way they lean.
The judge William Kayatta acknowledged the confusion of the situation:
"We are in an unusual situation where we were asked to approach the Supreme Court for guidance... and we were only given the final outcome."
The lawyer Justin Cox, representative of the migrants, warned that the lack of grounds in the Supreme Court order does not compel the appeals court to assume that the government will win: "The First Circuit would be speculating if it tried to assign a particular meaning to it."
What can happen now?
If the court rules in favor of the Trump administration, the revocations of humanitarian parole will continue as planned, which could result in detentions or deportations for thousands of beneficiaries.
The judge Gustavo Gelpí warned that even if Talwani were to win this appeal, the government could still revoke the parole again using other administrative mechanisms.
Nevertheless, Cox insisted that a judicial victory, even if partial, remains significant:
"At the very least, it would allow our clients and group members the dignity to leave on their own terms, rather than being subjected to the kinds of deportation and detention processes that are happening right now."
In summary:
President Trump seeks to cancel humanitarian parole on a widespread basis.
A federal judge blocked that action, but the Supreme Court lifted the block without explaining why.
-An appeals court must now decide whether the total cancellation is legal.
More than 530,000 migrants, including thousands of Cubans, could lose their status if the decision favors the government.
Frequently Asked Questions about Humanitarian Parole and Its Legal Status in the U.S.
What is humanitarian parole and who does it benefit?
The humanitarian parole is a migration program that allows for the temporary and orderly entry of migrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua into the U.S. under specific humanitarian conditions. It was implemented by former President Joe Biden to provide a legal pathway for certain migrants who meet security checks and have a sponsor in the country.
Why does the Trump administration want to revoke humanitarian parole?
The Trump administration argues that the program was misused and did not meet the criteria of "significant public benefit" or "urgent humanitarian need." They contend that humanitarian parole contributes to the collapse of the immigration system and has not had a real impact on reducing irregular migration flows at the southern border. Furthermore, they claim it creates logistical pressures and displaces American workers.
What is the current status of humanitarian parole following the court rulings?
Currently, humanitarian parole is in a state of legal uncertainty. The U.S. Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to revoke the program, which could trigger the mass expulsion of migrants with temporary legal status. However, there are ongoing appeals and judicial decisions that have temporarily blocked the mass cancellation, requiring case-by-case reviews.
What can parole beneficiaries do to protect their legal status?
Parole beneficiaries should seek legal advice to explore other immigration pathways, such as adjustment of status, asylum, or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). They should avoid falling victim to fraud by ensuring they consult with licensed attorneys and staying informed about any legal or governmental changes that may affect their situation.
Filed under: