Related videos:
A federal appeals court permitted the administration of Donald Trump to proceed with the revocation of the legal status of more than half a million Cuban, Haitian, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan migrants who arrived in the United States under the humanitarian parole program (CHNV) implemented by President Joe Biden.
The decision, published this Friday, revokes the prior suspension issued by a federal judge in Boston, which had temporarily blocked deportation attempts. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law requires a case-by-case analysis to grant the benefit, but does not impose the same restriction for its revocation.
This means that the government can collectively revoke the permits granted under the CHNV scheme.
The plaintiffs—a group of migrants and support organizations—argued that the measure was illegal and violated due process by mass-canceling previously granted permits.
However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals supported the stance of the Trump administration, concluding that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, has the authority to terminate the program under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
In its ruling, the court noted that the plaintiffs failed to convincingly demonstrate that they could prevail in their claim that the decision exceeded the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.
The judges maintained that the Department of Homeland Security provided reasonable explanations, including that the programs did not offer a significant public benefit, did not reduce irregular migration, nor did they meet their border security objectives.
The judges emphasized that the parole was always temporary, limited to two years and came with explicit warnings that it could be revoked at any time. Therefore, they deemed the expectation of long-term residency to be “unreasonable.”
The CHNV program, established in 2023 under the Biden administration, allowed the controlled and legal entry of migrants from those four countries with temporary residency permits and work authorization.
Now, thousands of beneficiaries face the possibility of losing their legal status and being exposed to expulsion processes.
The measure has raised concerns among immigrant advocates, who warn about the devastating impact on families already settled in the United States.
Human rights organizations and states that intervened as “amici curiae” (friends of the court) warned about the serious humanitarian consequences of the measure, leaving thousands of families in vulnerable situations and on the brink of separation.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration celebrated the decision as a victory in its immigration agenda, ensuring that it restores the “strict” and limited use of parole, applicable only on a case-by-case basis and for urgent public benefit reasons.
The ruling could set a precedent for eliminating other existing humanitarian parole programs, also affecting citizens from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Central American countries.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Revocation of Humanitarian Parole for Migrants in the U.S.
What is humanitarian parole and who does it affect?
The humanitarian parole was a program implemented by the Joe Biden administration that allowed the legal and temporary entry of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to the United States. It provided temporary residency permits and work authorization for two years for those who entered under certain conditions, such as having a sponsor in the U.S.
Why was the humanitarian parole revoked?
Donald Trump's administration argued that humanitarian parole did not meet its goals of reducing irregular migration or improving border security. Furthermore, it was considered that it did not provide significant public benefit and created pressure on public resources and the immigration system.
What impact does the revocation of parole have on the migrant beneficiaries?
The revocation of humanitarian parole exposes more than 530,000 migrants to deportation. These migrants, who held temporary residency and work permits, now face legal limbo and must seek other legal avenues to remain in the U.S. or face deportation proceedings.
What did the plaintiffs argue against the revocation of parole?
The plaintiffs argued that the mass revocation of humanitarian parole violates due process by canceling previously granted permits without an individual analysis of each case. They claimed that this measure was illegal and would have devastating consequences for thousands of families established in the U.S.
What judicial decisions have influenced the revocation of humanitarian parole?
The revocation of humanitarian parole has been the subject of multiple legal disputes. Initially, a federal judge blocked the revocation, arguing that individual assessments were required. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later allowed the Trump administration to proceed with the revocation, supporting the executive's authority to cancel the program.
Filed under: