Related videos:
The lawyer Liudmila Marcelo warned in an interview with our editorial team that the United States government is filing motions "hours before" or "days before" immigration hearings to nullify the asylum cases of Cubans and send them to third countries — Uganda or Ecuador — under the argument that they must "defend their asylum from there."
According to Marcelo, the phenomenon has recently begun to affect his Cuban clients, and he mentioned having received three motions in cases involving Cuban clients.
The attorney explained that those requests aim to prevent the applicant from reaching a final asylum court in the U.S., by claiming that they can be removed to Uganda or Ecuador to process the case there.
Marcelo detailed that the alleged basis would be a "cooperation agreement for asylum" between the United States and certain nations, applicable —according to his explanation— to individuals who entered after 2019.
He indicated that he used to see this type of attempt with people from Central America, whom they intended to send to countries like Honduras or El Salvador “regardless of the country” included in that scheme.
In the case of Cubans, he said, it wasn't happening to them, but "it's already starting to happen."
The lawyer described different scenarios in court: "In other words, the prosecutor asks for it when you arrive at court. To other lawyers, the prosecutor is requesting it at the time of the hearing and even if they oppose it, the judge is siding with the prosecutor."
"And in other cases, I have received it in writing, and in this case, I have court tomorrow and I am preparing the motion today to respond before the court. So with this, people, if they are not afraid of staying in Uganda or Ecuador, well, they are sent to Uganda or Ecuador and have to defend their asylum in Uganda and Ecuador," he said.
Marcelo described what has been presented as "very serious" and referred to it as “the last resort” of the government to leave people “without the right” to litigate their asylum in the United States: “they are not even granting you the right to reach your final court,” he stated, adding that now “they are relying on the ACA.”
In your explanation, it would not be about restarting the process with a "credible fear" interview, but rather dismissing the case and sending the applicant to a country "where you have never been" to prove that they also fear staying there.
The strategy
Regarding how to counter it, Marcelo stated that he is seeking arguments to compare the political conditions between Uganda and Cuba, and between Ecuador and Cuba, since— as he explained— almost all of his clients claim asylum due to political opposition.
"I'm looking for similarities between the government of Uganda and Cuba, Ecuador and Cuba, regarding... almost all my clients are concerned with political stance, that is to say, the handling of politics in these countries, to see if a level of protection can also be found. In other words, whether they are authoritarian regimes or not, just like Cuba. And then trying to see that if you have a political opinion here that opposes authoritarianism, you'll likely have it elsewhere too. I'm trying to work on that, but the situation is very difficult," she warned.
Regarding the profile of those affected, Marcelo noted that they are Cubans with I-220A, who are at liberty while their cases progress in court, and that the motion would imply that "they will have to await their asylum in Uganda," even mentioning the possibility that it could be "in detention" or not, something he said he does not know for certain yet.
He added that, so far, he is not aware of that measure being implemented in their cases because it is something "so new" that began "last week" specifically for Cubans.
The lawyer also emphasized that, in her opinion, the Cuban community would no longer be "untouchable" and that the fact that Cubans are being asked to defend their asylum in Uganda or Ecuador marks a significant shift in the treatment they have been receiving in court.
Filed under: