Immigration attorney Willy Allen warns that sponsors of humanitarian parole may face civil reimbursement lawsuits from the U.S. government if their beneficiaries have received public assistance, even if such assistance is legal for Cubans and Haitians with parole. He suggests that the conflict between the contract signed by the sponsor and federal regulations allowing for those benefits will ultimately be resolved in court, and initially, it is likely to be against the sponsor
What worries Willy Allen?
Allen states that his main concern “right now” with humanitarian parole is “the threat” that authorities will demand sponsors to repay the financial aid received by their beneficiaries
It explains that many sponsors signed financial commitments in which they guaranteed that the sponsored person would not use federal funds or government assistance, and that document is the basis of the potential conflict
The legal conflict: contract vs. federal law
The parole program for Cubans and Haitians allows beneficiaries to access certain assistance, but the sponsor signed an agreement to the contrary, assuming that the beneficiary would not be a "public charge."
For Allen, the key issue will be what weighs more before a judge: the individual contract that prohibits the use of aids or the federal law that, under the parole provision, authorizes access to certain benefits
What the demands could be
The lawyer believes that these would be civil contract disputes, in which the government would seek for a judge to declare the sponsor liable for reimbursing the benefits collected by the beneficiary
It warns that civil processes often take years, with appeals involved, so that "by the time things go back and forth," it is likely that the sponsor will not have to pay anything immediately
What can the sponsor expect?
Allen suspects that, with the current administration, “the first bite” will be against the sponsor, meaning that the initial interpretation will favor the government due to the weight of the signed contract
Nonetheless, remember that ultimately, federal law takes precedence over any private contract, so the final outcome could change depending on how higher courts or a future government rule
Individual decision and fear of the IRS
In practical terms, Allen notes that if the claim is for an "affordable" amount, some sponsors may prefer to pay to "get it off their hands," while others will choose to litigate until the end
In his casual style, he concludes by saying that he, "out of stinginess," wouldn't voluntarily pay anything and that the only institution he pays "religiously" is the IRS, describing the tax agency as "the devil," or even that "the devil works for them."
Filed under:
