These are the three exceptions that allow one to avoid a deportation motion to Ecuador in the U.S

Motions to send asylum seekers to Ecuador make up 95% of the cases analyzed by immigration attorney Liudmila Marcelo, who warned that prosecutors present them even at the last minute, right before the final court hearing.

This situation may prevent the judge from hearing the asylum defense if the person does not fall within the exceptions.

In an interview with journalist Tania Costa, for CiberCuba, Marcelo explained that judges feel obliged by a previous decision not to hear the asylum case when the prosecutor introduces the motion, “unless” the immigrant can demonstrate that they fall within one of the three recognized exceptions.

The three exceptions

The lawyer outlined three main avenues to dispose of the motion:

1. Having entered the U.S. before November 19, 2019. Marcelo indicated that those who entered before that date "are not subject to" the motion regarding the date of entry.
2. Having entered as an unaccompanied minor. This condition also exempts from the motion, as explained.
3. Being a national of Ecuador or having lived in Ecuador and having reasons not to seek asylum there. The lawyer clarified that, in the case of Cuba, the exception of "Ecuadorian national" would only apply if there is dual citizenship. She added another variant: if the person lived in Ecuador and has any evidence that they suffered or could demonstrate persecution in Ecuador for reasons similar to those alleged in the U.S., this could also be used to oppose the motion.

He clarified that in responding to the motion, it is not always necessary to present a complete file as in a final asylum defense, but at least "some evidence" indicating that possibility is required.

Why the motion may "block" asylum at the end of the process

Marcelo described that these motions appear at different stages: before the preliminary hearing, during the preliminary hearing, afterward, and even when a final hearing date has already been set; in his experience, they can come "up until the last moment," just when "it's time to defend the asylum."

According to the account, in those scenarios, the prosecutor presents the motion, and the judge may dismiss the avenue of asylum if the individual does not demonstrate they qualify for one of the exceptions.

The lawyer warned that it is "important" not to neglect responding to the motion: she stated that there are 10 days to reply once it arrives in writing (to the attorney via email or to the individual by postal mail if they do not have representation).

He explained that responding is key to preserving the right to appeal if the judge makes a negative decision.

What arguments are the lawyers using to oppose?

In addition to the exceptions, Marcelo said that in their cases they are presenting several arguments, including:

• That the measure would be applied retroactively (the lawyer positioned the reactivation in November 2025, while the government claims that the agreement has existed since November 2019 and was only suspended).
• That the agreement itself would require a mechanism to determine eligibility and logistics for transfer to Ecuador, and that this mechanism would "not" be clearly established.
• Ecuador would have stated that it would accept only 300 people per year, a figure that —according to her— does not align with the number of cases in which deportation to Ecuador is already being imposed.
• That should not apply to requests for withholding of removal or the Convention Against Torture, but nonetheless — as stated — it is being applied.
• That Ecuador would not be a "safe third country," citing that the U.S. maintains warnings ("red flags") about traveling there.
• The person should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their fear of going to Ecuador, mentioning similarities and previous agreements between Ecuador and Cuba, and that Ecuador currently requires a visa for Cubans to enter.

The attorney noted that, in some cases, having another form of immigration relief (for example, certain pending applications) has prevented some judges from ordering deportation to Ecuador, but she emphasized that this is not uniform: some judges accept it while others consider it "speculative." She also mentioned that the most common form of relief granted is voluntary departure.

Regarding the Cuban adjustment, he explained that it doesn't necessarily mean you are "off the hook" from the motion: it depends on the judge; some dismiss asylum and allow the opportunity to defend residency in court later, while others also dismiss it for not seeing "parole."

The lawyer described a specific scenario: Cubans who entered through CBP One and already have asylum applications submitted.

He said that, in certain cases, withdrawing asylum in court can render a motion to terminate based on that asylum "untimely."

However, he warned that not all judges allow the withdrawal of the application, and in some places (he mentioned Texas), asylum is often required and they have seen orders towards Ecuador. He recommended not going to court alone in those cases.