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

Motions to send asylum seekers to Ecuador constitute 95% of the cases being 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 fit within the exceptions.

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

The three exceptions

The lawyer outlined three main ways to get rid 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 based on the entry date.
2. Entering as an unaccompanied minor. This condition also exempts from the motion, as explained.
3. To be a national of Ecuador or to have lived in Ecuador and have reasons not to seek asylum there. The lawyer specified that, in the case of Cubans, 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, when 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" should be provided that indicates that possibility.

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

Marcelo described that these motions arise 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 very 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 can deny asylum if the individual does not demonstrate that they fall under 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 is received in writing (to the lawyer via email or to the individual by postal mail if they do not have representation).

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

What arguments are the lawyers using to object?

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 placed the reactivation in November 2025, while the government maintains 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 reportedly stated that it would accept only 300 people a year, a figure that—according to her—does not match the number of cases in which deportation to Ecuador is already being enforced.
• That it should not apply to applications for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture, but nonetheless —as he stated— it is being applied.
• That Ecuador would not be a "third safe country," citing that the U.S. maintains warnings ("red flags") about traveling there.
• That the person should be given the opportunity to express their fear of going to Ecuador, mentioning similarities and previous agreements between Ecuador and Cuba, and that currently Ecuador requires a visa for Cubans to enter.

The attorney pointed out that, in some cases, having another form of immigration relief (such as certain pending procedures) has prevented some judges from ordering deportation to Ecuador. However, she emphasized that this is not consistent: some judges accept it while others consider it "speculative." She also mentioned that the most common relief granted is voluntary departure.

Regarding the Cuban adjustment, he explained that you do not necessarily "free yourself" from the motion: it depends on the judge; some dismiss asylum and provide the opportunity to defend residence in court later, while others dismiss it as well for not seeing "parole."

The lawyer recounted 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 make a motion for termination based on that asylum "untimely."

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