A Cuban deported to Cuba succeeded in having the United States government accept his legal return to the country, as detailed by immigration attorney Elizabeth Amarán in recent statements to journalist Juan Manuel Cao.
Amarán described it as a "unique" and absolutely exceptional case, as revealed in an interview published this Wednesday.
The Cuban -whose identity has not been disclosed- was in the asylum process when an immigration judge prematurely closed his case and ordered his deportation, not to Cuba, but to Ecuador, as part of the deportation agreements to third countries implemented by the Trump administration.
Amarán then filed a Habeas Corpus before a federal court to stop that deportation.
The federal judge approved the request and issued a clear order: the Cuban could not be transferred or removed from the jurisdiction while his immigration case was being resolved.
However, the Department of Homeland Security ignored that mandate and deported him to Cuba.
"The immigration department deported him to Cuba. Obviously, this was a violation of the federal order. We filed a contempt action, and the federal judge ordered that this person be returned to the United States," explained Amarán.
The federal judge, upon confirming the breach, ruled that the U.S. government must bring the Cuban back from the island and cover all transport expenses, including the airfare.
At the time of the interview, the Cuban was "in the process of being deported" and had a flight scheduled for the following day.
As part of the negotiation resulting from the governmental error, the authorities promised to grant him a parole upon reentry.
“The spoonful of sugar in this case is that they have promised us that they will grant him a parole when he enters the United States,” the lawyer pointed out.
This detail has significant legal importance: the man previously held a I-220A form, which does not qualify for adjustment to permanent residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
By re-entering with a parole, they would have a direct path to permanent residency, something that was previously out of their reach.
Amarán was emphatic that this is a case without precedents and should not be interpreted as a replicable pathway.
"It's a unique case. I really don't want to say that it will always happen this way. There are many complex things along the way," he warned.
"There are many circumstances that have to align, many pieces that need to fit together for such an outcome to occur," he noted.
Delicate migratory context
The case occurs in a context of unprecedented tightening of migration policies.
ICE increased arrests of Cuban migrants by 463% while approval rates for residencies fell by 99.8% during the Trump administration.
Since January 2025, more than 1,901 Cubans have been deported, totaling 5,286 throughout both terms.
This case is not the only instance in which the government has ignored court orders.
Last Thursday, Los Angeles Times reported on the case of despite an explicit order from a federal judge.
Unlike in Amarán's case, the attempts to return had failed for two months, highlighting the truly exceptional nature of the result achieved.
During the same interview, Amarán recounted the case of Ricardo and Rosario, a Cuban couple who entered through CBP One, completed all the legal steps, and were arbitrarily detained after leaving an immigration hearing. They spent seven and a half months in a detention center, separated, losing their housing, jobs, and belongings.
"We left with nothing, no rent, no house, no car, no job, nothing. We lost everything," Ricardo recounted.
The lawyer also warned about the climate of fear that has led many people to self-deport.
"The message from this administration is: we really don’t care that you have complied with the law. We want as many people as possible to leave. To me, that is not order," he stated.
For Amarán, the key in all these processes is resilience: "This is a marathon. A large percentage of success is related to whether people endure the process."
The case of the Cuban deported to Cuba, amidst the mass deportations to third countries, illustrates that legal tools can be effective, although the circumstances that make it possible are, according to the lawyer herself, extraordinarily difficult to replicate.
Filed under: