The immigration lawyer Liudmila Marcelo achieved a historic victory this Tuesday in the Immigration Court of Orlando, Florida: a judge granted permanent residency to a Cuban client holding form I-220A, interpreting that document as a valid parole under the Cuban Adjustment Act, as the lawyer herself explained in her weekly program on CiberCuba.
"We are very happy, both us and the client, because it truly was a good battle with the outcome we really wanted, which was for the judge to allow us to defend the residence and not only that, but to grant it as well," Marcelo stated.
The process began around March 10, when Marcelo presented the residency application along with the client's asylum case to the judge during a master court session. The government representative immediately opposed it with a motion to block the submission, arguing that the I-220A does not equate to parole and that an immigration judge does not have the authority to rule in that regard.
The central argument of Marcelo's legal document was based on an admission from the government itself, which, in Mark Prada's case from the Eleventh Circuit, acknowledged that it was a mistake to release these individuals on I-220A. Since they were detained under section 1225 of the law, the only legal way to release them was through parole 212(d)(5).
The government argued that it would be "unfair" for migrants to benefit twice from the mistake, but Marcelo countered this reasoning: "We really cannot base our arguments on issues of justice. Justice has to be based on the law, and what is unjust for the government is just for the immigrant," he stated.
The judge accepted that analysis and explicitly clarified that he was not granting a parole—since that is not within the authority of Immigration judges—but interpreting that the client had already been released on parole from the beginning and met all the requirements for residency. This distinction is crucial. It means that the judge did not create a new status but recognized the one that already existed.
However, Marcelo warns that this victory does not automatically apply to all Cubans with I-220A. "In immigration matters, each case is specific," he noted, and specified that in Orlando only two judges are currently "embracing this concept." Presenting the case before the wrong judge means losing the $2,980 from the process without any chance of success.
The Government has 30 days to appeal the decision. If it does not, the client will receive their permanent residency. If it appeals, the residency remains in suspense, although the client cannot be deported while that process is ongoing. Marcelo is "almost convinced" that the Government will appeal, but sees it as an opportunity.
"The fact that the Government is appealing means that these types of cases continue to arrive at the BIA, and that the BIA will finally decide that the I-220A is parole, because I believe that will be the decision, as they have no other way out now."
This ruling adds to the mounting pressure on the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which has issued contradictory jurisprudence regarding the I-220A. The Eleventh Circuit overturned BIA decisions in February that denied eligibility for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act for holders of that form, ordering a new review without definitively resolving the matter. A similar precedent occurred in August 2025 in New Orleans, where another judge granted residency to a Cuban with an I-220A based on the same reasoning.
In parallel, Marcelo reported signs of a gradual easing of the immigration pause. It should be noted that Liudmila Marcelo predicted the end of the pause for May-June. Since May 1, she has begun receiving interview appointments for residency, a total of five cases, including one with I-220A originally submitted by a notary.
“They seem to have not wanted to say that the pause is over (the pause) in order to avoid triggering alarms, but they are gradually doing it,” he said about the unofficial lifting of the pause, which a federal judge declared illegal on April 28.
Finally, Liudmila Marcelo warned that these initial interviews will be "very intense" and that applicants must prepare thoroughly, in what seems to be a trial period before the pause is officially lifted.
Filed under: