The immigration lawyer Liudmila Marcelo warns Cubans applying for residency in the United States about the critical importance of accurately answering questions regarding political affiliation during interviews with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and in immigration courts.
Marcelo points out that prosecutors and judges are placing particular emphasis on questions specifically directed at Cubans: “Did you belong to the CDR? Did you belong to the Communist Party or any other organization?”
The lawyer recounts that in the case of a client who recently obtained her residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act, the judge even asked whether she had been a pioneer.
The client responded that yes, she had been given the scarf since she was a child, and Marcelo emphasizes that this response should be accompanied by an explanation. "You have to be able to explain that this does not mean a political affiliation because you are a child."
Regarding the CDR, Marcelo establishes a fundamental legal distinction that every Cuban should know before appearing before a judge or a USCIS officer.
"It is mandatory to register in a CDR address book when you turn 14, without your consent or even your parents', because it's something that happens as soon as you reach 14. That doesn’t mean you belong," explains the lawyer.
For Marcelo, belonging to the CDR means active participation. "To belong means to participate in CDR activities, in acts of repudiation, in political events, to be a member of the CDR leadership. To me, that's what it means to participate in the CDR."
The recommended response when speaking to judges or officials is straightforward. "Yes, I was included on the CDR list, but I was not an active member of the CDR." However, it clarifies that this is what to answer only if that is indeed what happened. Otherwise, "if the person was an active member, then one should not lie because a lie before a judge or a USCIS official to obtain an immigration benefit makes them ineligible for any benefit," he clarified.
Another point that Marcelo highlights as common in the Courts is the question of how someone could study Medicine in Cuba without being a member of the Communist Party.
The lawyer clarifies that not belonging to the party or to the Union of Young Communists does not prevent one from studying, but it does create specific disadvantages through the criterion of "integrality."
"Since you don't have the criterion of integrity, they lower you to the lowest ranks, and when it comes time for assignments, people who may have lower averages than you but are more politically active are placed in positions that might have been more beneficial," he explains.
Non-members, even if they achieve the highest score of five points, are assigned to jobs in remote locations or with lower pay, while members with poorer grades gain access to more advantageous positions.
Marcelo insists that the key is not to deny the difficulties, but to articulate them correctly. "It's not that they outright forbid you from studying if you're not a militant, but you have to explain that yes, it was difficult for you because you weren't a militant."
These statements come at a time when lawyer Liudmila Marcelo has achieved two recent victories for I-220A holders in immigration courts. In the latest one, questions about political affiliation in Cuba were one of the central topics of the hearing.
The lawyer also points out that these questions are not limited to judicial processes. The same points are addressed in interviews before USCIS, so preparing to answer them accurately is crucial at any stage of the immigration process.
"These are the most important points that are being addressed in the Courts, and they also come up during the interview with USCIS, so I want everyone to be clear on this," Marcelo concluded.
Filed under: